4 ms·

Only allowing the owner to share an album is a false sense of security. If someone can see your album, they could just as easily download the photos and make th

by m3koval 15y ago

Only allowing the owner to share an album is a false sense of security. If someone can see your album, they could just as easily download the photos and make them public. Instead of disallowing it outright, I'd rather they make it clear that you're sharing content with a wider audience. One solution would be to require that the owner approves the share, similar to how tagging is handled.

jabo 15y ago
That's good idea. But it still wouldn't solve the issue of people downloading the photos and making them public.
- m3koval 15y ago
  That problem is inherent with posting something online. The best any service can do is make it difficult for someone to accidentally violate their friends' privacy. This, in my opinion, is where Google+ is failing: sharing makes it very easy to make private posts visible to an audience larger than the author intended.
  - michaelschade 15y ago
    This, in my opinion, is where Google+ is failing: sharing makes it very easy to make private posts visible to an audience larger than the author intended. In addition to G+ reminding users when resharing a limited post that it was intended for a smaller audience and to be mindful of that, the original poster can also disable resharing entirely.
- ktsmith 15y ago
  That's definitely the hardest part. I figure that if people have gone to the effort of getting around that limitation when I've pretty clearly asked them not to, then it's not someone I need to be sharing with again in the future. I have at least one family member I no longer give pictures of my son to for this reason.
mhansen 15y ago
They do make it clear you're sharing with a wider audience. When you click the share button, G+ tells you: This post was originally shared with a limited audience – remember to be thoughtful about who you share it with. This is a social problem, not a technical problem. You can't stop bits being copied, but you can make people think twice before copying.

by m3koval 15y ago

jabo 15y ago

That's good idea. But it still wouldn't solve the issue of people downloading the photos and making them public.

m3koval 15y ago
That problem is inherent with posting something online. The best any service can do is make it difficult for someone to accidentally violate their friends' privacy. This, in my opinion, is where Google+ is failing: sharing makes it very easy to make private posts visible to an audience larger than the author intended.
- michaelschade 15y ago
  This, in my opinion, is where Google+ is failing: sharing makes it very easy to make private posts visible to an audience larger than the author intended. In addition to G+ reminding users when resharing a limited post that it was intended for a smaller audience and to be mindful of that, the original poster can also disable resharing entirely.
ktsmith 15y ago
That's definitely the hardest part. I figure that if people have gone to the effort of getting around that limitation when I've pretty clearly asked them not to, then it's not someone I need to be sharing with again in the future. I have at least one family member I no longer give pictures of my son to for this reason.

mhansen 15y ago

They do make it clear you're sharing with a wider audience. When you click the share button, G+ tells you: This post was originally shared with a limited audience – remember to be thoughtful about who you share it with. This is a social problem, not a technical problem. You can't stop bits being copied, but you can make people think twice before copying.