[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).

[redrobot5050]

http://www.accel.com/company/index.php

Accel is another VC company who's board members overlap with In-Q-Tel. From: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5...

The second round of funding into Facebook ($US12.7 million) came from venture capital firm Accel Partners. Its manager James Breyer was formerly chairman of the National Venture Capital Association, and served on the board with Gilman Louie, CEO of In-Q-Tel, a venture capital firm established by the Central Intelligence Agency in 1999. One of the company's key areas of expertise are in "data mining technologies".

Breyer also served on the board of R&D firm BBN Technologies, which was one of those companies responsible for the rise of the internet.

Dr Anita Jones joined the firm, which included Gilman Louie. She had also served on the In-Q-Tel's board, and had been director of Defence Research and Engineering for the US Department of Defence.

Anyway, I'm not saying Facebook is "big brother". I just think DoD is interested in advanced data mining and prediction capabilities. Also, they're interested in recruiting through Facebook, but that's entirely unrelated.