3 ms·

I think what's going on, and may no be well communicated, is that by default when you share, you get sharing via the link. The benefit is that anyone who wants

I think what's going on, and may no be well communicated, is that by default when you share, you get sharing via the link. The benefit is that anyone who wants to see the photos can do so without having to have a Google account, let alone be signed in. It's trying to achieve privacy by obscurity, and I'm assuming that Google has robots / etc configured so that no search engine could crawl the shared album URLs. That said, I do agree that this should be communicated better. Personally, I like this feature because some of my friends are fiercely anti-Google and this still allows me to share photos with them seamlessly. The alternative suggested by the author (i.e., upload to Drive then share) is less seamless and for me, not worth the additional privacy gain. (The photos I truly want private are not shared at all, and I try to delete them from the cloud asap).

akras14 9y ago
It’s a good feature, but I believe it should be optional, communicated better, and not on by default.
morganvachon 9y ago
> "Personally, I like this feature because some of my friends are fiercely anti-Google and this still allows me to share photos with them seamlessly." I am fiercely anti-Google and I wouldn't touch a Google link for any reason, even if a friend sent it. If it's so important you need me to see it right away, send it via Telegram or MMS. That said, I don't think this is malicious on Google's part, it's just lazy. Allowing sharing of private content is difficult to get right, but if Dropbox can do it I know Google can. Hell, they are smart enough to do it better, which is why this screams laziness or just a plain "we don't care" attitude.
- akras14 9y ago
  They do just that in Google drive. That is why I was so surprised that Google Photos did not behave in the same way.
- aaomidi 9y ago
  Send it via a third party who can read your messages or MMS where everyone can read your messages? Nice alternatives...
  - morganvachon 9y ago
    First, either is more secure than clicking a random HTTP link from Google. Second, the author was speaking of sharing a random photo with a friend, not national security secrets. I don't want Google seeing what I see, and using a third party messenger or a carrier service like MMS accomplishes this. If I need it to be encrypted, I'll use an encrypted service, but I wasn't talking about that and you're moving the goalposts to make what point exactly?

akras14 9y ago

It’s a good feature, but I believe it should be optional, communicated better, and not on by default.

morganvachon 9y ago

> "Personally, I like this feature because some of my friends are fiercely anti-Google and this still allows me to share photos with them seamlessly." I am fiercely anti-Google and I wouldn't touch a Google link for any reason, even if a friend sent it. If it's so important you need me to see it right away, send it via Telegram or MMS. That said, I don't think this is malicious on Google's part, it's just lazy. Allowing sharing of private content is difficult to get right, but if Dropbox can do it I know Google can. Hell, they are smart enough to do it better, which is why this screams laziness or just a plain "we don't care" attitude.

akras14 9y ago
They do just that in Google drive. That is why I was so surprised that Google Photos did not behave in the same way.
aaomidi 9y ago
Send it via a third party who can read your messages or MMS where everyone can read your messages? Nice alternatives...
- morganvachon 9y ago
  First, either is more secure than clicking a random HTTP link from Google. Second, the author was speaking of sharing a random photo with a friend, not national security secrets. I don't want Google seeing what I see, and using a third party messenger or a carrier service like MMS accomplishes this. If I need it to be encrypted, I'll use an encrypted service, but I wasn't talking about that and you're moving the goalposts to make what point exactly?