Topic: Online Privacy (Read 8952 times)

Thad · « **on:** November 11, 2011, 07:57:42 AM »

Facebook to make all privacy invasions opt-in.

Huh. Maybe I'll finally start using the damn thing.

Thad · « **Reply #1 on:** November 29, 2011, 12:04:02 PM »

Quote from: Thad on November 11, 2011, 07:57:42 AM

Facebook to make all privacy invasions opt-in.

More: not only must all future privacy changes be opt-in, but they're subject to FTC privacy audits for the next 20 years.

Mongrel · « **Reply #2 on:** January 25, 2012, 08:54:42 AM »

This is the wrong thread, but for the life of me I can't recall or see the thread we use for Facebook/Computer privacy issues.

Anyway PUBLIC SERVICE MESSAGE Facebook is making Facebook Timeline MANDATORY - meaning your entire posting history will be public.

There is a one-week grace period/notice period to delete stuff and then that's it. So uh, FYI guys.

Thad · « **Reply #3 on:** January 25, 2012, 09:45:12 AM »

I've just been sticking it in the social media thread.

Huh. That sounds an awful lot like it violates their settlement.

Thad · « **Reply #4 on:** January 26, 2012, 07:19:10 AM »

Here's a thread. If you spot more posts that should go here let me know and I can move them.

Anyway, speaking of new, potentially invasive privacy policies that may violate standing agreements with the FTC, it is perhaps unsurprising that Google is also in the news for this.

Thad · « **Reply #5 on:** February 06, 2012, 07:37:21 AM »

Ars: Over 3 years later, "deleted" Facebook photos are still online

Now, it is, of course, good to remember that once you upload a photo, deleting it doesn't prevent the people who have already downloaded it from continuing to propagate it.

But in this case, it would appear that deleting it doesn't even actually delete it.

Thad · « **Reply #6 on:** February 17, 2012, 09:24:03 AM »

WSJ via Doctorow: Google caught circumventing iPhone security, tracking users who opted out of third-party cookies

Quote

The WSJ reports that Google overrode users' privacy settings in order to allow messages like "your friend Suzy +1'ed this ad about candy" to be relayed between Google's different domains, including google.com and doubleclick.net. This also meant that doubleclick.net was tracking every page you landed on with a Doubleclick ad, even if you'd opted out of its tracking.

I believe that Google has created an enormous internal urgency about Google Plus integration, and that this pressure is leading the company to take steps to integrate G+ at the expense of the quality of its other services.

Brentai · « **Reply #7 on:** March 02, 2012, 11:40:51 PM »

Welp, logging out of my Gmail account to keep YouTube from watching me every time I go there no longer works.

What's a good YouTube alternative if you mostly just use it to find obscure game music?

EDIT: Wait no I can still use it in Private Browsing mode. I guess I'm gonna be essentially looking at porn 24/7 now.

Classic · « **Reply #8 on:** March 03, 2012, 12:45:02 AM »

I don't know for sure, but isn't that just a login cookie?

Ziiro · « **Reply #9 on:** March 03, 2012, 01:52:21 AM »

http://consumerist.com/2012/03/reminder-turn-off-your-google-web-history-today.html

Don't forget to do this

Mongrel · « **Reply #10 on:** March 03, 2012, 07:42:59 AM »

That is a very handy quick-link.

Thad · « **Reply #11 on:** March 05, 2012, 07:19:05 AM »

Yeah, I've repeatedly tried to log into my Youtube account, thinking I must have forgotten my password. I eventually worked out that the Youtube thadboyd account is actually somebody else and I must have never actually signed up for one.

This is okay with me unless I decide I need to actually start posting videos.

Appears I already had my Google account set not to record my history, which is good. Other'n that, I pretty much just use my Gmail account to argue with people on ComicsAlliance. My life would probably be improved by nuking it.

Mostly using DDG for search at this point. Still use Google for the occasional image search.

Mongrel · « **Reply #12 on:** March 05, 2012, 08:42:23 AM »

Are you using DDG to avoid using Google, or are you actually getting better results in some cases?

Also, wow, I just had a flashback to the days when you'd use multiple search engines and crawl for pages to try and find what you were looking for most of the time.

Thad · « **Reply #13 on:** March 05, 2012, 08:51:51 AM »

On the whole I'd say DDG's results probably aren't as good as Google's, but it doesn't have Google's increasingly obnoxious tendency to substitute different words for the ones I actually typed so I'd say it's a wash.

Thad · « **Reply #14 on:** March 06, 2012, 11:42:17 AM »

What's wrong with Google's new privacy policy

It's the Reg, so it's got a UK/EU legal bias, but in broad strokes it applies here too.

sei · « **Reply #15 on:** March 06, 2012, 09:02:12 PM »

Quote from: Brentai on March 02, 2012, 11:40:51 PM

What's a good YouTube alternative if you mostly just use it to find obscure game music?

Grooveshark?

Büge · « **Reply #16 on:** March 31, 2012, 12:08:43 PM »

A teacher's aide was fired for refusing to hand over access to her facebook account to her employer.

Mongrel · « **Reply #17 on:** March 31, 2012, 03:56:41 PM »

Oh yeah, denying people work because they won't provide their Facebook login to an employer in their interview is getting to be commonplace down south, so I hear.

Shinra · « **Reply #18 on:** April 01, 2012, 03:03:57 AM »

Quote

Kimberly Hester was employed directly by Less Cass Intermediate School District as an aide to a local elementary school. Last year, off work hours, she posted a picture of a co-worker’s pants around her ankles with the caption “Thinking of you”—meant to be funny—to her Facebook page.

Someone—Hester suspects a particular parent who is Facebook friend—saw the photo and complained to the school. A few days later, the district superintendent began repeatedly asking her for access to her Facebook page. Each time, Hester refused.

Soon after, the district’s special education director wrote to Hester, saying “n the absence of you voluntarily granting Lewis Cass ISD administration access to you[r] Facebook page, we will assume the worst and act accordingly.”

They wanted access to the profile to confirm the complaint of a parent. You could argue that facebook is her personal life, but the picture was of another coworker acting inappropriately. I hate to error on the side of privacy invasion, but it sounds to me like the teacher forgot how to conduct herself professionally around the parents of the students who she is entrusted with the care of. If she wanted her facebook page to stay private, she shouldn't have been accepting friend requests from parents.

Brentai · « **Reply #19 on:** April 01, 2012, 09:46:24 AM »

"Access to your Facebook page" is not the same as "Access to your Facebook account." One request is appropriate, one is blatantly illegal. Someone needs to verify exactly what was demanded.

News:

Author Topic: Online Privacy (Read 8952 times)