[LINK] faux-privacy ? (was: It's Queensland - (sorry to Qlders))

[eric scheid]

Now that the Ben Grubb brushfire is dieing down, can we discuss the spark
that caused it?

<http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/facebook-breakins-polic
e-say-receiving-photos-like-taking-stolen-tvs-20110518-1esad.html>

> [...] specifically, Facebook photos
> that were taken from the site by a security researcher to demonstrate
> flaws in Facebook's privacy settings.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Detective Superintendent Hay used an analogy to describe why Grubb
> was targeted.
> 
> "Someone breaks into your house and they steal a TV and they give
> that TV to you and you know that TV is stolen," he said.

Apart from the flawed nature of using physical property as an analogy of
digital copies (well discussed already) ... I believe D.S. Hay's analogy is
flawed in a far more fundamental way.

>From what I understand of the Facebook privacy flaw, the following might be
a more accurate analogy:

    I have a photo of a dear friend. I have attached that photo
    to a tree on the side of a public road somewhere in Sydney,
    in plain sight to any passerby. You don't know which tree,
    or even which street.

    If you're my friend, I'll tell you where to find it.
    If you're not my friend you could mug me and find the
    location written on a note in my pocket, or break into
    my home to find the note, etc etc.

    Or you could wander the streets of Sydney looking for it.
    And eventually find it. In plain view. On a public street.


Now, it would appear that the security researcher (a) realised that the
second approach was actually an option, and (b) acted on that idea.

So ... what questions does this prompt? (including of course, is this
analogy reasonably accurate)

For starters, is Facebook on shaky ground by saying they're protecting your
privacy but then making all your private stuff so publicly available? Are
they promising something they are failing to deliver on?

e.