Internet: Facebook takes another bite at the privacy cherry

Facebook users have all manner of ways of communicating within the system and the current "default setting" is that everything is visible - in some cases to "friends" and in some cases to everyone - including internet search engines. Amongst the criticisms is that a person can be "tagged" (i.e. mentioned) in the caption to a photograph and that the tag becomes instantly visible not just on the page of the person posting the photo but also on the pages of all those who are tagged.

Facebook plans to address the issue by allowing free tagging on the web page of the poster but allowing the person mentioned to choose whether or not it appears on their own page.

But it's not enough: if a photo includes the poster and two "tagged" "friends," then if one approves it, the tag appears on that person's page even though it does not appear on the second one.

The dangers are obvious: a person who has told someone - an employer, spouse or anyone else - that he is in one place and is photographed in another can be "outed" - as can anyone pictured doing something stupid. The photo is not vetoed until all those tagged approve it. So if the poster or anyone else tagged in the picture has, as their "friend" the employer, spouse, etc., then the secret is out regardless of the wishes of any one of them.

Facebook has long had a "consent" control over the "Relationship" section in which a person must seek the approval of the named other before that information can be made public - or even revealed to friends. The information is fine-grained: the identity of the other person can be limited to friends, private or public. However, the new photo-controls do not offer the same protection.

It's not just on "tagging" that Facebook is trying to improve its reputation. Already, anyone posting a photo from a full-service web browser can define who can see it. FB says that, in the new controls which will be implemented as from tomorrow (Thursday),this will be more obvious. The word "Everyone" will be replaced with "public" and there will be a new little graphic to help decide. It's a graphic of the earth for "Public" and talking heads for "friends."

FB says that those who upload photos will be able to restrict those who see them to specific groups of "friends," in a move that is similar to the silos at the heart of Google +, but it denies that the change is influenced by the positive comments about privacy controls designed with a view from the mountain, where - increasingly - Google controls all it surveys.

But for those who upload from many mobile devices, the selection option has not so far been available on FB and the company has not indicated whether it will be made so for the millions who run their FB pages from smartphones.

More information will be subject to controls including the interests section - lambasted when a recent revision provided an opportunity for advertising when all users wanted to do was express their interest in e.g. an author or a recording artist. FV says that under the new controls, the interests section will be subject to approval as to who can see it - but makes no suggestion that the advertiser access will be subject to users' approval.

The new controls will not deal with posting information about another person. If someone puts a "comment" onto a person's "wall" it's there for all (at least all within the confines of the existing permissions) to see. And "friends" can post directly onto a user's "wall." There is no "approvals" system for allowing any "friend's" post to be subject to acceptance, leading to the same risk

Some may argue that this is no different to anyone who writes grafitti on the wall of a public toilet but the reality is hugely different. It is, largely, random as to whether that grafitti will be seen by anyone that matters. But with search engine access to all public data on FB and with a poster having little or no idea who else is a "friend" of the person whose "wall" is written on, the risks of innappropriate data becoming available.

Worse, and perhaps we are wrong, but we cannot find a way in which a person upon whose wall a posting is made can delete it - the poster appears to have full ownership of it. However, "cross posting" under which a posting on one person's wall appears in the "news feed" of his "friends" does include a delete button - however, it only deletes it from the account of the person who deletes it. It remains visible to all the poster's other "friends."

FB says that its new controls will make it easier for users to knowwhat information is available and to whom. To do so, it will place controls next to the information instead of users having, as now, to go to a separate page and to select options for many different classifications.

But it's not enough,says the businessman who found people writing to his new gmail account after it became inadvertently available. "So far as I am concerned, the default setting should be that nothing by or about me is released unless I specifically authorise it, and then only to those I authorise to have it. Until then, FB remains a potential liability. Indeed, the primary reason I have it is defensive rather than informative."

But Facebook is not the only social media to be under attack from users who are concerned about privacy: recently LinkedIn, a business orientated service, angered users by using their photographs in conjunction with advertising without their consent, implying, it was said, an endorsement. LinkedIn reversed the policy within days.