[Alex3917]

Are people really worried about this? The only reason this is in the TOS is so they have the right to keep running their data mining algorithms even after you delete your account, in case they find a new way to leverage your data. It's not like they're going to start selling a poetry anthology of your stuff or something.

[Tuna-Fish]

The problem isn't that facebook is gonna use your stuff - it would be too much of a pr shitstorm for them.

The problem is that facebook is still bleeding money. Once they go belly-up, all their assets will be sold to the highest bidder, and the world largest collection of stock photos will likely be among the most valuable of them.

I have serious problems with "irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense)".

[gaius]

Uhh, dude, have a browse around the Corbis website. Then have a look around Facebook. The idea that Facebook has any value as a library of stock photos is frankly laughable.

[Retric]

The danger in using Facebook for stock photo's is an uploadeder who did not own copyright on the photo.

Facebook can't really sell the content unless they can prove the person who uploaded it had the writes to distribute it. Which you can't do in an automated fashion.

[jacquesm]

think of it as a game. If consumers get to sue companies for ridiculous amounts of money based on minor or imagined infractions then companies will in turn respond with ridiculous terms of service. Just on the off-chance that some idiot will sue in case facebook gets acquired and they forgot to wipe a backup tape with your data on it.

[cellis]

Once they go belly up...

Not likely. More likely is that someone that has deep pockets and lives in Redmond purchases them for something like 2X (8 billion).

[redrobot5050]

Agreed. Keep in mind that Facebook's original V.C. Investments came from the C.I.A.'s "Advanced Technology Research and Development Venture Capitial" Arm. (Say that three times fast.)

Governments being governments, they'd likely throw good money after bad. They might also feel, having gotten everyone in one central database, that Facebook is "too big to fail".

[andreyf]

Keep in mind that Facebook's original V.C. Investments came from the C.I.A.'s "Advanced Technology Research and Development Venture Capitial" Arm.

Citation, please?

[derwiki]

I hear this every now and again but it always sounds a little too conspiracy theory for me. Is there any legitimacy to this claim?

[sachinag]

Facebook is not listed as a portfolio company of In-Q-Tel:

http://www.iqt.org/technology-portfolio/index-alphabetical.h...

Given how comprehensive it is, I'd be very surprised if In-Q-Tel was all cutesy and shady about an investment in Facebook (a company that doesn't meet their objectives in any way).

[kwamenum86]

No...they can also, for example, use your picture in a Facebook TV advertisement or use a modified version of your profile, name, and likeness in a Facebook promotional video. These are not even the most extreme examples I can think of.

[raheemm]

This makes me seriously think about quitting FB

[mdonahoe]

I just quit today. I was only logging in like once a month anyway. When I clicked deactivate account, FB showed be some random friends and said they would miss me!

[iamelgringo]

I quit a couple of months ago. It's just not worth it.

[beingfamous]

Does it really matter? FISA will scrape it all anyway.

[johnrob]

Facebook has the right to use your picture in an advertisement. I find that disturbing. I'd imagine Barack Obama's account might have some useful images (they'd never do that, but it drives home my point).

[flatline]

They may never do that, but who else might? The agreement states that the rights are transferrable, may be sublicensed, etc., which I would imagine they would do in bulk. Plus, that content is now theirs forever...twenty years from now, fifty years from now, it could still be in use.

[olefoo]

Then they need to make it explicit that they are retaining the right to store and access your data.

It would be an interesting bit of performance art for someone to delete their facebook account and then file a DMCA takedown notice if they could show that their profile pic was still available within facebook.

[jachee]

This is exactly how I'm planning on getting my information taken down. It seems quite hypocritical of them to say in the same Statement (effectively): "All your Content are belong to us" and at the same time, further down the page, "We respect IP rights."

Let's see if they respect my IP rights.

[iamdave]

I understand your argument, and from a technical aspect it makes sense.

But guess what? An overwhelming majority of people on Facebook aren't concerned with data mining activities, there are families on Facebook. People who connect with loved ones overseas, who don't want their photos and family memories saved on the Internet for the sake of technical operation.

Really. Look at it from their perspective: they do-not-care about code and crunching processes. To them, this is akin to a gov't wiretapping phones in the name of national preservation.

[ivey]

I think you're projecting. Most of those people just want Facebook to work, and don't care about this latest privacy "outrage".

[electromagnetic]

They may also be subject to changes in the law. In the EU telco's are required to retain information for 6-24 months on any electronic message, I'm wondering if the laws are shifting for big companies too.

I wouldn't doubt if governments will be forcing FB and other social networking sites to retain data for several years to help in any police or terrorism investigations.

[gdee]

>> In the EU telco's are required to retain information...

Just metainformation that is. When?, From where?, To where?, (if applicable) Who? but (so far) never What?.