51–57 of 57 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One TOS to rule them all : "We can change this TOS anytime and your agreement to this TOS implies agreement to any changes made to it" No need to have anything more in it.
Not legal in Europe.
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.
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.
Just metainformation that is. When?, From where?, To where?, (if applicable) Who? but (so far) never What?.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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, ful…
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 .
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For example, Windows can just one day destroy all your data without any consequences. Is it enough?
Maybe you replied to my comment by mistake, but in case you meant to reply to my comment and not to somebody else's, a lack of liability for destroying data is not even close to the same thing as a copyright license.
For example, I don't care how copyright law applies to this comment, but I don't want it to be deleted for no reason otherwise why I'm writing it.
I noticed something about using the "Share" link, but I don't know if that's considered the same thing.
Appreciate the insight!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
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).
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.
Is this what happens when you have no business model?
They certainly have a business model. Advertising. Problem is, they haven't accepted who their paying customers really are: Advertisers.
"Your best friend just got dumped by his cheating finance...brought to you by Carl's Jr." will not go over as well as Carl's Jr. intended.
But it is pretty interesting how they microtarget ads. I've seen my staunch republican friend login to facebook. She gets ads like "Do you feel the election was stolen? Voice your thoughts here."
Where as I get ads indie rock music sites and student loan "bail outs".