

SmugBlog: Your private photos are still private (response to "dangers of autoincrementing") - toffer
http://blogs.smugmug.com/don/2008/01/28/your-private-photos-are-still-private/

======
__
"When you set your SmugMug gallery to 'private', this is exactly what you're
doing - making the gallery and photos difficult, but not impossible, to find."

Is that the usual definition of 'private'?

~~~
brlewis
Yes, clearly not all users understood "private" the way smugmug uses it. I
think Don is feeling a little defensive now, but tomorrow he'll probably go
ahead and change "private" to "unlisted".

------
koolmoe
His "challenge" is totally missing the point. Just because it is difficult to
identify the owner of a random picture doesn't mean that one couldn't use that
picture against the wishes of the owner.

------
bfioca
This is a case of serious disconnection with user expectations. You see this
all the time - a software company (usually its developers) get so caught up in
their code and the way the do things and their own terminology that they
forget what users actually want and how they use the products. smugmug should
use this as a learning experience, admit their mistake, and remedy the
problem. I see this as a missed opportunity on their part.

------
mhartl
This response is too long.

------
imsteve
Thanks for submitting this toffer.

------
ajkirwin
I had a little fun with that content. Tried things with the site, XSS, fiddled
with the API..

Good lord, I could spider and index this site so very easily, and make off
with a veritable treasure trove of data.

There's no way on the site to properly privatize an image, except putting a
password on it.

~~~
hhm
These photos are really useful... I have some code for skin detection I've
been writing and I need tests for. Now I can download massive sets of data and
test the algorithm against it. I'm not going to do it anyway, but hell it can
be _very_ useful if you decide to use it.

