Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am pretty sure you are mistaken. This is the prompt everyone got when they went to buzz for the first time: http://www.digitaltrends.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/goog... This is also shown in the Google buzz demo video. Responsibility lies on you when you decide not to edit the follow users and check privacy setting when its right in front of you the first time. The only way forward is to click OK, thats what you…
Why is he being down-voted? (-3 at the moment) Oh right, "we don't like his comment, let's get rid of it." Jesus, people, behave. He's making his case based on his knowledge of the situation and he's doing so in an educated manner. Me, personally, I'm in his same situation. I can't understand how people got automatically added to that Buzz thing. The link appeared in my Gmail account and I never clicked it, NEVER. I…
Automatically followed by abusive ex-husband (and his friends) on Google Buzz
221–230 of 287 posts
Re: Automatically followed by abusive ex-husband (and his friends) on Google Buzz
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
Clicking "No thanks" in this instance is not a command to disable buzz it is actually a dismissal of the tutorial page. Buzz will still be enabled either choice you make. There should be an obvious opt out of buzz on the splash screen page. The way to turn it off is a very small textual link in the footer of the page that says turn off buzz.
Obfuscated opt-out is pretty much the definition of 'evil'.
I doubt the google programmers are stupid but I would say that they probably were excited by the new feature that they are proud of and didn't think that people would want to opt out of it before even trying it.
Re: Automatically followed by abusive ex-husband (and his friends) on Google Buzz
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
They were using their profile privacy settings, and it violated it, or was it more a case of the feature enabling itself in Gmail and using existing privacy settings? Edit: And because it needs to be said here: I'm not suggesting enabling Buzz and then using existing privacy settings as a bases for how Buzz works is right. I'm just asking a question.
This was their first interaction with Buzz. There was no opportunity to set any privacy settings. They are both Reader users, and did have limited sharing enabled there, but under what logic should those permissions ever extend to a completely new, different service with wholly different privacy concerns?
From this thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1121034
Anyways, here is my take. Buzz isn't a new product so much as it's a new feature of Gmail. It's as much a new product as any new feature of Gmail is. It's also tied into most of the areas Gmail is, and tied into the rest of Google, and uses Google Profiles.
Google made the assumption that because this wasn't so much a complete new product, but rather an extension to an existing one, that it should use existing permissions. And looking at it that way, I can easily see them doing what they did.
What they didn't suspect, or expect I'm sure, is that people would see it not as a Gmail feature, but rather as a completely different system unrelated to Gmail and rather, tacked onto it.
I can see how Google looks at Buzz as merely an extension to Gmail. Gmail is, after all, their communications tool, including email, chat, and eventually (we know this is coming), Wave. Buzz is merely another way to communicate, and because so much of Gmail already includes so many other connections, Buzz being a framework to share things that Email, Chat, and what not are effective at, they built it with a familiar way of doing things. They then assumed (and I'm assuming all of this, mind you) that because they were building on top of an existing structure, that much of the privacy concerns that have arisen were already in use by the people that were concerned with it.
So, the question is, not whether Google was right or wrong, but rather, where do we draw the line? When does a new feature become a new product that requires new permissions, and when is a feature merely a feature that can use existing permissions. After all, there is so much that they do add where we don't blink an eye or concern ourselves with permissions or privacy, despite the potential for problems down the line.
I understand what they did, and why they did it (if my assertions are correct). However, there is more to learn here than to just say "Make everything private." The reality is, most users make assumptions about privacy (this is excellent proof of that), and so do companies. I honestly don't think Google went with Buzz and said "Let's destroy users privacy." I also hope this heightens people's awareness to the state or privacy on the web.
Re: Automatically followed by abusive ex-husband (and his friends) on Google Buzz
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In both cases, they clicked "No thanks, take me to my inbox" instead of the button to "Check out Buzz", and in both cases, Buzz was enabled anyways That's exactly what happened to me. I'm really pissed off with Google now. If they are going to throw this sort of crap at me, I will have to reconsider whether I want gmail and reader accounts.
Clicking "No thanks" in this instance is not a command to disable buzz it is actually a dismissal of the tutorial page. Buzz will still be enabled either choice you make. There should be an obvious opt out of buzz on the splash screen page. The way to turn it off is a very small textual link in the footer of the page that says turn off buzz.
Important quote from http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10451703-2.html
"But all this does is remove active links, leaving your profile still publicly available, along with any public buzzes you might have made while trying Buzz out. In fact, you're still technically following people, and they're following you. Not OK."
Re: Automatically followed by abusive ex-husband (and his friends) on Google Buzz
#225http://www.businessinsider.com/google-adding-two-privacy-fea...
Re: Automatically followed by abusive ex-husband (and his friends) on Google Buzz
#226I think the point most people are missing is that the data Google shared was already public . Reader has its own privacy and sharing policies, and as far as I can tell Buzz respects these. Even if this person successfully polices Buzz, the reader feed is still out there, public and waiting to be found. Reader privacy settings can be changed at https://www.google.com/reader/view/?tab=my#friends-manager-p...
Re: Automatically followed by abusive ex-husband (and his friends) on Google Buzz
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not for me. They just said "The following people have been added automatically..." At least, I did not manually add anyone and I had a bunch of people added.
The weird part is that of my 6 followers, 2 are people I've never heard of before. One is following 20 and the other 77 and they don't look like spammers, just complete strangers with no reason to have found and followed me.
Re: Automatically followed by abusive ex-husband (and his friends) on Google Buzz
#228If you're an active user of Google Reader's social networking features who tried out Buzz, please chime in. I wonder if it really happened as automatically as it sounds, from the post, or if she missed something. (I've tried out Buzz, but haven't used Google Reader in months.)
Seems OK with me. In fact, I kind of like it.
Only complaints I have are: 1. Missing tagging functionality (or I haven't found one) 2. No centralized 'privacy control panel'
Re: Automatically followed by abusive ex-husband (and his friends) on Google Buzz
#229Re: Automatically followed by abusive ex-husband (and his friends) on Google Buzz
#230The choice between privacy goes something like this on the internet these days. Be apart of the internet and give up all hope of privacy, or don't participate and be a Luddite. This choice is not acceptable or practical for any future. Google grossly underestimated how important privacy has become to average user in last year or two. Unfortunately this could have been the killer feature that Buzz could leverage over…
It's a bit unfair to say that Twitter is bad at privacy. Twitter is public by its very nature. Google Buzz seems to be the same. Don't want to participate? Turn it off. I would also disagree that Facebook's take on privacy is "downright scary," given the range of privacy settings you can choose. It's not some half-assed implementation on their part. Perhaps you take issue with the default settings? No one set of priv…
But, I agree with the article that Facebook is really getting it wrong. Instead of having a default how about present them with a simple dialog. Explain the issues, and ask them what settings the user wants? Share with Everyone, Share with My Friends, etc.
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebooks_zuckerberg_sa...
Then the accusations that if you or one of your friends fills out a poll your information is shared with the poll author. (As noted on Twit Podcast). So yes I think those are some scary things.