Private Logging

[+StarBrand]

I've never quite understood how seeing a list of where a person was at a previous point in time is somehow equated to stalking that somebody.

[jholly]

The feature we're contemplating mirrors what DocW said. We're only considering hiding the contents of the user's profile page, but not the underlying data. So if a user hides their profile content from display, you won't be able to use their profile to find out what caches they've logged. But, if you happen to be looking at a cache they logged, their log will still be displayed for that cache. So all of the user's logging activity will still be public, it just won't be summarized on their profile page.

 

Why would you be so adamantly against this? Even to the point where you're basically accusing the poor fellow above of running around on his wife? Sorry, but I just don't understand arguing against a website implementing privacy settings. What would be the harm to anyone if what Elias states above is being "contemplated" was implemented?

 

Because it's somewhat pointless to do it that way.

cool. So the individual logs can't be shown or google will find them. We are now back to the only way to be private is not to log online and don't sign the caches paper logbook. Like I said, nothing is private on the internet.

[+t4e]

I think some folks are overly paranoid.

 

 

i so want to capitalize on that somehow, but haven't thought of a good way to do it...maybe tin foil hats?

[Mr.Yuck]

The feature we're contemplating mirrors what DocW said. We're only considering hiding the contents of the user's profile page, but not the underlying data. So if a user hides their profile content from display, you won't be able to use their profile to find out what caches they've logged. But, if you happen to be looking at a cache they logged, their log will still be displayed for that cache. So all of the user's logging activity will still be public, it just won't be summarized on their profile page.

 

Why would you be so adamantly against this? Even to the point where you're basically accusing the poor fellow above of running around on his wife? Sorry, but I just don't understand arguing against a website implementing privacy settings. What would be the harm to anyone if what Elias states above is being "contemplated" was implemented?

 

Because it's somewhat pointless to do it that way.

 

Not exactly 2204 cache logs, in order, by date, since 19 August 2003. More like 18 results, and 4 or 5 of them are Travel Bugs. I find it fascinating which 18 of them are listed though, I wonder how that happened?

 

I posted this with a tinfoil hat on, by the way. And if you think I'm kidding, I'm not. I will make any and all remaining posts to this thread while wearing the tinfoil hat.

[+dfx]

Not exactly 2204 cache logs, in order, by date, since 19 August 2003. More like 18 results, and 4 or 5 of them are Travel Bugs. I find it fascinating which 18 of them are listed though, I wonder how that happened?

Google doesn't seem to be overly thorough with crawling gc.com, but it's not the only search engine out there. It merely proves the point that it's still possible to see somebody's finds, all of them, even if the list isn't directly available through their profile. It just takes a bit more effort to get the list.

 

I think removing the list from people's profile would give them a false sense of security, they'd be inclined to think that it's not possible to see their finds at all and that they'd be "safe" (from whatever). I strongly believe that "security through obscurity" is not the way to go. If Groundspeak wants to allow people to make their list of finds "private", then they need to hide everything (including the logs themselves, which I think is a bad idea). It's either all or nothing.

[+DanOCan]

Everyone knew what they were getting into when they signed up to this website. Everyone knew what they were posting was going to be accessible to the public.

 

Seriously people, if your privacy means that much to you -- don't post it on the internet and expect a website's privacy controls to keep it secure. The only way to keep something private on the internet is to not put it there.

[+briansnat]

Most people use pseudonyms here anyway so what is the point of hiding what are already anonymous logs? If you don't want your ex-wife to stalk you through this site don't tell her your geo-name.

[+RhinoInAToga]

Most people use pseudonyms here anyway so what is the point of hiding what are already anonymous logs? If you don't want your ex-wife to stalk you through this site don't tell her your geo-name.

I was under the impression that it's one of the first things you do when you have a vindictive ex on your hands..change all usernames & passwords that they know about. They might know about some you didn't think they did, so change them all. Including voicemail passwords. That's what I did when my ex turned into a vindictive whiner anyways. Problem solved.

It never ceases to amaze me that 9 times out of 10 the person who walked away from the relationship in the first place turns out to be the one who wants to retain absolute control even after they're gone & doing what they want with who they want, when they want.

That's a bit off topic.. Just saying.

[Mr.Yuck]

Everyone knew what they were getting into when they signed up to this website. Everyone knew what they were posting was going to be accessible to the public.

 

Seriously people, if your privacy means that much to you -- don't post it on the internet and expect a website's privacy controls to keep it secure. The only way to keep something private on the internet is to not put it there.

 

"Seriously people"? Believe me, I'm serious. You think when Facebook implemented security controls, people were going around ranting "if you don't want anyone in the entire world to be able to see your Facebook wall and photos, stay off of Facebook"? Maybe they were, I wasn't paying attention.

 

For the record, I wouldn't even use this myself. But reading the comments in the 600+ vote feedback thread, there are plenty of people who would, and I say give it to them.

[+t4e]

Everyone knew what they were getting into when they signed up to this website. Everyone knew what they were posting was going to be accessible to the public.

 

Seriously people, if your privacy means that much to you -- don't post it on the internet and expect a website's privacy controls to keep it secure. The only way to keep something private on the internet is to not put it there.

 

"Seriously people"? Believe me, I'm serious. You think when Facebook implemented security controls, people were going around ranting "if you don't want anyone in the entire world to be able to see your Facebook wall and photos, stay off of Facebook"? Maybe they were, I wasn't paying attention.

 

For the record, I wouldn't even use this myself. But reading the comments in the 600+ vote feedback thread, there are plenty of people who would, and I say give it to them.

 

600? that's a drop in the bucket compared to the total number of active cachers in the whole world

and don't tell me not all come to the forums...if they had a genuine concern about their privacy they would find either the forums or the user voice

 

for 600 its not worth the time and effort for GC to spend it on an useless feature...can just mail out some tinfoil hats like you're wearing

[+briansnat]

Everyone knew what they were getting into when they signed up to this website. Everyone knew what they were posting was going to be accessible to the public.

 

Seriously people, if your privacy means that much to you -- don't post it on the internet and expect a website's privacy controls to keep it secure. The only way to keep something private on the internet is to not put it there.

 

"Seriously people"? Believe me, I'm serious. You think when Facebook implemented security controls, people were going around ranting "if you don't want anyone in the entire world to be able to see your Facebook wall and photos, stay off of Facebook"? Maybe they were, I wasn't paying attention.

 

For the record, I wouldn't even use this myself. But reading the comments in the 600+ vote feedback thread, there are plenty of people who would, and I say give it to them.

 

If you read that thread there are an awful lot of people who are against it. If they were allowed negative votes I'm sure that 600 votes would be far fewer.

[+Team Taran]

Actually there are 251 people who have voted for it. Granted the average number of votes is 2.47 which indicates a degree of passion in their support but it also true that a number of people offer quite passionate opposition. I really think this request is based on a misconception of what geocaching.com is for. New cachers in particular seem determined to view it as a social networking site. So you see people passionately demanding more privacy controls and others requesting the ability to search for other cachers. See this recent suggestion on the feedback site: Seach for cachers

[+BuckeyeClan]

Everyone knew what they were getting into when they signed up to this website. Everyone knew what they were posting was going to be accessible to the public.

 

Seriously people, if your privacy means that much to you -- don't post it on the internet and expect a website's privacy controls to keep it secure. The only way to keep something private on the internet is to not put it there.

 

"Seriously people"? Believe me, I'm serious. You think when Facebook implemented security controls, people were going around ranting "if you don't want anyone in the entire world to be able to see your Facebook wall and photos, stay off of Facebook"? Maybe they were, I wasn't paying attention.

 

For the record, I wouldn't even use this myself. But reading the comments in the 600+ vote feedback thread, there are plenty of people who would, and I say give it to them.

 

But then, if somebody posts a comment or complaint in the forums about a cache without providing the GC code, we wouldn't all be able to dig through their finds and figure out which cache they are talking about! I honestly can't decide if that is a good or bad thing!

[Pup Patrol]

I've never quite understood how seeing a list of where a person was at a previous point in time is somehow equated to stalking that somebody.

 

It's finally dawned on me why some people are concerned with "privacy" and geocaching.

 

It's the same "problem" with posting your adventures on Facebook...your employer or teacher or insurance company can look back and see where you were on a specific day.

 

There was a case of a woman on disability posting her beach day photos on her Facebook page, and then being surprised that the insurance company used those photos as evidence.

 

Privacy is what you make of it. As previously stated, you knew what you were getting into when you signed up for even a free account with Groundspeak. If you didn't know, then that's your failure.

 

If posting your online logs for caching will cause problems, then don't post them. Not everyone posts logs online.

 

But then don't go blabbing about it on your blog or Facebook page, either.

 

It's not Groundspeak's problem, so there's no need to change the way things are and have been for 10 years.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Pup Patrol

[+t4e]

It's finally dawned on me why some people are concerned with "privacy" and geocaching.

 

It's the same "problem" with posting your adventures on Facebook...your employer or teacher or insurance company can look back and see where you were on a specific day.

 

There was a case of a woman on disability posting her beach day photos on her Facebook page, and then being surprised that the insurance company used those photos as evidence.

 

Privacy is what you make of it. As previously stated, you knew what you were getting into when you signed up for even a free account with Groundspeak. If you didn't know, then that's your failure.

 

If posting your online logs for caching will cause problems, then don't post them. Not everyone posts logs online.

 

But then don't go blabbing about it on your blog or Facebook page, either.

 

It's not Groundspeak's problem, so there's no need to change the way things are and have been for 10 years.

 

exactly what i said already in few posts and on user voice....if you want to hide lies you can't call it invasion of privacy

 

there have been many cases like the one you describe above, and that is just fraud, plain and simple

she just made the fraud investigator's job very easy

 

some people invoke the privacy issue to cover up for fraud and that is just not kosher

Edited June 9, 2011 by t4e

[+Too Tall John]

Here is what Elias from Groundspeak says they are considering implementing. And excuse my post to the feedback forum, I said it was OpinioNate, but it was actually Elias

The feature we're contemplating mirrors what DocW said. We're only considering hiding the contents of the user's profile page, but not the underlying data. So if a user hides their profile content from display, you won't be able to use their profile to find out what caches they've logged. But, if you happen to be looking at a cache they logged, their log will still be displayed for that cache. So all of the user's logging activity will still be public, it just won't be summarized on their profile page.

Why would you be so adamantly against this? Even to the point where you're basically accusing the poor fellow above of running around on his wife? Sorry, but I just don't understand arguing against a website implementing privacy settings. What would be the harm to anyone if what Elias states above is being "contemplated" was implemented?

Someone already stated a good reason against it, but it bears repeating.

 

It is a tool to help determine false logs. I look all the time at cache histories of people who log my Earthcache, especially when there's something in the log that makes me go "Hmm...?" If they've logged the EC, but not the easy-peasy traditional practically in the parking lot (or at least some cache nearby!), I'm going to ask some questions. I've deleted ore than a couple logs after being clued in by this method.

 

On a different tack: What does the lack of ability to look at someone's caching history do to the usefulness of Favorites? If I see someone has favorited caches X, Y, and Z that I'm thinking about getting, if I can't see in their history that they also favorited caches A, B, and C which I thought were real stinkers, what's the point?

[jholly]

It's the same "problem" with posting your adventures on Facebook...your employer or teacher or insurance company can look back and see where you were on a specific day.

 

And that might well be the problem and the demand for private listings. On the social networking sites where you use your real name and the connection between you and what your doing is easy on GC.com it is a bit harder. Here you can see the caches marigold123 did and what day they were logged. But who is marigold123? Unless marigold123 lets you in on the secret you don't know. Come on folks, this is not facebook.

[+dfx]

Come on folks, this is not facebook.

 

!!!!!!!!!

[+larryc43230]

Come on folks, this is not facebook.

+1

 

And if it ever becomes Facebook, or very much like it, I'm out of here.

 

--Larry

[Pup Patrol]

It's the same "problem" with posting your adventures on Facebook...your employer or teacher or insurance company can look back and see where you were on a specific day.

 

And that might well be the problem and the demand for private listings. On the social networking sites where you use your real name and the connection between you and what your doing is easy on GC.com it is a bit harder. Here you can see the caches marigold123 did and what day they were logged. But who is marigold123? Unless marigold123 lets you in on the secret you don't know. Come on folks, this is not facebook.

 

But some folks DO use their real name as their geocaching name. So, would be easy to do a google search for their activities here.

 

There are folks who post their photos in logs and on their profile page. If one wants to be "anonymous", then that would be one of the other things to stop doing.

 

Easy answer...come up with a different username for your geocaching account, and don't blab about it in other places on the internet.

 

I'm still a little amazed that after 10 years, going on 11 now, that people are concerned with being secretive when it comes to geocaching. I'm just flummoxed by it.

 

If the feedback site allowed for "NO" votes, I would head right over there.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Pup Patrol

[+sbell111]

But some folks DO use their real name as their geocaching name. So, would be easy to do a google search for their activities here.

It's a pretty good bet that these people are not the ones that are clamoring for privacy controls.

[+t4e]

It's the same "problem" with posting your adventures on Facebook...your employer or teacher or insurance company can look back and see where you were on a specific day.

 

And that might well be the problem and the demand for private listings. On the social networking sites where you use your real name and the connection between you and what your doing is easy on GC.com it is a bit harder. Here you can see the caches marigold123 did and what day they were logged. But who is marigold123? Unless marigold123 lets you in on the secret you don't know. Come on folks, this is not facebook.

 

But some folks DO use their real name as their geocaching name. So, would be easy to do a google search for their activities here.

 

There are folks who post their photos in logs and on their profile page. If one wants to be "anonymous", then that would be one of the other things to stop doing.

 

Easy answer...come up with a different username for your geocaching account, and don't blab about it in other places on the internet.

 

I'm still a little amazed that after 10 years, going on 11 now, that people are concerned with being secretive when it comes to geocaching. I'm just flummoxed by it.

 

If the feedback site allowed for "NO" votes, I would head right over there.

 

if they use real name that's a major FAIL...shouldn't be complaining about privacy, i wonder though how many of those people are actually using FACEBOOK and are under the false impression that it offers them privacy just because they can clickity click some setting, speaking of which here's the latest amazing feature from FB

[+L0ne.R]

The feature we're contemplating mirrors what DocW said. We're only considering hiding the contents of the user's profile page, but not the underlying data. So if a user hides their profile content from display, you won't be able to use their profile to find out what caches they've logged. But, if you happen to be looking at a cache they logged, their log will still be displayed for that cache. So all of the user's logging activity will still be public, it just won't be summarized on their profile page.

 

Why would you be so adamantly against this? Even to the point where you're basically accusing the poor fellow above of running around on his wife? Sorry, but I just don't understand arguing against a website implementing privacy settings. What would be the harm to anyone if what Elias states above is being "contemplated" was implemented?

 

Because it's somewhat pointless to do it that way.

cool. So the individual logs can't be shown or google will find them. We are now back to the only way to be private is not to log online and don't sign the caches paper logbook. Like I said, nothing is private on the internet.

On AtlasQuest you can't see the comments/logs without signing in first. Isn't it the same way with Facebook?

Plus it's set so that letterboxes don't show up in a google search.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Lone R

[+DanOCan]

"Seriously people"? Believe me, I'm serious. You think when Facebook implemented security controls, people were going around ranting "if you don't want anyone in the entire world to be able to see your Facebook wall and photos, stay off of Facebook"? Maybe they were, I wasn't paying attention.

 

 

Privacy controls are to the internet what birth control is to sex. They might make you feel safer, but when they fail -- watch out! (I hope that is still family friendly enough for the forums! )

[AZcachemeister]

 

On a different tack: What does the lack of ability to look at someone's caching history do to the usefulness of Favorites? If I see someone has favorited caches X, Y, and Z that I'm thinking about getting, if I can't see in their history that they also favorited caches A, B, and C which I thought were real stinkers, what's the point?

 

Similarly, when I think about hunting a cache that has one or more DNFs, I will look at the cacher's history to help determine their experience level so I know if I have a chance of finding or not.

[mresoteric]

 

600? that's a drop in the bucket compared to the total number of active cachers in the whole world

and don't tell me not all come to the forums...if they had a genuine concern about their privacy they would find either the forums or the user voice

 

for 600 its not worth the time and effort for GC to spend it on an useless feature...can just mail out some tinfoil hats like you're wearing

 

What number would make it worth their time and effort?

 

I see ideas that have been implemented with a lot less votes.

[+t4e]

 

600? that's a drop in the bucket compared to the total number of active cachers in the whole world

and don't tell me not all come to the forums...if they had a genuine concern about their privacy they would find either the forums or the user voice

 

for 600 its not worth the time and effort for GC to spend it on an useless feature...can just mail out some tinfoil hats like you're wearing

 

What number would make it worth their time and effort?

 

I see ideas that have been implemented with a lot less votes.

 

in this case, if more than 50% of the users requested hiding their logs i would say the majority wins

 

yes, other features have been implemented on lesser votes because it was determined that the said feature will benefit the majority of users, perhaps because there was no other way around it, but there are a lot of very easy and clear options, which have been mentioned numerous times in this thread and others, for those trying to hide their profiles due to privacy concerns

 

maybe someone should create a new site called "Caching In A Bubble" where users can be invisible to each other...personally i really enjoy the current interaction with other players through their logs

Edited June 10, 2011 by t4e

[mresoteric]

 

600? that's a drop in the bucket compared to the total number of active cachers in the whole world

and don't tell me not all come to the forums...if they had a genuine concern about their privacy they would find either the forums or the user voice

 

for 600 its not worth the time and effort for GC to spend it on an useless feature...can just mail out some tinfoil hats like you're wearing

 

What number would make it worth their time and effort?

 

I see ideas that have been implemented with a lot less votes.

 

in this case, if more than 50% of the users requested hiding their logs i would say the majority wins

 

yes, other features have been implemented on lesser votes because it was determined that the said feature will benefit the majority of users, perhaps because there was no other way around it, but there are a lot of very easy and clear options, which have been mentioned numerous times in this thread and others, for those trying to hide their profiles due to privacy concerns

 

maybe someone should create a new site called "Caching In A Bubble" where users can be invisible to each other...personally i really enjoy the current interaction with other players through their logs

 

I don't think Groundspeak is a democracy. So even if you could muster 50% + 1 votes (50% is not a majority), there is no guarantee they will implement your idea.

 

The idea that is being touted on the feedback site is to be able to hide your finds in your profile. Your logs would still remain on the cache listings for all to see.

 

Whether it gets implemented or not probably depends more on the level of difficulty involved from a programming perspective than it does on the number of votes. I'm pretty sure that's why some of the simpler ideas with fewer votes get implemented quickly while other ideas with tons of votes take months to be implemented.

 

As far as the OP's idea goes, I don't get it either. If you're concerned about others seeing what you write, just log a blank log or none at all.

[jholly]

 

The idea that is being touted on the feedback site is to be able to hide your finds in your profile. Your logs would still remain on the cache listings for all to see.

 

 

And if your signing the paper logs and your logs appear online then then someone determined to track you will generate the profile. So what's the point? If your terrified that someone will know what caches your going to then the best policy to hide that information is don't sign the paper log and don't log on line. Given the programming prowess of this site I would be highly suspicious and very untrusting of any security offered.

[mresoteric]

 

The idea that is being touted on the feedback site is to be able to hide your finds in your profile. Your logs would still remain on the cache listings for all to see.

 

 

And if your signing the paper logs and your logs appear online then then someone determined to track you will generate the profile. So what's the point? If your terrified that someone will know what caches your going to then the best policy to hide that information is don't sign the paper log and don't log on line. Given the programming prowess of this site I would be highly suspicious and very untrusting of any security offered.

 

It would possible for someone to reconstruct your caching history, but it would require significantly more work than just viewing someone's profile and getting the list handed to you.

[jholly]

 

The idea that is being touted on the feedback site is to be able to hide your finds in your profile. Your logs would still remain on the cache listings for all to see.

 

 

And if your signing the paper logs and your logs appear online then then someone determined to track you will generate the profile. So what's the point? If your terrified that someone will know what caches your going to then the best policy to hide that information is don't sign the paper log and don't log on line. Given the programming prowess of this site I would be highly suspicious and very untrusting of any security offered.

 

It would possible for someone to reconstruct your caching history, but it would require significantly more work than just viewing someone's profile and getting the list handed to you.

If the reason you want private logging is because your afraid someone is or will track you via your finds then you best do what you can to do hide your activities. If all this site does is hide the profile list then your essentially toast because there other ways to get that list on this site and other ways of getting that list via other sites. If your logging on line your probably going to be tracked. The effort might vary and depending on the determination of the tracker, it simply might not matter. If you want your actions hidden not loggng online and not signing the paper log is the best bet.

[+t4e]

 

The idea that is being touted on the feedback site is to be able to hide your finds in your profile. Your logs would still remain on the cache listings for all to see.

 

 

And if your signing the paper logs and your logs appear online then then someone determined to track you will generate the profile. So what's the point? If your terrified that someone will know what caches your going to then the best policy to hide that information is don't sign the paper log and don't log on line. Given the programming prowess of this site I would be highly suspicious and very untrusting of any security offered.

 

It would possible for someone to reconstruct your caching history, but it would require significantly more work than just viewing someone's profile and getting the list handed to you.

 

and what possible harm can come to me from someone that knows where i've been last week?

Edited June 10, 2011 by t4e

[mresoteric]

 

The idea that is being touted on the feedback site is to be able to hide your finds in your profile. Your logs would still remain on the cache listings for all to see.

 

 

And if your signing the paper logs and your logs appear online then then someone determined to track you will generate the profile. So what's the point? If your terrified that someone will know what caches your going to then the best policy to hide that information is don't sign the paper log and don't log on line. Given the programming prowess of this site I would be highly suspicious and very untrusting of any security offered.

 

It would possible for someone to reconstruct your caching history, but it would require significantly more work than just viewing someone's profile and getting the list handed to you.

 

and what possible harm can come to me from someone that knows where i've been last week?

 

I don't know. Notice it's not my name on that feedback article. But if Groundspeak agrees with the 600+ votes and decides to implement it, I'm ok with that.

[jholly]

 

The idea that is being touted on the feedback site is to be able to hide your finds in your profile. Your logs would still remain on the cache listings for all to see.

 

 

And if your signing the paper logs and your logs appear online then then someone determined to track you will generate the profile. So what's the point? If your terrified that someone will know what caches your going to then the best policy to hide that information is don't sign the paper log and don't log on line. Given the programming prowess of this site I would be highly suspicious and very untrusting of any security offered.

 

It would possible for someone to reconstruct your caching history, but it would require significantly more work than just viewing someone's profile and getting the list handed to you.

 

and what possible harm can come to me from someone that knows where i've been last week?

Because I might call you or email you and ask you where that stupid thing is and then you will be exposed as an armchair logger

[+dfx]

But if Groundspeak agrees with the 600+ votes and decides to implement it, I'm ok with that.

 

So am I, but I'm not looking forward to those "my profile is set to private, how could they figure out which caches I've logged" threads

[jholly]

But if Groundspeak agrees with the 600+ votes and decides to implement it, I'm ok with that.

 

So am I, but I'm not looking forward to those "my profile is set to private, how could they figure out which caches I've logged" threads

I think those would be rather entertaining.

[mresoteric]

But if Groundspeak agrees with the 600+ votes and decides to implement it, I'm ok with that.

 

So am I, but I'm not looking forward to those "my profile is set to private, how could they figure out which caches I've logged" threads

 

I know. Difficult, eh?

[+t4e]

 

The idea that is being touted on the feedback site is to be able to hide your finds in your profile. Your logs would still remain on the cache listings for all to see.

 

 

And if your signing the paper logs and your logs appear online then then someone determined to track you will generate the profile. So what's the point? If your terrified that someone will know what caches your going to then the best policy to hide that information is don't sign the paper log and don't log on line. Given the programming prowess of this site I would be highly suspicious and very untrusting of any security offered.

 

It would possible for someone to reconstruct your caching history, but it would require significantly more work than just viewing someone's profile and getting the list handed to you.

 

and what possible harm can come to me from someone that knows where i've been last week?

Because I might call you or email you and ask you where that stupid thing is and then you will be exposed as an armchair logger

 

oooh noes God forbid

 

[+dfx]

But if Groundspeak agrees with the 600+ votes and decides to implement it, I'm ok with that.

 

So am I, but I'm not looking forward to those "my profile is set to private, how could they figure out which caches I've logged" threads

 

I know. Difficult, eh?

 

You do realize that the removal of exactly this is what everybody's talking about?

[mresoteric]

But if Groundspeak agrees with the 600+ votes and decides to implement it, I'm ok with that.

 

So am I, but I'm not looking forward to those "my profile is set to private, how could they figure out which caches I've logged" threads

 

I know. Difficult, eh?

 

You do realize that the removal of exactly this is what everybody's talking about?

 

Yep.

[+Coldgears]

But if Groundspeak agrees with the 600+ votes and decides to implement it, I'm ok with that.

 

So am I, but I'm not looking forward to those "my profile is set to private, how could they figure out which caches I've logged" threads

 

I know. Difficult, eh?

 

You do realize that the removal of exactly this is what everybody's talking about?

 

Yep.

Wat?

[+briansnat]

 

The idea that is being touted on the feedback site is to be able to hide your finds in your profile. Your logs would still remain on the cache listings for all to see.

 

 

And if your signing the paper logs and your logs appear online then then someone determined to track you will generate the profile. So what's the point? If your terrified that someone will know what caches your going to then the best policy to hide that information is don't sign the paper log and don't log on line. Given the programming prowess of this site I would be highly suspicious and very untrusting of any security offered.

 

It would possible for someone to reconstruct your caching history, but it would require significantly more work than just viewing someone's profile and getting the list handed to you.

 

and what possible harm can come to me from someone that knows where i've been last week?

 

Because next week they will know where you were today.

[+M 5]

I find it somewhat funny, that while the site seems to be becoming less and less of a community with the support of blank logs and the increase in short c&P and tftc only logs, that it seems to me the same smartphone influx of geocachers are also wanting more social networking features.

[jholly]

I find it somewhat funny, that while the site seems to be becoming less and less of a community with the support of blank logs and the increase in short c&P and tftc only logs, that it seems to me the same smartphone influx of geocachers are also wanting more social networking features.

Does seem that way. And along with all the social networking features they want all these privacy buttons.

[+t4e]

 

The idea that is being touted on the feedback site is to be able to hide your finds in your profile. Your logs would still remain on the cache listings for all to see.

 

 

And if your signing the paper logs and your logs appear online then then someone determined to track you will generate the profile. So what's the point? If your terrified that someone will know what caches your going to then the best policy to hide that information is don't sign the paper log and don't log on line. Given the programming prowess of this site I would be highly suspicious and very untrusting of any security offered.

 

It would possible for someone to reconstruct your caching history, but it would require significantly more work than just viewing someone's profile and getting the list handed to you.

 

and what possible harm can come to me from someone that knows where i've been last week?

 

Because next week they will know where you were today.

 

ooh thanks, now i don't think i'm going to be able to sleep well anymore

[+dfx]

Yep.

 

Ok

I totally fail to make any sense of your reply then btw. But w/e.

[mresoteric]

Yep.

 

Ok

I totally fail to make any sense of your reply then btw. But w/e.

 

My reply was just to show that there is more than one way to get information about geocachers, verifying that I am fully aware of what you were saying when you said this:

 

So am I, but I'm not looking forward to those "my profile is set to private, how could they figure out which caches I've logged" threads

 

Unless Groundspeak addresses all the different places where someone can find information about a cacher's finds, then your prophesy will likely become reality if and when Groundspeak decides to allow us to set our profile to private.

[+t4e]

Yep.

 

Ok

I totally fail to make any sense of your reply then btw. But w/e.

 

My reply was just to show that there is more than one way to get information about geocachers, verifying that I am fully aware of what you were saying when you said this:

 

So am I, but I'm not looking forward to those "my profile is set to private, how could they figure out which caches I've logged" threads

 

Unless Groundspeak addresses all the different places where someone can find information about a cacher's finds, then your prophesy will likely become reality if and when Groundspeak decides to allow us to set our profile to private.

 

if its going to be possible to hide our profile all those places you're talking about will not be available anymore

[mresoteric]

Yep.

 

Ok

I totally fail to make any sense of your reply then btw. But w/e.

 

My reply was just to show that there is more than one way to get information about geocachers, verifying that I am fully aware of what you were saying when you said this:

 

So am I, but I'm not looking forward to those "my profile is set to private, how could they figure out which caches I've logged" threads

 

Unless Groundspeak addresses all the different places where someone can find information about a cacher's finds, then your prophesy will likely become reality if and when Groundspeak decides to allow us to set our profile to private.

 

if its going to be possible to hide our profile all those places you're talking about will not be available anymore

 

Only if Groundspeak addresses all those areas. I did that search from the regular search, not the profile. It would make sense though that if Groundspeak decided to implement private profiles that they would take care to address the other areas as well. But who knows. Mistakes are always made. So there is still a high likelihood that DFX's prophesy would come to fruition.

[+dfx]

So there is still a high likelihood that DFX's prophesy would come to fruition.

 

The prophecy was about external means to figure out what logs you made. As long as the logs themselves are still there (and they said they wouldn't remove/hide those), it will always be possible to build a "profile" of a cacher, even if the site itself doesn't provide any mechanism to find them.

 

If they do implement profile privacy, I would well expect them to remove all capabilities to search for a user's finds in any way. I'd consider anything else as a bug. However, it will still be possible to find somebody's logs if they're still visible on the cache pages.

 

So, unless they decide to give people the option to hide everything they do from everywhere, including the logs themselves, there won't be any such thing as "privacy".