Default privacy settings should be most restrictive

[quicksilver_ink]

Title:
Default privacy settings should be most restrictive

Area:
Privacy settings

Summary:
When journals are created, privacy settings on profile information should default to the most restrictive possible until they are changed by the user.

Description:
When journals are created, privacy settings on profile information should default to the most restrictive possible until they are changed by the user.

I had a delay of a few days between journal creation and getting a chance to really sort things out, and based on the default settings it looked like some of my personal information (email and DOB) was publicly viewable on my profile during that time period, which makes me uncomfortable.

I believe this change would be a good idea because a number of people are currently moving to DW in reaction to LiveJournal's alliance with FaceBook. Most of the people I know who have discussed leaving LJ over this are concerned about privacy issues, and feel that LJ has shown a lack of consideration for their privacy. I believe that making DW privacy settings opt-out would be reassuring to many people.

It would also be an easy way to demonstrate the DW takes privacy seriously and will not be going the FB route of compromising privacy by default.

The only drawback I can see to making this change is that people may need to change more settings to match their desires when they get things set up.

Poll #4428 Default privacy settings should be most restrictive

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 80

View Respondents

This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
45 (56.2%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
6 (7.5%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
18 (22.5%)

(I have no opinion)
9 (11.2%)

(Other: please comment)
2 (2.5%)

Comments

[vangirl]

I definitely think this is a good idea. I think defaulting to privacy is generally a good idea, if only because it errs on the side of caution.

[juliet316]

Huh. Funny, I was able to set my privacy settings right away.

[zaluzianskya]

You can set them right away, but not everyone has a chance to do so immediately.

[aedifica]

Sure, if you have time when you create your journal to go look at all the things you're going to want to customize. Not everybody does. (I think I did, I don't remember at this point, but I do think the OP has a valid point.)

[zvi]

Umm, I think a blanket "default to most private for everything" is probably the wrong call. While DW enables privacy, I don't think that's the social default we want to encourage. We encourage making friends and influencing people.

The e-mail should probably default to being viewable to access list only, and the DOB should default to month and day only display.

I think we can assume that people who have time to set their location have time to set their privacy; it's not required for registration the way DOB and e-mail are.

[matgb]

Disagree completely. If you want privacy, it's there as an option, but if the default is to lock everything down, then people that don't want it and are technically challenged will have problems.

I had a friend once who announced her pregnancy on her journal. But the privacy settings were wrong, and no one could see the post.

You assume most people want privacy. I assume most people want to interact with others. You want to lock your journal down, I want to shout to the world.

Your rationale is a specific use case of people leaving a single different site over a single issue. Those people will alreayd be familiar with the settings and be able to set their privacy as they wish.

But assuming all, or most, users want to hide themselves from the world is a poor assumption, and even if that were true, every single post has the privacy options, and all of them are available on one page in journal settings.

Strongly oppose this idea.

[archangelbeth]

Having data default to the access list only would be a good compromise. If you're doing a fast yoink and have to run, you'll have a teeny access list, or no access list -- and thus no one will see your data.

(Is there an option for month-only DOB? I am seized with amusement at the thought of my DoB reading "Sometime in November." O:> )

[quicksilver_ink]

Well, I know you can remove your DOB info and set just the month. I looked but wasn't able to find a "display month only" option.

[jeeps]

but the suggestion isn't about posts (if it were about autolocking posts unless chosen otherwise, I would also be strongly opposed), it's about personal information being displayed in the profile. I don't think it should be the default to display someone's personal contact information and real life details. just as with posting about personal and real life information (such as pregnancy), the user should be able to decide exactly when that info is available and to which people — before it's already been posted. we don't make people post entries publicly and then go back and make it private, and it should be the same with profiles.

[quicksilver_ink]

If someone is sufficiently tech-challenged that they can't figure out how to edit their journal settings, then their personal information like DOB (required for registration) really should not be broadcasting by default. It's putting them at a risk they cannot protect themselves from.

It's the internet-unsaavy users, who don't know how or don't know to change their privacy settings, whose privacy and identity-security are compromised the most with FaceBook's system.

[jumpuphigh]

+1

[denise]

The DOB does default to month/day only visible, not full DOB. I don't remember what the default for email is.

Good idea

[thejeopardymaze]

In fact I also want to see a return to a walled internet garden, but that's a rant for another time. :P

[faithofone]

Someone up thread mentioned having the default for DOB & email set to access lock, this is what I would think is best.

[reddragdiva]

The geek social fallacies are fallacies.

Who precisely is the "we" you're talking about? Why is this to the benefit of the person creating a journal?

[reddragdiva]

Absolutely. This will also be a differentiation from organisations such as LiveJournal and FaceBook.

[zvi]

We is the people who want Dreamwidth to succeed as a social media service. Social media services are most likely to retain users if those users make social connections to other users of the service. (Witness all of the people who can't quit LJ because of all of the other people who won't quit LJ.)

I, frankly, am failing to see the deep privacy implications of knowing which day of the Gregorian calendar someone was born on, considering that this month/day data is attached only to a username of the person's choosing, which need bear no relationship to their legal name. Day of Month birthday information is not unique, there are only 366 choices for the entire 8 billion people on the planet.

On the other hand, birthday notices encourage low stakes social interaction between users, and social interaction is something to encourage in a social media site.

Hiding off the e-mail address makes a lot more sense to me. It keeps spammers from seeing it, just to start, and it is typically a unique identifier, so could be used to trace someone who didn't want to be found.

What geek social fallacy, specifically, do you accuse me of committing?

[zing_och]

+1

[cesy]

+1

[charamei]

+1

[reddragdiva]

Your suggestion seems to assume #3, #4 and #5.

You've said how it's of benefit to you, on the presumption that DW is to be socially engineered to be a particular sort of site. Which of your arguments don't also apply to Facebook?

[reddragdiva]

Indeed. Facebook wants everything open because it's good for Facebook, even though it's bad for the individuals.

I submit that deliberately setting a privacy leak as the default state to engineer a particular social network outcome is not in the interests of the people whose information is being leaked by default. Not in any way at all.

[reddragdiva]

And you still have not said how this is of benefit to the person who is inadvertently leaking their personal information.

Is it possible that, if enough people leave their data locked down to make a difference, that your assumption that deliberately leaking people's data by default is good may in fact be wrong? And possibly bad?

[ninetydegrees]

On my Dreamhack, the default for system email is: Do not show.

If I'm given paid time, the DW email is also set to: Do not show.

Location is set to everyone but is empty unless you've edited your profile so you would change the access level then.

[matgb]

And your Hack is set to defaults?

So this suggestion is in fact arguing for "no change"?

I misread it as wanting everything locked down, not just profile information, which as you know is a red rag waved in front of my face, but I'm happy with the idea that email and DOB should be obscurd from public view.