[ if you were already over this topic, plonk the thread ] ----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill.Pilloud" <bill.pilloud@gmail.com>
Is this not the nature of social media? If you want to make sure something is secure (sensitive information), Why is it on social media. If you are worried about it being monetised, I think Google has already done that.
No. Because "sensitive" is a word with different definitions at different times for different people. I don't mind my friends knowing that I (used to) go to Rocky Horror every Saturday night and run around in my underwear. I don't particularly want a potential employer to know that, and I might not want a new girlfriend to know it *immediately*. The promise of Social Networking is *precisely* that it permits this more fine-grained *control* (that's the key word, for those who weren't playing the home game) over the information you disseminate, as opposed to just posting all of it on your blog. *Telling people you're going to provide them that control* and then being sloppy about it -- or worse, purposefully evil -- is the thing that has people up in arms. As usual, the underlying issue is one of trust. Alas, I see no theoretical way that distributed systems like Diaspora *can* provide some of the functions that are core to systems like Facebook, *exactly by virtue* (vice?) of the fact that they are distributed; there is no central Trust Broker. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274