Suze's Blog of all things Media

http://suzawoo.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/more-privacy-wars/

Just last week, I blogged about an article posted by one Ryan Tate regarding the letter Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg sent out to everyone about the privacy changes. Ryan believed that Facebook would remove various privacy settings and then set everyone’s options to “what they recommend” AKA Public.

Well, the changes went into effect yesterday. When I logged into Facebook a box popped up asking me to specify my privacy settings. Sure enough, they were suggesting that I choose “everyone” to be able to search for me.

I keep my Facebook settings private for a reason. There are select individuals who who share mutual friends with me – individuals that I do not want to know that I have a Facebook. People that I do not feel comfortable knowing my whereabouts and what I am up to. Previously no one was able to search for me, and if I were to post on a mutual friends account, the “individual” would see my name but no link to contact me or view my profile and no picture.

Now with Facebook’s new settings, there is no longer an option for that. People still cannot search for me which is good. But those previously mentioned individuals can now click on and view my profile, see my profile picture (and the full size at that!), and contact me. There is NOWHERE in the privacy settings for me to turn this off, and I am not pleased one bit.

The only good thing about the changes, is that there is now an option to “view what others can see,” so people can now see what thier profile looks like to everyone.

I was inclined to give Facebook the benefit of the doubt, but sadly they failed me. Thus I give kudos to Ryan Tate for reading between the lines of Mark Zuckerberg’s post.

Is this not an obvious answer?

During my recent trip to Las Vegas, I was watching the News when a segment on gun carry permits came on. It would seem that several Americans think they would feel safer if they were allowed to carry guns with them wherever they go. A gun salesmen was explaining how the process to obtain a gun permit was very strict, and thus claiming that in order to obtain a gun carry permit one would have to be stable. He seemed to think that being able to have a gun for protection purposes was a great idea.

Would I feel safer if I was allowed to carry a gun with me when I walk around late at night? Not really. Why? Several reasons.

One: If I were allowed to bring a gun with me wherever I go, so would everyone else. What good is a gun for protection, when the other party has one two? No doubt whoever I’m up against would be faster. I would feel safe at all, knowing that everyone I pass is likely to be carrying a gun.

Two: Everyday hundreds of accidents occur involving guns. Clearly the ‘safety’ latch only goes so far. Clumsy as I am, I would be likely to shoot myself. But more so, anyone that gets scared and pulls their gun is likely to loose their head and start shooting. What about innocent bystanders?

Three: Children. As it is many children have shot themselves or their friends when they somehow managed to get their hands on their parents guns. If their parents are carrying their guns around everywhere they go, it is ten times more likely for some kid to happen across it. Not to mention the unstable teenagers of the past, the same ones that somehow managed to get guns to shoot up their schools.

How anyone could feel safe knowing that other people passing them on the street could be possessing firearms legally, is beyond me. The possibility that someone is carrying a gun illegally is already scary enough!

A letter was released from Mark Zuckerberg, the creator of the Facebook network, the other day. The letter details how Facebook is Changing in an attempt for everyone to have better control over their privacy settings.

http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=190423927130

I combed through the article and it sounds alright. Facebook believes that the region networks (such as Vancouver or Los Angeles or New York) is no longer needed because when each network has one million plus – its not really serving its purpose. Which is true. So they are removing it and changing their privacy options to what they feel will be simpler and easier to control.

Which sounds okay. I know that most people are afraid of change, and change can often not be all its cracked up to be – but as long as our privacy remains private (or as private as possible on the internet in this day and age :S) I am not inclined to take issue with this particular thing.

Ryan Tate of Gawker, on the other hand, has a completely different opinion:

http://gawker.com/5417145/facebooks-new-privacy-scheme-smells-like-an-anti%20privacy-plot

Ryan Tate is convinced that this is a new scheme to destroy our privacy. While I don’t necessarily agree with his viewpoints on the issue, I do see how he might be suspicious. After all- is privacy safe anywhere on the internet today? Not really. Facebook is first and foremost out there to make money so one can never be truly sure that they won’t sell our souls to the devil, so to speak.

SO I think the article is good in the sense that it warns us to stay on our guard, to ensure our privacy settings are still up to our standards and to keep an eye out for violations of such privacy.

It never hurts to be cautious.