Ugh. Ok, so I tried giving this topic a few weeks to sink and see if I could calm down about it but, no, I'm still not happy. Usually I'm all about new technology, online services, gizmos, gadgets and digital products that make my already considerably cushy life just that much cushier. Particularly, little things like Amazon remembering who I am everytime I come back, recommending books and holding all my credit cards on file, or Google's slightly big-brothery-I-know-exactly-where-you-are-and-no-don't-bother-clearing-your-cache-'cause-we've got-your-click-pathing-profiled-already tweaks to Google Maps, search ads and every other product they've built. Seriously, who doesn't want their map to zoom to your current location on load? Maybe I've just become used to that level of creepiness.

But Facebook, man. Holy crap. I mean, don't get me wrong, I love technology. I loves me some technology, but this is getting a bit much. I seriously, absolutely, positively do not want to show up on some site for the first time and see my entire friends list laid out in front of me with message and product suggestions tailored specifically to my own unique brand of stupid Facebook comments. There's stuff all over my profile that I wouldn't want showing up when visiting another site in any circumstance - voluntary or not.

Now some people might say I'm splitting hairs. Amazon, among others, tailors their product offering directly to you based on your usage patterns - searches, favorites, purchases, etc - but that's a sort of walled garden of hyper-specific marketing. I have to sign in to access this data, at least once when setting up my account and possibly every time I return, to get all these targetted offerings. Facebook, on the other hand, is proposing to just sign you up. Seriously. You've never been there but you're signed up the second you land on the page.

“…we’ve also explained the possibility of working with some partner websites that we pre-approve to offer a more personalized experience at the moment you visit the site.”

Is this the end of the world? Well, no. But it certainly feels like an invasion of privacy and a betrayal of trust. [More on trust in a minute.] I'll give you an example that I don't find to be far-fetched at all. Let's say I go to Sports Illustrated for the first time because I've just got to get a Swimsuit Calendar for my wall. Why? Maybe I'm lonely. Maybe it's none of your business. Oh, snap. That's just it! It is none of your business. But my good buddy decides to go to Sports Illustrated too. Maybe he's there for the same calendar or maybe he's there to read an “article”. Haha. Anyway, he might see a great, big picture of my face saying, 'Hey Buddy, your friend Ryan just bought a steamy Swimsuit Calendar.' Probably because he's lonely… That sucks. You see where I'm going with it though.

Is Facebook going to protect users from situations like that? Will they stop it at merely signing you in to a site you've never been before and restricting the “general information” from spreading out in concentric circles of shame and irritation? I doubt it. Facebook has betrayed our trust before. Beacon anyone? New opt-in-only privacy settings? Facebook will of course give users the usual convoluted privacy settings but make no mistake, you'll be opted in until you find the stupid setting to turn it off. I hope…

I realize the web - and mobile for that matter - are travelling in this direction at break-neck speed but I feel like the old man in the corner going, “Back in my day, the web was anonymous! You could go anywhere and do anything without fear of persecution - or at least embarrassment. It was private dammit!” I'm just tired of having my personal information sold and traded about without my permission. And, NO, telling me you're going to opt me in ahead of time doesn't count. Couldn't Facebook start us opted-out and convince (read: bribe) us to turn it on?

We're a big fan of using the latest APIs and pushing browser-based technologies to their limits. A recent project required complex Google Maps implementation, so the new version 3 API was the obvious choice. It's many times faster than the previous version, has location services, and works well on mobile devices (like the iPhone). The project's mapping functionality proved to be a success; however, it wasn't without a few technical challenges along the way.

One of the problems with adopting new API's is that the eco-system of code that interacts and extends it is often very immature as well. Code examples can also be a little sparse, though fortunately Google's documentation was excellent in this regard. The difficulty is when you need something that's not included in the box. Our map has markers, a lot of markers, thousands of them in fact, and to stop the browser impaling itself on a spike we needed marker clustering.

Clustering is where you replace several individual markers with a single marker group icon that indicates to the user that there is X number of markers in this location. The more you zoom out, the greater the number of markers grouped into each cluster. The clustering solutions for Google Maps version 2 were numerous, but for version 3 there was just a handful. The most suitable library was barely 3 weeks old, certainly immature, but as a port of a stable release of the same library for the v2 API it was a viable option.

This is where the having a strong knowledge of the language and the browsers you are working with is really helpful. The library definitely had a few bugs, but having come from a time before JavaScript libraries it was easy to write override methods to patch these until library author corrected them. In between the initial implementation and project release the library authors did in fact patch those issues, so we were able to drop in the latest code and dispense with these patches.

Another problem we faced was that the styling provided by the library was limited. It expected the marker to be centered on the location, rather than above the location as the design needed. Method overrides and a good understanding of cross-browser rendering bugs allowed us to extend the library to meet our – and our client's – needs.

I still wonder if too many new programmers now rely too heavily on JavaScript libraries, without understanding how things work behind the scenes. Every browser will always have its quirks and a professional front end developer should know how to deal with these. I'm not advocating against using JavaScript libraries, as they definitely get projects out faster and reduce costs. But if things don't work correctly, or if they require slightly different functionality, I wonder whether many programmers would cope without their jQuery fix.