71–80 of 95 posts
This seems 100% reasonable to me. If somebody tags me I want to see that photo - and the entire album (since context is also important). I don't want that somebody starts taging me on some photos and then sharing these photos with others without me having chance to untag myself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My expectation would be that the specific photos I tag Person A in are automatically visible to Person A. I think this is reasonable, and other concerns come up if a person is unable to see which photos they are tagged in. Making the entire album visible to Person A, I think, is not as reasonable.
Actually, the album is very important too. The album as a whole makes a story and by tagging photos you can make up actors of that story. For example, what about if album is "actors of porn movie X" or something like (the title of album could be more innocent) and one of photos in that album has you tagged? Regarding sharing, why would you want to tag somebody with his/her public profile without even telling him/her…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You hit the big UI problem and where Google failed. The fact that I tagged a picture has nothing to do with visibility. I added a personal note to the picture to give me more information. A simple discrete event. The fact somebody decided to add a part to the use case that now shares the photo is really bad design. Folks really need to stop themselves from making user actions have much longer reach than what the user…
One could argue that if you take a photo of someone, they ought to know that you took it of them. In fact that's an argument in support of auto-tagging. You can always untasg.
If I don't know them I'm not going to tag them because I have no idea who they are, but I may want to share the event with people that I do know. Now with auto tagging these people I don't know are tagged in my photos and I have to share not only my photo of them with them, but the entire album? That seems to be really over reaching. Auto tagging and automatic sharing seems like the worst possible option to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because its me. If you have a picture of me and want to link it to my profile information then I think it would be reasonable for me to know you have that picture. There is obvious benefit for me to have that picture shared with me and aware that it exists instead of it being hidden away in your private collection. Tagging is sharing. I see tagging as creating a link between the photo and my google+ profile. Maybe th…
It's completely and utterly irrelevant that it's you. I took the picture, it's MY picture. I have thousands of physical pictures captured on 35mm film. I have names and dates written on them, should I have to give a copy of all of those pictures to the people that are in them simply because I put their name on the back? Should I have to give them a copy because I wrote their URL on the back? The additional meta data…
In the case of physical photos, no I dont think you need to give everyone a copy because that would take effort on your part. Sharing on google+ is costless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only allowing the owner to share an album is a false sense of security. If someone can see your album, they could just as easily download the photos and make them public. Instead of disallowing it outright, I'd rather they make it clear that you're sharing content with a wider audience. One solution would be to require that the owner approves the share, similar to how tagging is handled.
That's good idea. But it still wouldn't solve the issue of people downloading the photos and making them public.
This seems 100% reasonable to me. If somebody tags me I want to see that photo - and the entire album (since context is also important). I don't want that somebody starts taging me on some photos and then sharing these photos with others without me having chance to untag myself.
Disclaimer: I have not tested whether or not this actually happens, so I'm taking the original article (and its comments) by their word. I do find it irritating though that anyone can apparently see the action of me tagging myself in a photo in my stream, regardless of the privacy settings of that photo.
On the one hand, I can understand the point of view of the people who are upset about this and there should at least be a way to disable this behavior. On the other hand I view putting photos online (or even just having them on a computer that connects to the Internet) as basically a binary sharing of that photo with the entire world already. The Internet is like a reverse black hole that sucks in all available infor…
So, are you okay with the idea of the entire world seeing all your emails, or don't you use email?
This seems 100% reasonable to me. If somebody tags me I want to see that photo - and the entire album (since context is also important). I don't want that somebody starts taging me on some photos and then sharing these photos with others without me having chance to untag myself.
If someone has photos of you and emails them to their friends you have no right nor expectation of notification. Maybe they might make rude comments behind your back. Not nice, but its a private conversation and they should be allowed to be rude in private.
On the other hand, if Google suddenly and unexpectedly makes my private photo album public just because I tag some people, that makes their service useless for non-public sharing of photos. I will therefore not use it and go back to sharing the photos by some other service.
The whole point of Google+ is that I can keep interaction with different circles separate. Unlike facebook I (thought I could) load photos that my friends would see but not my work colleagues. This sharing from tagging breaks that.
We are not talking about public albums. If you tag someone in a public album, then its fine to notify them. But for a private album making is effectively entirely public just because I tag one person is completely unacceptable. I have uploaded those photos with a reasonable expectation that they not be made public nor shared beyond the friends I want to share them with. If G+
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm with you. This is how it works on Facebook and I suspect this is how the majority of people expect it to work. Not only that, this is not only the behavior I expect but the behavior I want. I suppose it might be OK with me if someone tagged me in a photo that was private just to the person who took it. But it would be a huge, huge problem if someone could tag me in a photo and share it to some circles that didn't…
What if you tagged an embarrassing photo of me... This happened to me 3 HOURS after joining facebook, and was not even ill-intentioned. (ah, young people!) edit: I marked tagged photos as private for a year till that photo was untagged. The photo is still there. :(
I gave an actual occurrence for a hypothetical. The only offense I can see is that it was anecdotal evidence.
edit: thanks to those who upvoted me back to 1 :)
There's one more privacy feature/annoyance with photos on Google Plus. Apparently when I share an album with someone, that person in turn can share that album with other people and can also see who else I've shared it with. Now what's the point of a private album if everyone else can share my album. I like how Facebook solves this problem. You, as the album owner get to choose who sees the album. People who you've se…
Only allowing the owner to share an album is a false sense of security. If someone can see your album, they could just as easily download the photos and make them public. Instead of disallowing it outright, I'd rather they make it clear that you're sharing content with a wider audience. One solution would be to require that the owner approves the share, similar to how tagging is handled.
This post was originally shared with a limited audience –
remember to be thoughtful about who you share it with.