[ if you were already over this topic, plonk the thread ] ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bill.Pilloud" <bill.pill...@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 j...@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
