Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_

[Ian Denhardt]

On 04/05/2010 11:43 PM, Simon Fondire-Teitler wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 16:22:05 -0500, Jake LeMaster<address@hidden>  wrote:
>    
> > This would seem like a decent compromise anyway. You still won't be
> > able to stop pictures of yourself from cropping up around you, but
> > it's not like you can do that off the internet either. At least this
> > will allow you to control what others see when they specifically
> > search for photos of you.
> >
> >      
> I agree with this. From what I can recall from when I used facebook (we
> all make mistakes), it has something similar to this, where you
> can untag yourself from a photo so it does not show up in "Photos of
> me". The person can then manually add in your name on the photo, but it
> does not link to you or show up under your photos. I feel that this is a
> good way of handling it. The same could be applied to notes and the
> like.
>
> As for blurring out the face, I do not think that this is feasible
> without some person looking at the photo and deciding whether it is the
> same person.
>
>       --simonft
>
>
>    
Here's the problem I see with this: I'm running a gnu social instance on 
my own server, quite literally a PC sitting under my bed. How do you 
justify saying I can't make your name, as it appears on my website, 
running on my hardware, a link to anywhere I please? Supposing I don't 
have an instance of GNU Social, I just have a website. should I not be 
allowed to manually link to various people, who may or may not want me 
to do so? It's possible it would be impolite of me, but ultimately 
there's a free speech issue there.

I'm not arguing privacy isn't important, but there's a conflict. 
Certainly we need access controls so that I can control who can access 
what on my profile, But it feels a bit draconian for you to be able to 
have access controls that determine what I can post on my website. I 
don't think I would run the software at all if it allowed for this, or 
since it is free software, I would simply remove the functionality.

-Ian