Loading Profile...
Placemark privacy settings not respected when checking in through Fireeagle/API?
I've finally been able to update my location in Brighkite from FireEagle using a new Fireeagle->Bkite bridge (This one- http://is.gd/2NiI5 ,for fellow Fireeagle lovers)
It seems like the implementation of privacy at Placemarks is somewhat flawed. Here's what I'm experiencing:
1. I have a placemark setup for my office and it's privacy setting is "Always private if I check in within 100 meters"
2. I check-in from near my office (from about 20m away) using the Fireeagle->Bkite bridge.
3. I check my profile page in Brightkite from a browser window where I'm not logged into Brightkite. It says I checked-in at "Location X", which is the name of a place about 500m away from where I've actually checked in.
4. I click on the link for "Location X". In the map window that appears on the side, there's a marker for where I've checked in.. and it's the exact location for where I've checked in!
If Bkite is receiving my Lat, Long info from Fireeagle accurately enough to place me on a map, that should be enough data to also know that I'm right next to a placemark and that the placemark privacy settings should apply - so is my understanding incorrect or is Bkite's placemark privacy not working?
It seems like the implementation of privacy at Placemarks is somewhat flawed. Here's what I'm experiencing:
1. I have a placemark setup for my office and it's privacy setting is "Always private if I check in within 100 meters"
2. I check-in from near my office (from about 20m away) using the Fireeagle->Bkite bridge.
3. I check my profile page in Brightkite from a browser window where I'm not logged into Brightkite. It says I checked-in at "Location X", which is the name of a place about 500m away from where I've actually checked in.
4. I click on the link for "Location X". In the map window that appears on the side, there's a marker for where I've checked in.. and it's the exact location for where I've checked in!
If Bkite is receiving my Lat, Long info from Fireeagle accurately enough to place me on a map, that should be enough data to also know that I'm right next to a placemark and that the placemark privacy settings should apply - so is my understanding incorrect or is Bkite's placemark privacy not working?
I’m frustrated that Brightkite hates Fireeagle users so much
1
person has this question
I have this question, too!
Tell me when someone answers.
The more people who ask this question, the more it gets noticed.
The more people who ask this question, the more it gets noticed.
Create a customer community for your own organization
Plans starting at $19/month
-
Inappropriate?Hi Balaji, I spent some time testing the FE -> Brightkite bridge around an always private placemark and it respected my privacy settings for every check in I tried within the radius I had set.
However, I did notice some weirdness...if you have Brightkite linked to FE in your Account Settings -> Sharing it causes a loop where if you update FE and it updates Brightkite, Brightkite then updates FE and then FE updates Brightkite, etc. That loop resulted in some public checkins for a location that was near my placemark, but just outside of the radius.
I'm not sure if that explains your situation or not, but there's definitely something weird going on with that bridge. You might try submitting a support ticket to let the developer know about the issues you are having: http://geo.digitprop.com/aggregator/s...
1 person says
this answers the question
-
Inappropriate?Hi Lesley,
Here's what I tried:
1. Deleted the Brightkite -> FE link in my Brightkite account.
2. In FE, removed Brightkite's ability to set location. It can only read location.
3. Checked in again but unfortunately the vagaries of cell/wifi based positioning put me at 142 meters away from my office and outside the 100M privacy zone I had set.
I'm extending the privacy setting for the placemark to 200M and will try again. But if I've deleted the link between Bkite and FE, am I correct in assuming that the looping you mention above should stop?
I’m anxious
-
Inappropriate?Sorry - I think Lesley is spot on. Actually I hadn't accounted for a bidirectional link where FE would be updated from Brightkite. Therefore, there is a constant loop of updating between the two, and it might well be that this is the cause of your problem.
I will look into this and try to find a way to filter Brightkite updates from the FireEagle locations. Let's see.
I would assume that yes, if you don't allow BK to update FE, then the problem should not occur (neither the looping nor the privacy problem).
As for the privacy issue, I believe it must be related to the looping. Other than that, I cannot see where the FE/BK bridge would come into play. It retrieves the FE location with whatever accuracy you allowed, then sets it in BK. BK should then take care of the privacy level.
The bottom line is that making the updates monodirectional, from FE to BK, should solve the problem; and I will look into whether I can filter FE location updates that came from BK.
Cheers,
Markus -
Inappropriate?Hi folks,
It does seem like switching off the Bkite->FE integration has fixed this. I just checked in and my lat,long info puts me at under 200M from my Placemark.
Checked my Bkite profile in a browser where I'm not logged in and the location displayed is very different from my actual location.
Really really happy that I can finally start using Brightkite again, after waiting for over 1 year. Someday, Brightkite will release it's own Fireeagle bridge, but until then I'm off and running :)
I’m happy
-
Inappropriate?Hi,
I have now looked into this in more detail. It seems that unfortunately the FireEagle API does not provide information on which application last updated a location (although this information is shown on your personal FE page when you sign in). Therefore, it is impossible for me to distinguish between BK and non-BK updates.
The only solution for the time being is to turn off BK -> FE updates, like you did, Balaji Dutt. I will add a warning to the BK/FE bridge site.
I’m frustrated
1 person says
this answers the question
EMPLOYEE
