Social networking site Facebook was today criticised for changes to its privacy settings it said would allow users to share more.
The company said its current system, under which users have specific controls over individual features, was no longer fit for purpose.
Instead it is testing standardised privacy settings for all the different applications and features available th
rough the site.
In a post on the site's official blog, chief privacy officer Chris Kelly said: "The compounding effect of more and more settings has made controlling privacy on Facebook too complicated."
The site would "simplify" settings by putting them all on the same page and making sure that the privacy options for different features were always the same, he said.
Facebook is also phasing out regional networks – such as London or Manchester – as they "don't adequately reflect a world where people choose exactly the audience with whom they wish to share".
However the moves provoked concerns because the settings listed as recommended disclose much of the user's information to strangers.
"There's both good and bad," Tom Royal, deputy editor of Computeractive magazine, said.
"I'm a little bit worried about the recommended settings because as far I can can see it's actually sharing quite a lot of information with quite a few people.
"That's not something we would advise people to do. We would very much recommend people choose the "limited" option instead.
"For example, just your date of birth can be a security question on many internet applications."
Under the new system, users will be able to decide the privacy settings for each bit of content, be it a post or photo, they publish on their page.
They will have the option to share their information with "everyone", a move seen by industry watchers as a bid to compete with Twitter, the popular micro-blogging site on which users tend to share all their posts with strangers.
But Mr Royal said: "People put so much stuff on their Facebook profile that it is just a different application from Twitter."
The full article contains 344 words and appears in scotsman.com newspaper.
