Randi Zuckerberg Also Confused About Facebook Privacy(cnbc.com)
cnbc.com
Randi Zuckerberg Also Confused About Facebook Privacy
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100339568
93 comments
If you want someone to not share something, you show them in person - on your own computer - without giving them access to a digital copy.
I keep asking Jeff Bezos to visit me so I can show him my credit card information in person, but he continues to ignore me. :-(
I don't think it's too much to ask for someone to be polite and decent.
Indeed, yet they didn't ask - it was assumed. Both parties assumed. Equally so it's not too much to ask for someone to state how private or public an image or piece of information is. This is really why it's up to the individual to keep things private when they truly want them to be. There is no real thing called privacy. And human behaviour on average dictates that a) people make mistakes and could share things they might not mean to, and b) that many people, the less close they are to you the more so, that will not think about being able to easily share something (perhaps unless expressly stated otherwise in that moment).
"Good fences make good neighbors," and privacy permissions are the fences of FB.
Google Glass will fix that.
[deleted]
[deleted]
It's not a gray area at all. As has been asserted many, many times in the past, if you're not paying for a service, you're the product. In this light, a product bears no ethical responsibility to its manufacturer. It would be quite insane for a company to blame one of its products for being faulty. "Don't look at us, it's the product that killed those people."
This is just products acting the way they do. Per #1, it's not our responsibility to divine (or even respect) what the real meaning of "Friends Only" is. #2 is irrelevant, if the subject matter wasn't as it is, a (minor) celebrity wouldn't be bringing the Streisand down on it. People reshare all the time, and in fact there are pages on FB entirely dedicated to the phenomenon that enjoy hundreds of thousands of reshares for their posts.
This is just products acting the way they do. Per #1, it's not our responsibility to divine (or even respect) what the real meaning of "Friends Only" is. #2 is irrelevant, if the subject matter wasn't as it is, a (minor) celebrity wouldn't be bringing the Streisand down on it. People reshare all the time, and in fact there are pages on FB entirely dedicated to the phenomenon that enjoy hundreds of thousands of reshares for their posts.
If you post something on internet, not to mention on a Facebook page, be ready to make it public. End of story.
Decency/shmecency.
Facebook constantly leaks your data or change the policy by adding some checkbox to your settings that is set to yes by default and if you missed that change ( I am sure we all read through a huge policy updates) then you are screwed until someone points out the new UI change. I thought decency works both ways because Facebook is also "people"?
Facebook constantly leaks your data or change the policy by adding some checkbox to your settings that is set to yes by default and if you missed that change ( I am sure we all read through a huge policy updates) then you are screwed until someone points out the new UI change
Do you have any specific examples?
Do you have any specific examples?
It seems most people are not aware that tagging someone as present with you basically posts to their timeline and expands the viewership of your post to whatever the settings are of all the tag-ees.
We want to talk privacy with Mark Zuckerberg as well. We put a $2.5k bounty on it: https://businessleads.com/post/592-Mark-Zuckerberg-Wed-Like-...
We want to talk privacy with Mark Zuckerberg as well. We put a $2.5k bounty on it: https://businessleads.com/post/592-Mark-Zuckerberg-Wed-Like-...
One thing I detest about HN is the amount of shameless social media advertising that people spam. It dilutes word of mouth and makes social media a less interesting platform to learn about new products and services. If you want to advertise then pay for it like everyone else.
Users are given lower-class features than pages/brands, unfortunately. For pages, you can see how many people see your posts; for users, you have to do the math yourself. Users can select how much of another user's posts they see (most important | all | only important), whereas users can only turn page updates on or off.
I wonder if people would post differently if they saw how quickly their posts propagated through Facebook when people like and comment their public posts, or when people are tagged in their photos.
I wonder if people would post differently if they saw how quickly their posts propagated through Facebook when people like and comment their public posts, or when people are tagged in their photos.
Right. For brands it encourages them to see those numbers. If it doesn't, it encourages them to sponsor stories. For users it's more likely to have them taking a look at their privacy settings and locking stuff down.
This tactic is used more and more by people as a method of marketing too. It's annoying.
So after pushing every single one of its billion users to make more things public, to the point of physically changing your settings, they complain that one of their photos was made public and shared. To complain about someone elses etiquette here is absolutely laughable, and the fact that it was done in public versus in private makes me think that the ex-director of marketing just missed the spotlight and wanted a story.
People are all talking about Zuck's sister, but the major issue here, as I see it, is that private family photos of Mark Zuckerberg himself are spreading across the web because of Facebook's privacy shortcomings.
Honestly, it just shows that internet privacy, far from being just a "really hard problem" is essentially impossible. I'd prefer it if Facebook just dumped the pretense and made everything public from now on. At least then nobody would get the false sense of security and be fooled into thinking they can control who sees what they post online. It's all public, guys. Even Mark Zuckerberg's private family Christmas photos.
Honestly, it just shows that internet privacy, far from being just a "really hard problem" is essentially impossible. I'd prefer it if Facebook just dumped the pretense and made everything public from now on. At least then nobody would get the false sense of security and be fooled into thinking they can control who sees what they post online. It's all public, guys. Even Mark Zuckerberg's private family Christmas photos.
it's not a really hard problem in general; it's a really hard problem when layered atop facebook's constant attempts to subvert it. from a technical perspective it would not have been hard to add a "only these people can see it, and no one can reshare it" setting, which would need people actually copying the image and making a deliberate effort to violate (a very different thing from a psychological perspective).
The picture in question. http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/189jscna7tjb4jpg/original.jp...
There is no privacy online. Period. A few years back when Mark Zuckerberg's pictures leaked out, he kept quiet which was a great PR move unlike this time.
I tried helping a stereotypically computer-unskilled person with some Facebook issues recently. They had some problems that made it look like someone might have gotten access to their account. So I wanted to go in and make sure that they were in good shape - change password, check that the emails were all ok, make sure that the phone number for the account hadn't been changed by someone so they could get access into the account again. It's rather difficult to do. Facebook's interface has become so difficult and complicated, that I had to look around for quite some time to be able to do these basic things.
A similar issue is going to arise when Facebook Poke photos start showing up in public. Someone can easily use another device to take a photo of the 'self-destructing' photos.
I'm unsure if Snapchat/Facebook put this unsexy disclaimer that would stop the behaviours people think the possible consequences of might be protected - however I'm guessing the virility from its sexiness and infamy would diminish greatly.
I'm unsure if Snapchat/Facebook put this unsexy disclaimer that would stop the behaviours people think the possible consequences of might be protected - however I'm guessing the virility from its sexiness and infamy would diminish greatly.
The sad fact of this is that while Randi managed to figure out how the mishap happened, there are a billion other users who might not.
Yes, posting anything online should be assumed to be in the public domain. But that doesn't mean we should have to put up with the poor UX of unclear expectations and no visibility of what is going on.
Yes, posting anything online should be assumed to be in the public domain. But that doesn't mean we should have to put up with the poor UX of unclear expectations and no visibility of what is going on.
In case anyone wants to see the rather unremarkable photo that this whole thing is over, see:
http://jezebel.com/5971234/randi-zuckerberg-accidentally-sha...
http://jezebel.com/5971234/randi-zuckerberg-accidentally-sha...
I dunno. I notice Mark is slumming in the corner. I mean, if you want a remark.
Given that she was a key force behind the "Startup: Silicon Valley" show, I'd say she is confused on a lot more than just FB issues she ostensibly should have been familiar with given her position there...
I cannot say enough bad things about hat show.
I cannot say enough bad things about hat show.
There’s no evidence in the article that she was confused about anything. She figured out that the tweeter could see the photo because of a connection with her sister.
Her stated intent contradicts your interpretation. She posted not thinking it could propagate and she only figured it out after the fact.
She posted it as "friends only" and tagged her family members. The person who tweeted it saw it and assumed that it was showing up because she is a subscriber of Randi's public posts, though in reality it wasn't public and she saw it through a friend connection with one of Randi's sisters. She tweeted the image based on that assumption. Randi saw it, was surprised, and then discovered how it happened (because Randi knows how privacy controls work quite well). They communicated on Twitter and realized the misunderstanding. The end.
Randi didn't seem to know that "friends only" meant that Callie-- and presumably other friends of those who were tagged-- could see it.
Her 12:36am tweet indicates as such: http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr03/2012/12/26/...
Her 12:36am tweet indicates as such: http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr03/2012/12/26/...
I know the timeline. She posted under "friends only" thinking that it meant "friends only" rather than "friends, and friends of everybody tagged." Is this unclear?
I'm not sure how you know what she thought or how she interprets the privacy rules. If someone posts something as friends only and someone jacks the link to the image and posts it on twitter, publicly, it doesn't mean the poster doesn't know the privacy rules of Facebook. It means someone who could see the photo took it and made it public. In this case it's the poster who didn't realize it wasn't already public (again, understandably, though in error).
It means someone who could see the photo took it and made it public.
Ah, now I see why you continue your line of insistence here: the problem is that the person who publicized the photo wasn't supposed to be able to see it. The poster didn't know it would be seen by more people than just her friends.
Ah, now I see why you continue your line of insistence here: the problem is that the person who publicized the photo wasn't supposed to be able to see it. The poster didn't know it would be seen by more people than just her friends.
Disagree. The problem is someone who wasn't supposed to share the photo shared it. Allowing friends of friends to see tagged photos is one of the points of tagging. My friends don't want to see my pictures of you, they want to see your pictures of me. In either case, reposting it to twitter should be taboo (and copyright infringement!).
Allowing friends of friends to see tagged photos is one of the points of tagging
Says who?
Says who?
My friends don't want to see my pictures of you, they want to see your pictures of me.
You already said that.
I thought you missed it. That's what I use tagging for. Am I doing it wrong?
The stand out for me is not getting FB "privacy" wrong, no one seem sure what that actually is, let alone how it might manifest its self, but the amusing fact that she thought deleting the twatter conversation would hide her blushes. If one is going to fail at that point, dont even bother trying to decrypt FB "privacy" controls.
Maybe it's guerilla research for free user-volunteered information about their sharing-privacy shortcomings.
TL;DR: Randi Zuckerburg doesn't want her Twitter followers to see photos of her looking ugly
There is a way to fix this madness.
http://www.facebook.com/help/224562897555674
http://www.facebook.com/help/224562897555674
When I first saw the story I was sure it was going to be about how easy it is to save and broadcast a photo from the Poke App.
> "Digital etiquette: always ask permission before posting a friend's photo publicly. It's not about privacy settings, it's about human decency," Randi said in a tweet.
Schadenfreude and just desserts aside, Randi has a good point here. So much of the talk about privacy on social networks overlooks the problem of human nature. Most people won't have their privacy most painfully violated by a service, but by those in their network who carelessly forward their digital communications.
(to clarify: I'm not absolving FB of blame...I'm assuming that just about everyone here agrees that FB's privacy implementation is not great. I'm just saying that Randi's point, even if it was said to deflect responsibility, is true in the larger sense. As we'll find out as Poke w/ pics becomes more popular)
Schadenfreude and just desserts aside, Randi has a good point here. So much of the talk about privacy on social networks overlooks the problem of human nature. Most people won't have their privacy most painfully violated by a service, but by those in their network who carelessly forward their digital communications.
(to clarify: I'm not absolving FB of blame...I'm assuming that just about everyone here agrees that FB's privacy implementation is not great. I'm just saying that Randi's point, even if it was said to deflect responsibility, is true in the larger sense. As we'll find out as Poke w/ pics becomes more popular)
The interface led Callie Schweitzer to think the photo was public. Instead of criticizing the interface, Randi pretends that "human decency" is the issue. What a crock.
Indeed, this also highlights that most of your 'Facebook friends' aren't really friends or people who would care or think twice about making sure your actions would fit with the person/people who'd be affected.
I hate to sound so negative, but that tweet just reeked of wanting attention. If you are genuinely upset your friend posted a photo, CONTACT THEM, don't make a fucking public reply at someone and start a dialogue that gets this on some blog. Seemed like of the ways to handle this, her chosen method was very near the bottom.
Indeed. On a pedantic side note, the correct phrase is perhaps surprisingly "just deserts", not "just desserts" (it has to do with things that are deserved, not with after dinner treats).
Wow, that's overturned decades of mental imagery for me. Now I know what it feels like to discover the actual meaning of "begs the question" and other such idioms.
But people can't be expected to ask before hitting "share" on a public post, can they?
According to the article the post wasn't public -- it was viewable only to friends of those tagged in the post (as far I as I understood).
Now if only facebook would tell people it wasn't public. It's a post by someone you don't know showing up, how subtle is the marking that it's not actually public, if any?
People can't be expected to ask before hitting "share" on a post shown as public, can they?
People can't be expected to ask before hitting "share" on a post shown as public, can they?
There is an icon attached to every post that indicates its privacy setting. That icon is in fact in the same row of actions as the "share" link.
Right. She should have seen an icon that showed "friends" rather than public. I think the "share" button remains and (if I'm not mistaken) only people within the original permission will be shown your "share" in their feed. This could, however, give the impression that you could just pop the photo into Twitter, however. There is "download" right in that "options" menu.
There's also the ol' right-click/save.
There's also the ol' right-click/save.
Yeah she was not friends with Randi but apparently friends with one of Randi's friends. Agreed -- it is very confusing. G+ gives you a nice big warning before resharing something within G+. But of course we know that this was shared in a completely different social network (twitter), Callie obviously saved the pic and then reuploaded to twitpic (automatically or manually). Which imho isn't very classy no matter the original privacy settings.
It was showing up for Callie, who was not friends with Randi. I think most people would assume that means it's public, when it fact it's just an example of the fact that privacy on Facebook is really confusing.
I have seen posts where the "share" button was not available. Is there a separate setting for that?
If it's an image it can be shared AFAIK. Check this screen shot from my feed: https://www.dropbox.com/s/j779fmt85cb9mq6/Screen%20Shot%2020...
When clicking on "Share" I can share it to all my friends on my time line (or if my default were public, it would share to everyone).
When clicking on "Share" I can share it to all my friends on my time line (or if my default were public, it would share to everyone).
From eyeballing my feed just now it looks as though any post that's a link can be shared. Then, the link is shared "via X." But only a public status itself gets the share button.
It would be nice if we could expect people to always do the right thing (even in the face of confusion over what that is due to poor UX), but ultimately you have to deal with the reality that humans are flawed and the more humans you add to the mix, the more likely one bad (or confused) apple will do the wrong thing.
If your platform exists to form links between these (billions of) people, you have to either be extremely proactive with user's privacy (which Facebook clearly isn't), or you have to educate them to accept that anything they post should be treated as if it were public to the world, because basically it is (via 6 degrees of separation combined with Facebook sharing rules).
If your platform exists to form links between these (billions of) people, you have to either be extremely proactive with user's privacy (which Facebook clearly isn't), or you have to educate them to accept that anything they post should be treated as if it were public to the world, because basically it is (via 6 degrees of separation combined with Facebook sharing rules).
Human decency also includes not making it easy to publicize private photos.
I can only imagine the outcry that will occur when Facebook blocks right click, save image.
Actually, I think that would be a business opportunity for a startup, only I can't figure out the tech you'd need to do it. There are shops (like, for wedding dresses) that disallow you from taking pictures of their stuff because you might share it online; they'd make good customers.
That horse left the barn long ago; it's a good point that was requested of services and publications years and years ago, contrary to policies and practices she has steadfastly supported the entire time. Now that the blade is cutting the other way, she cries foul. We've adapted, but apparently she didn't.
Who cares what Zuckerberg's sister thinks? Does being his sister make her some form of authority on online privacy, such that her being confused would be some kind of "see, I told ya!"?
Sister? No. Former marketing director of Facebook? She probably should know the privacy settings. Having people at your company (or that used to be at your company) confused about policies is usually a sign that you should either clarify or simplify them.
>>Sister? No. Former marketing director of Facebook? She probably should know the privacy settings.
Wait, what? I work for a software company, and our marketing people (including up to Director level) are some of the least knowledgeable people when it comes to how our software actually works.
Wait, what? I work for a software company, and our marketing people (including up to Director level) are some of the least knowledgeable people when it comes to how our software actually works.
Privacy isn't some obscure feature or an implementation detail, it is one of facebook's major issues from a marketing perspective. The fact that she so publicly got it wrong is a disgrace.
How did she get it wrong? The photo wasn't posted publicly. Somebody she shared it with took it and posted it publicly on a different social network.
Did you read the article?
Somebody Randi shared it with used the tag (or comment) feature, which then caused it to show up in the feed of Randi's friends-of-friends. Those people had no idea that the image wasn't public (because they don't directly know her), and simply assumed it came through a public feed.
Randi thought that one of her friends somehow shared the image, which wasn't the case at all. They were simply using a common Facebook feature. She clearly misunderstood what was happening. And she acknowledged her misunderstanding by deleting her twitter comments on the matter.
Somebody Randi shared it with used the tag (or comment) feature, which then caused it to show up in the feed of Randi's friends-of-friends. Those people had no idea that the image wasn't public (because they don't directly know her), and simply assumed it came through a public feed.
Randi thought that one of her friends somehow shared the image, which wasn't the case at all. They were simply using a common Facebook feature. She clearly misunderstood what was happening. And she acknowledged her misunderstanding by deleting her twitter comments on the matter.
Did you read the article??
Directly from Zuckerberg's tweet:
""@cschweitz not sure where you got this photo. I posted it on FB. You reposting it to Twitter is way uncool," Randi said in her tweet."
It was reposted to twitter. Randi shared a photo on Facebook. This person was able to see it because she was friends with Randi's sister (friend of friend). The user then took the photo from a semi-private space and shared it publicly on Twitter.
Directly from Zuckerberg's tweet:
""@cschweitz not sure where you got this photo. I posted it on FB. You reposting it to Twitter is way uncool," Randi said in her tweet."
It was reposted to twitter. Randi shared a photo on Facebook. This person was able to see it because she was friends with Randi's sister (friend of friend). The user then took the photo from a semi-private space and shared it publicly on Twitter.
Did you read the article? Was the photo not reposted to Twitter? Was this done using a common Facebook feature?
Privacy as a policy, yes. A marketing director should be expected to know the companies various policies when it comes to how it handles customer data, because part of their job is to use that information to accommodate (and defend) its public image.
But that is different from knowing how the software actually works, what settings you need to turn on to achieve which result, and being able to explain why it is working the way it is. That is more of an engineering function, and knowing the details inside out is the job of not marketing, but of user education and training.
But that is different from knowing how the software actually works, what settings you need to turn on to achieve which result, and being able to explain why it is working the way it is. That is more of an engineering function, and knowing the details inside out is the job of not marketing, but of user education and training.
I know what you mean. But that is still no excuse for a marketing director of a major brand like fb.
I will bet cold hard cash that they don't portray themselves to outsiders as ignorant as you say they are. That is, their reputation depends on what you say not being apparent.
Yes. But your marketing people should know how your software performs from a user perspective. I mean... I don't know how incompetent your marketing people are, but mine actually take the time to learn what they're promoting and get yelled at if we find out they lied.
Maybe you need better marketing people?
Maybe you need better marketing people?
This is the LOL of the day :) I almost dropped my post PC device laughing out quite loud. Twighlight-scale drama. A Keeper.
Randi posted the picture as "friends only" but due to Facebook's policies it turns out that people other than those friends could see the picture.
First question: If a friend posts something as "friends only" are you ethically bound not to publicly share it? I think most people would answer YES, under the assumption that if they wanted to make it public they would have posted it publicly.
But there are a couple of interesting wrinkles here :
1. Facebook's interface did not make it clear to Callie that this was a "friends only" post. Because it showed up in her feed she assumed it was public and meant for public consumption.
2. The presence of Mark Zuckerberg in the picture. Zuckerberg is essentially a celebrity and it seems there is a widespread assumption that ANY picture with a celebrity in it (whether Justin Bieber or President Obama) is fair game for sharing in a way that does not apply to non celebrities. I think if the picture did not include Mark Zuckerberg it is far less likely Callie or anyone else would have thought it was appropriate to share it.