OT: Social Networking, Privacy and Control
jra at baylink.com
Tue Oct 4 15:38:00 UTC 2011
[ if you were already over this topic, plonk the thread ]
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill.Pilloud" <bill.pilloud at gmail.com>
> Is this not the nature of social media? If you want to make sure something
> is secure (sensitive information), Why is it on social media. If you are
> worried about it being monetised, I think Google has already done that.
Because "sensitive" is a word with different definitions at different times
for different people.
I don't mind my friends knowing that I (used to) go to Rocky Horror every
Saturday night and run around in my underwear. I don't particularly want
a potential employer to know that, and I might not want a new girlfriend to
know it *immediately*.
The promise of Social Networking is *precisely* that it permits this more
fine-grained *control* (that's the key word, for those who weren't playing
the home game) over the information you disseminate, as opposed to just
posting all of it on your blog.
*Telling people you're going to provide them that control* and then being
sloppy about it -- or worse, purposefully evil -- is the thing that has people
up in arms.
As usual, the underlying issue is one of trust.
Alas, I see no theoretical way that distributed systems like Diaspora *can*
provide some of the functions that are core to systems like Facebook, *exactly
by virtue* (vice?) of the fact that they are distributed; there is no central
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
More information about the NANOG