Off by default, perhaps
I don't recall setting my privacy settings for my gmail account when I first created it, but when I recently checked those settings in response to a notification of this new 'feature', I discovered that the 'permission to use' was already checked OFF. It _seems_, therefore, to be "off by default".
Anybody else look at this?
I like a lot of friends pages not because I like the content but because they are my friends. Basket weaving and kittens aren't really my thing, honest. It doesn't take that much more effort to start salting the data so you like things you've never heard of and that starts to devalue the value of X likes Y. The photo is a nice touch as well.
If I thought something was worth talking to my friends about I'd bring it up.
"the majority of those users signed up to Google+ didn't actually interact with it, so the appearance of their faces in ads might in fact come as a bit of a shock to some people."
I'm just guessing from personal experience, but my money is on the non-interaction with Google+ extending to people not having uploaded a profile photo in the first place (not of their actual face anyway.) I would say there will be a lot of photos of babies and pets advertising stuff as this is rolled out...
If they didn't interact with it, why would their picture be used? I thought the idea was that if you +1 Coca Cola, your friend might see a Coca Cola ad with your picture next to it, saying they had +1'd it.
I don't think they're planning to place random pictures beside random adverts. There wouldn't be any real benefit to the advertiser and lots of problems when a prominent PETA activist finds their photo used in an advert for the National Beef Association.
Until social sites in draconian fashion force the display of a true, verifie mugshot (think South Korean mandatory real ID in order to do just about ANYthing on the Internet), why all the bruhaha over face pics? Only those with REAL photos need worry. Well -- only they, so long as Google does not compel using verified, real faces. Right now, even fb is not forcing it
Re: For my curiosity
Google has their Android apps set up to require Google+ and I honestly can't figure out what it is either. It appears to be a mix of extreme personal data harvesting and a vast wasteland reviews generated by malware. It's very easy to replace Chrome, Maps, and GMail with privacy honoring alternatives so Google should be careful.
I'm just about to purchase my first Android phone, having clung to my old indestructable clam shell for years.
I definitely will not be adding a profile to Google plus.
Just wiki'd it and immediately got the ad about the change terms and conditions.
I don't have any internet friends on Google, have never had the urge to plus much of anything other than the odd comment here, so bollocks to Google!
Hmm gives me an idea for my profile pic!
Punctuation and Grammar, El Reg.
It's not just for the written word, how are we Code Monkeys supposed to quit early when faced with ...
s/Google has insisted it will respect its users' sensibilities – which means it won't (full stop)
(need a Capital "S" ?) suddenly begin displaying (should be "beginning to display" maybe ?) everyone's faces in its ads./Silicon Valley business as usual/i
This could take hours if I'm being paid by the hour.
Without users' explicit permission, Google should not take consumer posts and turn them into product endorsements
Not everything said by Democrats evil? Curse you Senator Markey! Google is slowly hanging itself, joining the ranks of Apple and Microsoft. Maybe founders of successful companies slowly stop caring, seems to be a recurring theme. So much for do no evil.
Re: Holy crap
Even a member of Congress can get it right once in a while. Of course this is just the sort of trivially obvious issue they like to jump on while the legislative branch writhes about in pathological incapability.
Markey is a prime example of the foolishness that exists on both sides of the aisle; with fellow nitwit Fred Upton (Republican), he was the main force behind the completely unnecessary, unproductive, and disruptive change in Daylight Saving Time in the US a few years ago. (Of course, Markey trotted out the "energy savings" canard, while Upton at least offered the believable, if dumb, excuse that it would let kids do more trick-or-treating on Halloween. More candy: that's what made America great!)