8 ms·

The reason why this bothers me is that there is no longer any EXPLICIT confirmation that I want to post something. Not sure who said it but I read it in a TechC

The reason why this bothers me is that there is no longer any EXPLICIT confirmation that I want to post something. Not sure who said it but I read it in a TechCrunch article, "Just hit play in Spotify and it will share with your friends". No, any sharing I do HAS to REQUIRE an EXPLICIT action on my part. I have to be in full control. Visiting a web site does not mean that I believe it will be interesting to my friends NOR do I want that information shared with people on Facebook. A like button that shares, much like the Google+ 1+ button is perfectly fine, I have to hover over it, and choose my circles to share with, and then share. It is not automatic once I visit the site. I don't want articles automatically being linked just because I visited a page, or clicked play in Spotify, or put the toilet seat up. It is not just privacy concerns, it is the image I try to convey while using social media sites where it is common place to be friends with your boss and or co-workers. I don't need them knowing I like the Bloodhound Gang or that I read articles about atheism in the NYT but have never read a single article about religion. Eventually all this collected data will be used against me. What if I do a simple Google search for cancer and I end up reading an article about it, that is now shared publicly, my insurance company a few years later gets a claim for cancer they claim it was a pre-existing condition and deny me coverage. These are all scenarios going through my head. I am all for the interconnected web, and making it easier for me to introduce my friends to new content across it, however it has to be done on my terms, it has to require explicit authorisation and must never do something automatically without my consent. If I like the content enough I am extremely likely to copy and paste the URL into my social networking sites, I don't mind that extra step. Create a bookmarklet that fills in some of the forms ahead of time for me (I have a reddit bookmarklet that fills out title, URL and the sub-reddit to post in (personal one for me to share links with friends)). I am more than happy to continue using the platform, but this frictionless sharing scares the crap out of me, and will see me closing my account sooner rather than later if it continues down the path that it looks to be going down.

Slizyboy 15y ago
If you don't want to share anything, then don't use the app. Nothing is automatically sharing unless you tell it to. Nothing can magically share the fact that you read a Techcrunch article unless you install a "Techcrunch Reader" app or something, in which case it would have to ask your permission to share that information. If you didn't like it, you can remove that permission. For example, here's the relevant permission from the Washington post app: Add app activity to your timeline Washington Post Social Reader may publish your app activity to your timeline. If you don't want the app to automatically publish something, then just x out that permission.
- X-Istence 15y ago
  The amount of stuff that is starting to require Facebook Connect or access to Facebook is what worries me. Most of them ask for every single permission under the world and only ask me once. For example, Spotify, it is practically neutered unless you connect it to Facebook, but as soon as it is connected to Facebook it can send data to Facebook as me. There was an app not too long ago that required Facebook to login, it too asked for those permissions. Now it can without my permission start sharing content based upon actions in the webapp. I am not okay with that.
  - Slizyboy 15y ago
    I think it has to re-ask you for new permissions, it doesn't get any permissions 'grandfathered' in. But yeah, the fact that many apps ask for too-many permissions is a pain :/ Means I always have to go back and remove the permissions I don't want, and hope I don't forget.
  - patangay 15y ago
    First of all, when I go to spotify and "log in with facebook". The site sends me to a facebook page asking me to "log in to spotify" with my facebook. On this page, it specifically says "This app will not add activity to your Timeline." In other words, the basic spotify login with facebook isn't social. If you "Connect" your spotify account to facebook, it pops up a permission dialog asking you for various types of access. This is the social portion. Don't do this if you are concerned. The second part of the application is the social part. Again, if you don't trust an application you can always go to your app settings page on facebook (https://www.facebook.com/settings/?tab=applications https://www.facebook.com/settings/?tab=applications), select the application you are worried about and deny specific items that you don't want the app to have access to. If you "x" out too many things, you might cripple the application, but that's the way it works.
    - X-Istence 15y ago
      I don't want to first opt-in to something and LATER have to deny it those permissions. I want to deny it those permissions and only give it some permissions to start with. How much damage would it be possible to do in the 3 - 4 minutes it will take me to go back to Facebook, go to my account settings, look at my app settings, find the app in the huge list, and then start removing permissions I don't want to grant it? After that I have to go through the effort to find the post content in my timeline, one by one delete the items and hope that my friends have not yet seen the content (and it being posted to the ticker makes that unlikely...)
orijing 15y ago
I totally understand your concern about sharing things that might hurt you in the future. Anyway, I guess the Washington Post Reader wasn't designed for a lot of people like you, so there's nothing lost from not installing the app. But I have lots of friends who do love sharing all the articles they read, so to each his own. I sympathize with people's concern about apps requesting more permissions than they need to do their job, but here, "sharing articles I've read" is a core part of what the product is. So if you don't install the app, and I do, what's the problem?
- X-Istence 15y ago
  Looking at where we have come from and where we are moving towards... There are already webapps that require logins using Facebook connect and provide no alternate means for me to login (I've started creating many a fake Facebook account) and require a whole laundry list of permissions. It won't be too hard to in the future see that people are going to gloss over what permissions they are giving away so that they can get to their free article from the NYT or the Post. This slow erosion is exactly what I am worried about. That is how the United States is slowly losing all forms of civil liberties and are slowly becoming a police state. Naked scanners at airports didn't just suddenly happen, it was a long process with some fear thrown in from some stupid jackass with an underwear bomb. DHS used fear to allow them to patrol 150 miles inland from the United States border. The patriot act keeps getting renewed and the only reason it passed was because of 9/11. No, saying "but it's okay right now, it won't do anything automatically unless you give it permission" doesn't help. Soon it will be "What do you have to hide? Permissions? The web is open..."
  - Luyt 15y ago
    Say it like it is, brother! "The Eternal Value of Privacy" by Bruce Schneier, http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2006/05/70886 http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securityma... (article for Wired) "Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have 'Nothing to Hide'", http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/ http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127... (for the Chronicle)
- 15y ago
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
prostoalex 15y ago
To clarify on Spotify, there're options to (a) connect with Facebook (i.e. use it for login purposes) and (b) send the music you play to Open Graph. One does not depend on another, and (b) can be turned off without impacting (a).
anigbrowl 15y ago
It's eminently possible to just live life without Facebook. I stopped using it a few years ago, although more because I was being drowned with useless information from other people ('hand stuck in toaster again, LOL') than out of privacy concerns.
- aespinoza 15y ago
  The problem is that it is not only facebook. I think this is an issue that needs to be addressed at another level. Facebook is definitely the most of evil of them all, but Google is also doing it.
  - rhizome 15y ago
    Not only that, but I have a feeling that if Google and Facebook fail at providing some institutionally-derived level of default sharing by users, the next company is going to try something else. And there will be a "next company" to try this, just as there has been in the MySpace > Friendster > Orkut > Facebook > G+ > etc. chain. This is an institutional desire, probably by the advertising industry, that will not stop.
    - aespinoza 15y ago
      Yes I agree. I don't currently have a win-win solution in mind. A great solution would be one that allows facebook to still gather information provided that the "correct" privacy controls are in place for users. I think, since this is so new, there is no clear understanding of what the "correct" privacy controls are. That is why I love the fact that G+ exists. Competition will help solve this problem.
      - washedup 15y ago
        Agreed. Once privacy becomes the driving issue of social networks, either Facebook, G+, or the next evolution, will offer users what they consider to be proper security/privacy. Although we can be seen as the products and not consumers of Facebook, if we are being harvested for social data, we will require proper care and growth to deliver a good product.
marcocampos 15y ago
I've been using ShareMeNot (http://sharemenot.cs.washington.edu/ http://sharemenot.cs.washington.edu/) for a few months now. I don't know if it's a perfect solution to go around but it's a solution nonetheless.
jeromeparadis 15y ago
I would recommend that app publishers, has a good practice, explicitly put the action as buttons to replace or complement the Like. So, I could click "read" and then it would publish the action. I think that doing so automatically on behalf of the user is asking for trouble.
dorkitude 15y ago
Actually, Facebook's 'publish_stream' extended permission, which has existed for 1-2 years, already gave developers the ability to publish on your wall, without getting explicit confirmation on each article. Similarly, for Spotify to do this Activity stuff, you need to give them an extended permission called 'publish_actions'. If anything, actions are less dangerous, since the size and visibility of the content is significantly more limited than are wall posts. Anyone saying otherwise either is linkbaiting or truly does not understand the Facebook platform.
- gabaix 15y ago
  And a consequence of that is my "Facebook stress" everytime I allow an app to publish on my wall. I don't want them to, and I am forced to accept because otherwise I could not get access to the app. I have to check my Fb profile that nothing gets posted everytime this happens.
  - mgkimsal 15y ago
    In theory you could just not use the app. Also, tell the app owner why you're not using it. However, I'd say that there's generally no consistently way I've seen that FB gives you to give feedback to app owners - certainly ones which you're not actually a user of the app too. If enough people did that (or started to from now on) the demands for extended app privileges might drop.
- davidtyleryork 15y ago
  Yes, The Sims Social did this well before the F8 conference. You just had to opt in
wtvanhest 15y ago
This is 100% the correct way to look at this. Facebook originally just allowed you to share what you wanted to. Now it is simply ridiculous.
- megablast 15y ago
  Only we care about this. All the privacy invasions facebook has forced upon its users have been readily accepted, and it keeps growing. Facebook knows this. Most people care more about UI changes, rather than this invasion. I run facebook on the iphone, or in a separate browser, to keep in touch with some relatives in far away countries. It is great for that, and I am very happy to be able to do that.
CandidCalum 15y ago
You do realise you don't have to use these features, don't you? The features are there for those of us who wish to have this information automatically shared with our friends, but if you don't wish to, you can turn the automatic sharing off in some of the applications, or just don't connect/remove the application to/from your Facebook account. Why complain about features you don't have to use, when many of us like to use them?

Slizyboy 15y ago

If you don't want to share anything, then don't use the app. Nothing is automatically sharing unless you tell it to. Nothing can magically share the fact that you read a Techcrunch article unless you install a "Techcrunch Reader" app or something, in which case it would have to ask your permission to share that information. If you didn't like it, you can remove that permission. For example, here's the relevant permission from the Washington post app: Add app activity to your timeline Washington Post Social Reader may publish your app activity to your timeline. If you don't want the app to automatically publish something, then just x out that permission.

X-Istence 15y ago
The amount of stuff that is starting to require Facebook Connect or access to Facebook is what worries me. Most of them ask for every single permission under the world and only ask me once. For example, Spotify, it is practically neutered unless you connect it to Facebook, but as soon as it is connected to Facebook it can send data to Facebook as me. There was an app not too long ago that required Facebook to login, it too asked for those permissions. Now it can without my permission start sharing content based upon actions in the webapp. I am not okay with that.
- Slizyboy 15y ago
  I think it has to re-ask you for new permissions, it doesn't get any permissions 'grandfathered' in. But yeah, the fact that many apps ask for too-many permissions is a pain :/ Means I always have to go back and remove the permissions I don't want, and hope I don't forget.
- patangay 15y ago
  First of all, when I go to spotify and "log in with facebook". The site sends me to a facebook page asking me to "log in to spotify" with my facebook. On this page, it specifically says "This app will not add activity to your Timeline." In other words, the basic spotify login with facebook isn't social. If you "Connect" your spotify account to facebook, it pops up a permission dialog asking you for various types of access. This is the social portion. Don't do this if you are concerned. The second part of the application is the social part. Again, if you don't trust an application you can always go to your app settings page on facebook (https://www.facebook.com/settings/?tab=applications https://www.facebook.com/settings/?tab=applications), select the application you are worried about and deny specific items that you don't want the app to have access to. If you "x" out too many things, you might cripple the application, but that's the way it works.
  - X-Istence 15y ago
    I don't want to first opt-in to something and LATER have to deny it those permissions. I want to deny it those permissions and only give it some permissions to start with. How much damage would it be possible to do in the 3 - 4 minutes it will take me to go back to Facebook, go to my account settings, look at my app settings, find the app in the huge list, and then start removing permissions I don't want to grant it? After that I have to go through the effort to find the post content in my timeline, one by one delete the items and hope that my friends have not yet seen the content (and it being posted to the ticker makes that unlikely...)

orijing 15y ago

I totally understand your concern about sharing things that might hurt you in the future. Anyway, I guess the Washington Post Reader wasn't designed for a lot of people like you, so there's nothing lost from not installing the app. But I have lots of friends who do love sharing all the articles they read, so to each his own. I sympathize with people's concern about apps requesting more permissions than they need to do their job, but here, "sharing articles I've read" is a core part of what the product is. So if you don't install the app, and I do, what's the problem?

X-Istence 15y ago
Looking at where we have come from and where we are moving towards... There are already webapps that require logins using Facebook connect and provide no alternate means for me to login (I've started creating many a fake Facebook account) and require a whole laundry list of permissions. It won't be too hard to in the future see that people are going to gloss over what permissions they are giving away so that they can get to their free article from the NYT or the Post. This slow erosion is exactly what I am worried about. That is how the United States is slowly losing all forms of civil liberties and are slowly becoming a police state. Naked scanners at airports didn't just suddenly happen, it was a long process with some fear thrown in from some stupid jackass with an underwear bomb. DHS used fear to allow them to patrol 150 miles inland from the United States border. The patriot act keeps getting renewed and the only reason it passed was because of 9/11. No, saying "but it's okay right now, it won't do anything automatically unless you give it permission" doesn't help. Soon it will be "What do you have to hide? Permissions? The web is open..."
- Luyt 15y ago
  Say it like it is, brother! "The Eternal Value of Privacy" by Bruce Schneier, http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2006/05/70886 http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securityma... (article for Wired) "Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have 'Nothing to Hide'", http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/ http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127... (for the Chronicle)
15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

prostoalex 15y ago

To clarify on Spotify, there're options to (a) connect with Facebook (i.e. use it for login purposes) and (b) send the music you play to Open Graph. One does not depend on another, and (b) can be turned off without impacting (a).

anigbrowl 15y ago

It's eminently possible to just live life without Facebook. I stopped using it a few years ago, although more because I was being drowned with useless information from other people ('hand stuck in toaster again, LOL') than out of privacy concerns.

aespinoza 15y ago
The problem is that it is not only facebook. I think this is an issue that needs to be addressed at another level. Facebook is definitely the most of evil of them all, but Google is also doing it.
- rhizome 15y ago
  Not only that, but I have a feeling that if Google and Facebook fail at providing some institutionally-derived level of default sharing by users, the next company is going to try something else. And there will be a "next company" to try this, just as there has been in the MySpace > Friendster > Orkut > Facebook > G+ > etc. chain. This is an institutional desire, probably by the advertising industry, that will not stop.
  - aespinoza 15y ago
    Yes I agree. I don't currently have a win-win solution in mind. A great solution would be one that allows facebook to still gather information provided that the "correct" privacy controls are in place for users. I think, since this is so new, there is no clear understanding of what the "correct" privacy controls are. That is why I love the fact that G+ exists. Competition will help solve this problem.
    - washedup 15y ago
      Agreed. Once privacy becomes the driving issue of social networks, either Facebook, G+, or the next evolution, will offer users what they consider to be proper security/privacy. Although we can be seen as the products and not consumers of Facebook, if we are being harvested for social data, we will require proper care and growth to deliver a good product.

marcocampos 15y ago

I've been using ShareMeNot (http://sharemenot.cs.washington.edu/ http://sharemenot.cs.washington.edu/) for a few months now. I don't know if it's a perfect solution to go around but it's a solution nonetheless.

jeromeparadis 15y ago

I would recommend that app publishers, has a good practice, explicitly put the action as buttons to replace or complement the Like. So, I could click "read" and then it would publish the action. I think that doing so automatically on behalf of the user is asking for trouble.

dorkitude 15y ago

Actually, Facebook's 'publish_stream' extended permission, which has existed for 1-2 years, already gave developers the ability to publish on your wall, without getting explicit confirmation on each article. Similarly, for Spotify to do this Activity stuff, you need to give them an extended permission called 'publish_actions'. If anything, actions are less dangerous, since the size and visibility of the content is significantly more limited than are wall posts. Anyone saying otherwise either is linkbaiting or truly does not understand the Facebook platform.

gabaix 15y ago
And a consequence of that is my "Facebook stress" everytime I allow an app to publish on my wall. I don't want them to, and I am forced to accept because otherwise I could not get access to the app. I have to check my Fb profile that nothing gets posted everytime this happens.
- mgkimsal 15y ago
  In theory you could just not use the app. Also, tell the app owner why you're not using it. However, I'd say that there's generally no consistently way I've seen that FB gives you to give feedback to app owners - certainly ones which you're not actually a user of the app too. If enough people did that (or started to from now on) the demands for extended app privileges might drop.
davidtyleryork 15y ago
Yes, The Sims Social did this well before the F8 conference. You just had to opt in

wtvanhest 15y ago

This is 100% the correct way to look at this. Facebook originally just allowed you to share what you wanted to. Now it is simply ridiculous.

megablast 15y ago
Only we care about this. All the privacy invasions facebook has forced upon its users have been readily accepted, and it keeps growing. Facebook knows this. Most people care more about UI changes, rather than this invasion. I run facebook on the iphone, or in a separate browser, to keep in touch with some relatives in far away countries. It is great for that, and I am very happy to be able to do that.

CandidCalum 15y ago

You do realise you don't have to use these features, don't you? The features are there for those of us who wish to have this information automatically shared with our friends, but if you don't wish to, you can turn the automatic sharing off in some of the applications, or just don't connect/remove the application to/from your Facebook account. Why complain about features you don't have to use, when many of us like to use them?