On Wed, 2010-06-23 at 00:39 -0400, Matt Lee wrote: > http://gitorious.org/social/pages/Relationshipmanager > > # GNU social: relationships manager > ## Functional Specification > > Matt Lee > Last Updated: June 22nd, 2010 > > ### Non Goals > > The relationship manager does not expect to fix the following scenarios: > > * Privacy of posted URLs to content -- once something has been posted, > its URL can be shared or the photo/video downloaded and reuploaded > elsewhere. > Interesting. Diaspora makes the URL secure with OpenPGP - it seems like a major loss to not have *any* protection on that level. It's hard to say we care about privacy more than Facebook when we don't offer comparable protection of user data.
> ## Screen by Screen Specification > > The relationship manager for GNU social consists of just two different > screens. > > On the first screen, contacts are listed both individually, or as a > list of groups. Clicking a contact or group goes to the second screen, > whereas selecting multiple contacts prompts for the creation of a new > group, as well as allowing the user to add the selected contacts into > a group. For the sake of simplicity, contacts can belong only in one > group. Why limit contacts to only one group? It doesn't seem to be that much harder to compose groups of other groups (making them more like tags) - it would still be simple to implement and it would allow for more flexibility. What about the case where I want a policy that's subtractive - I want everyone in my family BUT my brother to see something, or I want everyone at work EXCEPT my boss to see some comment, or I want my work friends and my activist friends to see something but I don't want anyone in my family to see something? These could be set in the privacy policy on a given item (if that's possible), but they require something like tags, and we might as well be consistent. The second scenario would be a very good motivation for subtractive privacy policies.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
