[kunalb]

I'm not sure that's such a huge sin -- technically I think FB says that you cannot have more than 1 account/actual person; I'd imagine when this `feature` was baked in the engineers didn't imagine that anyone would maintain an account that 1) they would keep hidden from friends _and_ 2) add their phone numbers to.

At the very least, the friend could have blocked the set of people he didn't want to know about his preferences from the "gay" account: otherwise what stopped a simple search by name from showing both accounts?

[gregschlom]

You got two assumptions wrong here:

1. People may very well have an account with a fake name, so that it doesn't show up in search. In France, for example, a large number of FB users are stripping out the vowels from their last name to make their FB account less findable.

2. According to the article, it's not the "gay friend" that put his phone number on his hidden account. He merely has OP's number in his phone address book (wich is normal since they are friends in real life), and the FB app is pulling this information.

[kunalb]

Hmm. 1) Fake name, yes -- I wasn't aware of that practice; not that common in India, at least in my friend circle.

2) That was what I meant -- syncing actual details with your anonymous persona.

[zem]

i'm indian and i have several friends with fake names.

[danielharan]

That simple search by name would not show his account with the gay persona - so they thought they were safe. His phone # was probably not listed publicly either.

You work at Facebook, don't you?

[kunalb]

I am supposed to _start_ work at FB assuming I get a visa.

I'm a bit curious about why a search for name won't show the alternate persona? I've had friends who made 2 profiles and both used to show up whenever I typed their name in; and his # being listed publicly doesn't affect the argument either way.

Edit: Reply to child comment by jarofgreen: apparently the comments are too deeply nested to reply directly: "using FB wrong therefore deserves to have his privacy violated"

I've never stated that he _deserved_ to get his privacy violated; it's simply that the behaviour of any s/w is based on what settings you choose. Your argument would have to be that it's the S/Ws fault for not being transparent enough/not easily understandable enough leading the user to be misled - but the general response seems to be that the s/w is actively out to get the user.

[jarofgreen]

Blogs down so cant check but I'm pretty certain it said the the gay profile was under a fake name.

Also, are you trying to make the argument that his gay friend is using FB wrong therefore deserves to have his privacy violated? That sounds like a pretty shit argument to me.