Joshua accidentally replied directly to me. I'll return the conversation to the list, and add my response below.
On Tuesday May 24 2011 13:35:24 Joshua Lutes <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Richard Esplin > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > Even though you probably didn't even notice that picture I took of you with > > my cell phone, I can upload it to Facebook and tag it so that next time a > > prospective employer checks your background it's easy to find. Without any > > context, it sure looks bad. > > > > > I guess this could happen. My two-stage security is try not to do things > I'll be ashamed of and to not to be friends with douche bags. > > > > When Eric "privacy is not important" Schmidt thinks something is creepy, I > > take notice. > > > > > > http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/google-says-facial-recognition-creepy-131783 > > > > > To be fair, Eric Schmidt sort of has an interest in making Facebook look > sinister. I am delighted by the face recognition in Picasa and I have > noticed that the online web albums have a mechanism just like Facebook for > tagging folk in photographs. I guess that is different somehow? Not different. I think they are creepy too. Cool technology. Immensely valuable for my local photo collection. But a globally searchable database has lots of sinister implications. And to be clear, I don't think it takes a jerk to create a regrettable scenario. Context is important, and things like Facebook make private relationships public without the additional context. Facebook pushes people to be as open and monetizable as possible, and they make it hard for you to audit or control your reputation. Complete control is a fantasy, but Facebook has repeatedly shown a willingness to ignore their users wishes in how and when information should be shared. Richard /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
