If you have something that needs to be private don't put it on a web site. And certainly don't put it on a web site that is designed for sharing things with the people you are connected to.
They did not do that. What happened is it appears a friend who did know added them to a group and before they connected to joining that showed up on their feed. They did nothing. They were passive, and they were still outed because facebook didn't ask for permission and broadcast that they had been added by a third party to a group to their wall.
I did read it and I was making (poorly) a different point: the problem here is that you see the solution as technical ("Facebook should have better privacy controls") whereas I see the solution as personal ("Do not use Facebook"). I do not believe that it will be feasible for Facebook to both add functionality over time and preserve privacy and so the only solution is not to use Facebook at all.
"There are a lot of people who are essentially forced to be on Facebook due to social obligations."
While I don't agree with John in this case (which is unusual), nobody is forced to be on Facebook. You have the option to choose between privacy and social pressure. Many of us have chosen to not create an account and haven't suffered in the least because of it.
All the examples in this thread of reasons you're "forced" to be on the site amount to missing parties and not seeing pictures -- and it's a really vapid argument. It might suck to not see those pictures, but there's nobody forcing you to do so. It's still entirely up to you.
To clarify, I am not victim blaming. This argument is addressing the claim that a Facebook account is a requirement of youth. It is not. Choosing privacy over pleasure might be an unattractive option for some but it's an option all the same.
> But social events are not mandatory was what I was after.
Again, it depends on what quality of life you can live with, and how you're able to achieve that quality of life. Most people would be in serious emotional pain if forced to live as hermits, which is what happens to you after you alienate enough of your friends. Depending on your circumstances, Facebook (and the leaving of it) could play a large role in that.
If somebody is really to that level of social dependency then it's a choice between being a depressed hermit and having privacy. It's still a choice. Just because one option is more obvious for some people doesn't mean the choice disappears.
> You have the option to choose between privacy and social pressure.
Well, that depends on the nature of the pressure, now doesn't it? Most people can't go through life without their support network, and by 'can't' I mean can not. If being part of your network means friending them on Facebook to avoid alienating them, then that's what people have to do, isn't it?
Facebook isn't a human right or requirement. "Need" is too strong a word, you need food, water, oxygen, sleep... you "want" Facebook.
Facebook offers a service, use it or don't. It has settings, set them and if it still doesn't work for you then don't use it. Noone is "forced" to use Facebook, "forced to..." is not equivalent to "it would be really nice to...".
It all depends on what the "Or else" is, doesn't it? If it is just parties, then that's one thing. If it's being ostracized from your peers and family, that's a steep price. People have done terrible things to avoid ostracism like that.
Let's recommend people don't use a site which does not recognise the concept of privacy, expands the realm of the public versus the private at every opportunity, and spams their friends about their activities without their permission. People (not just LGBT people) should avoid FB entirely unless they want to be exposed to embarrassing situations like this, as FB continually tries to erode their privacy.
Using a public site like Twitter or Blogger is far healthier, as then it is clear that all content is public all the time.
One thing's for sure: it will be a lot more "feasible" if Facebook actually tries. Right now, they are manifestly not trying, or rather, trying to do the opposite.
I believe that throwing in the towel is appropriate because in the early 1990s I was deeply involved in research into the mathematical foundations of computer security (that's what my doctorate is in) and there was a paper written by a guy called Jeremy Jacob(1) that proved that security and functionality are at odds with each other. Thus my basis for my belief that as Facebook adds functionality security will worsen is the underlying theory.
You may not think of security in this context (calling it privacy) but it's all about the same fundamental thing: the control of information flow. In the privacy context it's information flow about people. Jacob's theorem shows that Facebook's privacy will worsen over time as new functionality is added.
> that proved that security and functionality are at odds with each other. Thus my basis for my belief that as Facebook adds functionality security will worsen is the underlying theory
You are making a huge assumption that Facebook is as secure as it can be at its level of functionality. It is easy to see that they could add a tiny bit of functionality that barely hurts security and fix the "add any of your friends to groups" bug that their security and functionality would increase.
I haven't read the article in full yet. So far it appears that the theorem is explicitly about "preventing unauthorized modification of data." Here we're talking about unauthorized read access, not write access. Can you comment on that?
Just because you say it does not make it true. Social considerations are some of the most powerful forces. People considered me "weird" because I wasn't on Facebook for a long time. Eventually I re activated my account, because I was tired of explaining to people why I wasn't on, and because I was missing out on photos and experiences and events that were only shared on Facebook.
I agree that you can sometimes seem cool by seeming aloof to what everyone else is doing, but when it damages your social life, most people aren't going to do it.
In the context of what actually happened in the article (did you read it?), your advice amounts to "If there is anything about you that needs to be private, don't have an online presence."
You don't have to give up all forms of online presence to maintain your privacy. You just have to avoid being on a site where information about you can be leaked without your consent. For example, writing a blog doesn't open you up to the kind of privacy breach described in the article. Neither does posting on Hacker News, for that matter.
I second that, and think a fairly obvious extension to it should be "... and DEFINITELY don't put it on Facebook."
At this stage, I think it should be a given that anything you put on Facebook (and perhaps any other web service) will eventually end up public to the world.
Please read the article. They didn't do anything. Someone else added them to a group called Queer Choir. They were not prompted to join. Then it was added to all their friends' timelines that they were now in this group, including parents. At no time, did the student do anything. In fact, they had privacy controls setup to not show have updates posted to their parents timeline be default.
For what it's worth, my response wasn't to the article, but to the GP from jgrahamc.
I acknowledge that the event in question wasn't a result of something the users in question did -- but that illustrates my point all the more that Facebook should be avoided.
Somewhat more ontopic, I'm a little hesitant to accede that someone adding you to a group makes you a member of that group in spirit. Sure, perhaps it convinces some folks that it's true, but so what? If somebody adds me to an open group entitled "People who hate women", I think it's easy enough for me to say "I didn't join this group, and I don't hate women. If I happened to actually hate women, I could see that being slightly more touchy, but whether or not anyone joins me to said group doesn't do anything to stop someone from simply accusing me of hating women, which is the same net effect (I believe).
I'm sympathetic to those affected, but am generally unforgiving of anyone surprised that Facebook screwed something up.
You might see a change if one of Zuck's friends adds him to the "I LIKE SMASHING KITTENS" group. And another adds him to the "Fuck you, I'm rich." group.
And what would that achieve in that case? Nothing!
Just as not being on Facebook achieves nothing — you'll just be completely defenseless if someone tags you in an image (which is horrifying — as far as I'm concerned, the only acceptable solution is to allow only tagging of actual users, and only the ones who consented to that).
