4 ms·

Of course I read it. IMO, it's the-sky-is-falling linkbait. Just one example - a woman not realizing the privacy settings the Buzz account she opted into is not

by andreyf 17y ago

Of course I read it. IMO, it's the-sky-is-falling linkbait. Just one example - a woman not realizing the privacy settings the Buzz account she opted into is not comprable to publishing Eric Schmidt's home address. If I were a Google shareholder, I would either expect him to move, or a security detail at his house for a year after such a leak. The cost of his being killed by a disgruntled employee/shareholder/user/random person are just too high. What percentage of facebook users would you guess know what "Facebook Beacon mess" you're referring to? In particular, more or less than 0.1%?

Silhouette 17y ago
> Just one example - a woman not realizing the privacy settings the Buzz account she opted into is not comprable to publishing Eric Schmidt's home address. No, it's not, because in her case there was probably far more sensitive information than just her address, and it was being routed directly to someone who was known to be physically abusive and to that person's friends. Schmidt's address, on the other hand, is presumably a matter of public record already as he's a director of a corporation, and as far as I'm aware he has not personally been physically abused for a prolonged period at any point in his past. Also, I'm not familiar with exactly how the abused ex opted into Google's new service and thus attracted the unwanted attention. She certainly seems to feel that the information was shared more widely than previously automatically and without her knowledge or consent. Could you explain her misunderstanding and how she opted into the extra service without knowing it? > If I were a Google shareholder, I would expect a security detail at Eric's house for a year after such a leak. You don't think one of the most high profile and wealthiest men in the US makes any security arrangements normally? > What percentage of facebook users would you guess know what "Facebook Beacon mess" you're referring to? I don't know, but it was enough that Facebook themselves pulled a fast U-turn when they got the feedback, and they haven't gone anywhere near the same idea since. Presumably they have a pretty good idea of how strong the opposition was to pull out like that. To answer your other question, I find it unlikely that if 99.9% of Facebook users were happy with a change, they would work so hard and so fast to revert it.
- andreyf 17y ago
  Google doesn't know which of her most-emailed contacts are likely to abuse her. She does. It's her responsibility to set her privacy settings and buzz accordingly. I'd support laws that would prohibit Google intentionally misleading people about what is public and what stays private, but Google buzz is not a good example of that. Schmidt's address is certainly not a matter of public record. Read the original source [1]. The town and his wife's name were found through a local newspaper, and his home address was found through her political donations, which she unwisely entered as originating from her home address, without realizing that those are a matter of public record and would be published by the FEC. The only role Google played here is indexing the newspaper article and providing an the software The Huffington Post used to visualise FEC data. Google did not "collect" this in any sense appropriate here. 1. http://news.cnet.com/Google-balances-privacy,-reach/2100-1032_3-5787483.html http://news.cnet.com/Google-balances-privacy,-reach/2100-103...

by andreyf 17y ago

Silhouette 17y ago

> Just one example - a woman not realizing the privacy settings the Buzz account she opted into is not comprable to publishing Eric Schmidt's home address. No, it's not, because in her case there was probably far more sensitive information than just her address, and it was being routed directly to someone who was known to be physically abusive and to that person's friends. Schmidt's address, on the other hand, is presumably a matter of public record already as he's a director of a corporation, and as far as I'm aware he has not personally been physically abused for a prolonged period at any point in his past. Also, I'm not familiar with exactly how the abused ex opted into Google's new service and thus attracted the unwanted attention. She certainly seems to feel that the information was shared more widely than previously automatically and without her knowledge or consent. Could you explain her misunderstanding and how she opted into the extra service without knowing it? > If I were a Google shareholder, I would expect a security detail at Eric's house for a year after such a leak. You don't think one of the most high profile and wealthiest men in the US makes any security arrangements normally? > What percentage of facebook users would you guess know what "Facebook Beacon mess" you're referring to? I don't know, but it was enough that Facebook themselves pulled a fast U-turn when they got the feedback, and they haven't gone anywhere near the same idea since. Presumably they have a pretty good idea of how strong the opposition was to pull out like that. To answer your other question, I find it unlikely that if 99.9% of Facebook users were happy with a change, they would work so hard and so fast to revert it.

andreyf 17y ago
Google doesn't know which of her most-emailed contacts are likely to abuse her. She does. It's her responsibility to set her privacy settings and buzz accordingly. I'd support laws that would prohibit Google intentionally misleading people about what is public and what stays private, but Google buzz is not a good example of that. Schmidt's address is certainly not a matter of public record. Read the original source [1]. The town and his wife's name were found through a local newspaper, and his home address was found through her political donations, which she unwisely entered as originating from her home address, without realizing that those are a matter of public record and would be published by the FEC. The only role Google played here is indexing the newspaper article and providing an the software The Huffington Post used to visualise FEC data. Google did not "collect" this in any sense appropriate here. 1. http://news.cnet.com/Google-balances-privacy,-reach/2100-1032_3-5787483.html http://news.cnet.com/Google-balances-privacy,-reach/2100-103...