Some privacy incoherence

[wailor]

Title:
Some privacy incoherence

Area:
Profile

Summary:
There's a way that allows people to know I have updated my journal with a filter entry (and they aren't inside that filter).

Description:
Ok so here's what I've noticed:

Imagine you have a few friends and you want to post an entry to prepared a surprised b-day party just for one of them. You don't want him or her to know about it so you'll post a filter entry right? but, if that friend is smart enough and have some curiosity, he or she could discover that I've posted a new filter entry. That's a problem because that person could feel upset about it thinking that I have something to hide to him or her.

The way he or she could discover it is by my profile page. There's some information that I can't hide that tells her or him that there's something new that she or he isn't allow to see. That information is the number of "journal entries" and the "last updated".

The example I wrote up there is just one of multiple cases where it'll be necessary to hide that information and I can't think a reason why I couldn't hide it.

So, my suggestion is to allow to hide that information as I do with other things like my birthday, my location, etc.

Poll #12623 Some privacy incoherence

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 64

View Respondents

This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
11 (17.2%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
8 (12.5%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
32 (50.0%)

(I have no opinion)
11 (17.2%)

(Other: please comment)
2 (3.1%)

Comments

[marahmarie]

Voting "with changes"...my changes are to set our profiles to say, "Last publicly posted on [such and such date]" then show total entry count only to yourself and/or to others only while logged-in and always along the same filters as your access-list. Make it opt-in for those who prefer the old behavior? I really am strongly in favor of implementing this somehow.

[denise]

to others only while logged-in and always along the same filters as your access-list

Couldn't do that: way, way too database-intensive.

[dhamphir]

I'm not a programmer, but I kinda had a feeling that was going to be an issue with this.

[denise]

Yeah, "number of entries in the account" is a single and easy query, while the other would be "query for all entries in account, iterate through, query for security level of each".

[wailor]

I don't know how is implemented DW but this is a very common problem in programming and there are two ways of solving this: the one you have said and the one using counters. For each user, you can have a field with the count of every public entry and another field for the count of every access entry. If the user have filters, I suppose they are listed in a table so, adding a field for "entry counts" will simplify the queries at the DB.

I know that this solution has it cost. It needs more space and being updating those fields every time a user post an entry. But then you only need to check a few fields to know the exact number of entries a user can see depending on his or her security level.

Like I said before, I'm not sure if all this work is worth just for a small detail, that's why I suggested the option of just hide it (if the user want it). And, despite all the comments I have read here, it seems to me that the only problem I'll have having hidden the numbers of entries and "last updated" date, is that they won't trust me at the time of giving me access to their entries, just because they don't know if I update my journal frequently. In my opinion, that's a risk I can take.

[marahmarie]

Too bad; its the one option I'm really excited about. So I'd say, "Well, then, what about just showing the true count only to yourself while logged in?" (same as showing the true count based on private entry tallies only to yourself while logged in, I guess?) but that takes all the oomph and the exactitude - and I'm a slave to accurate numbers - out of the idea.

If I ever win Lotto I will buy you databases to do this, I swear..

[wailor]

If I ever win Lotto I will buy you databases to do this, I swear..

Hahahahaha that's very kind of you.

[marahmarie]

I probably owe Denise a database or two for putting up with me; true story. :)

[cheyinka]

That would break the use of the feature for anyone who uses it to check activity, see if they need to log in, etc, just as much as hiding the data entirely.

[marahmarie]

Point is, ability to check other's activity is what's being treated as a right here and I'm not sure it should be. My version of OP's suggestion (which is also OP's version; we completely agree on how to implement it) is to take control from the person viewing the account and give it back to the person who owns it, to let them decide how much they want to share. I don't see that as breaking anything but current expectations as to how much snooping/checking up on an account can be done.

[cheyinka]

I do not think having that information is a right, but it is something that people do use for non-nefarious purposes. You (and others) see a problem; I (and others) would have a feature taken away by your solution; I think it's fair to point that out.

Does the information have to be completely hidden?

[cheyinka]

Would it work for you if the last-posted-date was fuzzier for people not the user? E.g "a day ago" "within the last week" "within the last month/two months/n months" "within the last year/two years/n years", plus "about 400 journal entries" or "about 700 journal entries" or "about 27,200 journal entries"?

Re: Does the information have to be completely hidden?

[marahmarie]

No.

But...if that was the only way to get things closer to how I want them, I guess I would go along with it (from the Dept. of Something's Better Than Nothing).

Oh, and the reason it wouldn't work? Because I hate fuzzy math, fuzzy numbers - fuzzy anything, for that matter. It's not just the imprecision involved, it's the untruthfulness of it. If I last publicly updated 3 years and 2 days ago then that's what I want my Profile to say. Rounding looks weaselly, dishonest, I just don't like it.

But again, you know, that's just me.