I think that the basic idea that emerges from the article is that individual users of facebook have to be aware of the changes made in tagging pictures. The process of "untagging" oneself from pictures has become incredibly cumbersome and very difficult. The article makes it clear that the increased tagging of pictures is net good business for Facebook:
Facebook likes it when people tag photos. It’s good for business. The more internal links the site contains, the more people click, the more time people spend on the site, the more information is gathered about users, and the better advertising can be targeted, seen and sold.
The article makes it clear that such a change in policy, though small and seemingly trivial, can have large implications. The article suggests that the change in policy increases the likelihood of one's digital profile and presence existing outside of the full control of the individual. This is broadened out to the idea that technology must be seen as a tool that must constantly be monitored by its users. Essentially, if one does not get turned on to the nuances of technology, as seen with the facebook action, technology can be turned on the individual: The tiniest details of design have a huge effect on the way people use technology. The conclusion of the article lies in this element, that individuals must become aware that their own digital presence and profile has to be vigilantly monitored.