

Randi Zuckerberg Also Confused About Facebook Privacy - codegeek
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100339568

======
rweba
I think there is an interesting gray area here actually that I haven't seen
discussed.

Randi posted the picture as "friends only" but due to Facebook's policies it
turns out that people other than those friends could see the picture.

First question: If a friend posts something as "friends only" are you
ethically bound not to publicly share it? I think most people would answer
YES, under the assumption that if they wanted to make it public they would
have posted it publicly.

But there are a couple of interesting wrinkles here :

1\. Facebook's interface did not make it clear to Callie that this was a
"friends only" post. Because it showed up in her feed she assumed it was
public and meant for public consumption.

2\. The presence of Mark Zuckerberg in the picture. Zuckerberg is essentially
a celebrity and it seems there is a widespread assumption that ANY picture
with a celebrity in it (whether Justin Bieber or President Obama) is fair game
for sharing in a way that does not apply to non celebrities. I think if the
picture did not include Mark Zuckerberg it is far less likely Callie or anyone
else would have thought it was appropriate to share it.

~~~
loceng
If you want someone to not share something, you show them in person - on your
own computer - without giving them access to a digital copy.

~~~
arrrg
I don't think it's too much to ask for someone to be polite and decent.

~~~
loceng
Indeed, yet they didn't ask - it was assumed. Both parties assumed. Equally so
it's not too much to ask for someone to state how private or public an image
or piece of information is. This is really why it's up to the individual to
keep things private when they truly want them to be. There is no real thing
called privacy. And human behaviour on average dictates that a) people make
mistakes and could share things they might not mean to, and b) that many
people, the less close they are to you the more so, that will not think about
being able to easily share something (perhaps unless expressly stated
otherwise in that moment).

------
mephi5t0
If you post something on internet, not to mention on a Facebook page, be ready
to make it public. End of story. Decency/shmecency. Facebook constantly leaks
your data or change the policy by adding some checkbox to your settings that
is set to yes by default and if you missed that change ( I am sure we all read
through a huge policy updates) then you are screwed until someone points out
the new UI change. I thought decency works both ways because Facebook is also
"people"?

~~~
zaidf
_Facebook constantly leaks your data or change the policy by adding some
checkbox to your settings that is set to yes by default and if you missed that
change ( I am sure we all read through a huge policy updates) then you are
screwed until someone points out the new UI change_

Do you have any specific examples?

~~~
uptown
[http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/epic-facebook-timeline-
ch...](http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/epic-facebook-timeline-changes-
users-privacy-settings/7103)

[http://us.gizmodo.com/5921085/facebook-just-changed-your-
ema...](http://us.gizmodo.com/5921085/facebook-just-changed-your-email-
without-asking++heres-how-to-fix-it)

------
businessleads
It seems most people are not aware that tagging someone as present with you
basically posts to their timeline and expands the viewership of your post to
whatever the settings are of all the tag-ees.

We want to talk privacy with Mark Zuckerberg as well. We put a $2.5k bounty on
it: [https://businessleads.com/post/592-Mark-Zuckerberg-Wed-
Like-...](https://businessleads.com/post/592-Mark-Zuckerberg-Wed-Like-to-
Speak-With-You)

~~~
fudged71
Users are given lower-class features than pages/brands, unfortunately. For
pages, you can see how many people see your posts; for users, you have to do
the math yourself. Users can select how much of another user's posts they see
(most important | all | only important), whereas users can only turn page
updates on or off.

I wonder if people would post differently if they saw how quickly their posts
propagated through Facebook when people like and comment their public posts,
or when people are tagged in their photos.

~~~
businessleads
Right. For brands it encourages them to see those numbers. If it doesn't, it
encourages them to sponsor stories. For users it's more likely to have them
taking a look at their privacy settings and locking stuff down.

------
ryguytilidie
So after pushing every single one of its billion users to make more things
public, to the point of physically changing your settings, they complain that
one of their photos was made public and shared. To complain about someone
elses etiquette here is absolutely laughable, and the fact that it was done in
public versus in private makes me think that the ex-director of marketing just
missed the spotlight and wanted a story.

------
drcube
People are all talking about Zuck's sister, but the major issue here, as I see
it, is that private family photos of _Mark Zuckerberg himself_ are spreading
across the web because of Facebook's privacy shortcomings.

Honestly, it just shows that internet privacy, far from being just a "really
hard problem" is essentially impossible. I'd prefer it if Facebook just dumped
the pretense and made everything public from now on. At least then nobody
would get the false sense of security and be fooled into thinking they can
control who sees what they post online. It's all public, guys. Even Mark
Zuckerberg's private family Christmas photos.

~~~
zem
it's not a really hard problem in general; it's a really hard problem when
layered atop facebook's constant attempts to subvert it. from a technical
perspective it would not have been hard to add a "only these people can see
it, and no one can reshare it" setting, which would need people actually
copying the image and making a deliberate effort to violate (a very different
thing from a psychological perspective).

------
rootedbox
The picture in question.
[http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/189jscna7tjb4jpg/original.jp...](http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/189jscna7tjb4jpg/original.jpg)

------
lobster45
There is no privacy online. Period. A few years back when Mark Zuckerberg's
pictures leaked out, he kept quiet which was a great PR move unlike this time.

------
silentmars
I tried helping a stereotypically computer-unskilled person with some Facebook
issues recently. They had some problems that made it look like someone might
have gotten access to their account. So I wanted to go in and make sure that
they were in good shape - change password, check that the emails were all ok,
make sure that the phone number for the account hadn't been changed by someone
so they could get access into the account again. It's rather difficult to do.
Facebook's interface has become so difficult and complicated, that I had to
look around for quite some time to be able to do these basic things.

------
loceng
A similar issue is going to arise when Facebook Poke photos start showing up
in public. Someone can easily use another device to take a photo of the 'self-
destructing' photos.

I'm unsure if Snapchat/Facebook put this unsexy disclaimer that would stop the
behaviours people think the possible consequences of might be protected -
however I'm guessing the virility from its sexiness and infamy would diminish
greatly.

------
martin-adams
The sad fact of this is that while Randi managed to figure out how the mishap
happened, there are a billion other users who might not.

Yes, posting anything online should be assumed to be in the public domain. But
that doesn't mean we should have to put up with the poor UX of unclear
expectations and no visibility of what is going on.

------
downandout
In case anyone wants to see the rather unremarkable photo that this whole
thing is over, see:

[http://jezebel.com/5971234/randi-zuckerberg-accidentally-
sha...](http://jezebel.com/5971234/randi-zuckerberg-accidentally-shared-a-
private-family-photo-because-she-doesnt-understand-facebooks-privacy-settings)

~~~
rhizome
How about not paying Nick Denton for it?

<http://i.imgur.com/en5PP.jpg>

~~~
aw3c2
thanks!

------
samstave
Given that she was a key force behind the _"Startup: Silicon Valley"_ show,
I'd say she is confused on a lot more than just FB issues she ostensibly
should have been familiar with given her position there...

I cannot say enough bad things about hat show.

~~~
minimaxir
The show was effectively canceled due to poor ratings, along with its sibling
LOLWork.

It self-corrected.

~~~
samstave
I did not know this. Thanks.

We really could use a fantastic silicon valley focused TV/Video channel/site
-- but I don't see it happening any time soon.

------
guan
There’s no evidence in the article that she was confused about anything. She
figured out that the tweeter could see the photo because of a connection with
her sister.

~~~
rhizome
Her stated intent contradicts your interpretation. She posted not thinking it
could propagate and she only figured it out after the fact.

~~~
spiantino
She posted it as "friends only" and tagged her family members. The person who
tweeted it saw it and assumed that it was showing up because she is a
subscriber of Randi's public posts, though in reality it wasn't public and she
saw it through a friend connection with one of Randi's sisters. She tweeted
the image based on that assumption. Randi saw it, was surprised, and then
discovered how it happened (because Randi knows how privacy controls work
quite well). They communicated on Twitter and realized the misunderstanding.
The end.

~~~
muzz
Randi didn't seem to know that "friends only" meant that Callie-- and
presumably other friends of those who were tagged-- could see it.

Her 12:36am tweet indicates as such:
[http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr03/2012/12/26/...](http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr03/2012/12/26/0/enhanced-
buzz-12528-1356501313-0.jpg)

~~~
spiantino
No, she (understandably) didn't know Callie was friends with her sister.

~~~
rhizome
Now she knows that she has to check, despite the text of the feature, thanks
to the FB security model.

I think we can all expect an FB permissions update in 1Q13 that touches on
this experience of hers.

------
alan_cx
The stand out for me is not getting FB "privacy" wrong, no one seem sure what
that actually is, let alone how it might manifest its self, but the amusing
fact that she thought deleting the twatter conversation would hide her
blushes. If one is going to fail at that point, dont even bother trying to
decrypt FB "privacy" controls.

~~~
rhizome
Maybe it's guerilla research for free user-volunteered information about their
sharing-privacy shortcomings.

------
aes256
TL;DR: Randi Zuckerburg doesn't want her Twitter followers to see photos of
her looking ugly

------
tomrod
There is a way to fix this madness.

<http://www.facebook.com/help/224562897555674>

------
businessleads
When I first saw the story I was sure it was going to be about how easy it is
to save and broadcast a photo from the Poke App.

------
danso
> _"Digital etiquette: always ask permission before posting a friend's photo
> publicly. It's not about privacy settings, it's about human decency," Randi
> said in a tweet._

Schadenfreude and just desserts aside, Randi has a good point here. So much of
the talk about privacy on social networks overlooks the problem of human
nature. Most people won't have their privacy most painfully violated by a
service, but by those in their network who carelessly forward their digital
communications.

(to clarify: I'm not absolving FB of blame...I'm assuming that just about
everyone here agrees that FB's privacy implementation is not great. I'm just
saying that Randi's point, even if it was said to deflect responsibility, is
true in the larger sense. As we'll find out as Poke w/ pics becomes more
popular)

~~~
woodchuck64
The interface led Callie Schweitzer to think the photo was public. Instead of
criticizing the interface, Randi pretends that "human decency" is the issue.
What a crock.

~~~
loceng
Indeed, this also highlights that most of your 'Facebook friends' aren't
really friends or people who would care or think twice about making sure your
actions would fit with the person/people who'd be affected.

------
enraged_camel
Who cares what Zuckerberg's sister thinks? Does being his sister make her some
form of authority on online privacy, such that her being confused would be
some kind of "see, I told ya!"?

~~~
kevinh
Sister? No. Former marketing director of Facebook? She probably should know
the privacy settings. Having people at your company (or that _used_ to be at
your company) confused about policies is usually a sign that you should either
clarify or simplify them.

~~~
enraged_camel
>>Sister? No. Former marketing director of Facebook? She probably should know
the privacy settings.

Wait, what? I work for a software company, and our marketing people (including
up to Director level) are some of the _least_ knowledgeable people when it
comes to how our software actually works.

~~~
arscan
Privacy isn't some obscure feature or an implementation detail, it is one of
facebook's major issues from a marketing perspective. The fact that she so
publicly got it wrong is a disgrace.

~~~
k-mcgrady
How did she get it wrong? The photo wasn't posted publicly. Somebody she
shared it with took it and posted it publicly on a different social network.

~~~
arscan
Did you read the article?

Somebody Randi shared it with used the tag (or comment) feature, which then
caused it to show up in the feed of Randi's friends-of-friends. Those people
had no idea that the image wasn't public (because they don't directly know
her), and simply assumed it came through a public feed.

Randi thought that one of her friends somehow shared the image, which wasn't
the case at all. They were simply using a common Facebook feature. She clearly
misunderstood what was happening. And she acknowledged her misunderstanding by
deleting her twitter comments on the matter.

~~~
k-mcgrady
Did you read the article??

Directly from Zuckerberg's tweet:

""@cschweitz not sure where you got this photo. I posted it on FB. You
reposting it to Twitter is way uncool," Randi said in her tweet."

It was reposted to twitter. Randi shared a photo on Facebook. This person was
able to see it because she was friends with Randi's sister (friend of friend).
The user then took the photo from a semi-private space and shared it publicly
on Twitter.

------
peterhost
This is the LOL of the day :) I almost dropped my post PC device laughing out
quite loud. Twighlight-scale drama. A Keeper.

