On 04/05/2010 11:43 PM, Simon Fondire-Teitler wrote:
On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 16:22:05 -0500, Jake LeMaster<[email protected]> 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
