There is a post in a Slashdot user Felipe Hoffa's journal entitled Google Reader shares private data, ruins Christmas (alternate link) which contains a very damning indictment of the Google Reader team. It all starts with the release of the Sharing with Friends feature which is described below

We've just launched a new feature that makes it easier to follow your
friends' shared items in Google Reader. Check out the announcement on
our blog:
http://googlereader.blogspot.com/2007/12/reader-and-talk-are-friends....

The short description of it is this: If any of your friends from
Google Talk are using Reader and sharing items, you'll see them listed
in your sidebar under "Friends' shared items." Similarly, they'll be
able to see any items you're sharing. You can hide items from any
friend you don't want to see, and you can also opt out of sharing by
removing all your shared items. For full details, check out the
following help articles:
http://www.google.com/support/reader/bin/answer.py?answer=83000
http://www.google.com/support/reader/bin/answer.py?answer=83041

This is still a very experimental feature, so we'd love to hear what
you think of it.

Unsurprisingly, there has been a massive negative outcry about this feature. The main reason for the flood of complaints (many of which are excerpted in Felipe Hoffa's journal) is the fact that the Google Reader team has decided to define "friends" as anyone in your Gmail contact list.

On the surface this seems a lot like the initial backlash over the Facebook news feed. Google Reader users are complaining about their Gmail contacts having an easy way of viewing a list of feeds the user had already made public. I imagine that the Google folks have begun to make arguments like "If Facebook can get away with it, we should be able to as well" to justify some of their recent social networking moves such as this one and Google Profiles.

However the Google Reader team made failed to grasp two key aspects of social software  here:

1. Internet Users Don't Fully Grasp that Everything on the Web is Public Unless Behind Access Controls: To most users of the Internet, if I create a Web page and don't tell anyone about it, then the page is private and known only to me. Similarly, if I create a blog or shared bookmarks on a social bookmarking site then no one should know about it unless I send them links to the page. 

   As someone who's worked on the Access Control technology behind Windows Live sharing initiatives from SkyDrive to Windows Live Spaces I know this isn't the case. The only way to make something private on the Web is to place it behind access controls that require users to be authenticated and authorized before they can view the content you've created.

   The Google Reader developers assumed that their average users were like me and would assume that their content was public even if it had an obfuscated URL. The problem here is that even if it was "technically" true that Shared Items in Google Reader were public although with an obfuscated URL, the fact that there was URL obfuscation involved implies that they realized that users didn't want their Shared Items to be PUBLIC. Arguing that the items were "technically" public and thus justifying broadcasting the items to the user's Gmail contacts seems dubious at best.

2. Friends in One Context are not Necessarily Friends in Another: The bigger problem is that the folks at Google are trying to build a unified social graph across all their application as a way to compete with the powerful social network that Facebook has built. I've previously talked about the problems faced by a unified social graph based on what I've seen working on the social graph contacts platform for Windows Live. The fact that I send someone email does not mean that I want to make them an IM buddy nor does it mean that I want them to have access to all the items I find interesting in my RSS feeds since some of these items may reveal political, religious or even sexual leanings that I did not mean to share with someone I just happen to exchange email with frequently.

   Deciding that instead of having GTalk IM buddies, Gmail contacts, and Google Reader friends that users should just have Google Friends may simplify things for some program managers at Google but it causes problems for users who now have to deal with the consequence of their different social contexts beginning to bleed into each other. Even though Facebook is a single application, they have this problem with users having to manage contacts from multiple social contexts (family, friends, co-workers, etc) within a single application let alone applications with extremely different uses.

My assumption is that the folks at Google Reader will put in a some time over the weekend and will add granular privacy controls as recommended by Robert Scoble. I also predict that we will see more ham fisted attempts to grow their social graph at the expense of user privacy from various large [and small] Web properties including Facebook in 2008. 

In the words of Scott McNealy, "Privacy is Dead. Get Over It"