Rediculous....now you have to pay them to sell your personal info. Still in the testing phase. (I never had facebook so I don't care)

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/facebook-gets-religion-for-revenue.html



"The latest revenue spaghetti test came last week, when Facebook began charging users in New Zealand as much as two New Zealand dollars ($1.53) a post to ensure that their own friends see what they write. The service, dubbed Highlight, comes close to flouting Facebook's long-standing pledge, emblazoned on its home page, that the site is "free and always will be." The service is similar to one for marketers, called Reach Generator, which Facebook introduced in February, for brands to pay per "fan" to reach those users 75% of the time with marketing messages"

It's like they know we're addicted...

All addictions can be cured. I gave up smoking when CA passed a $1.00* per pack tax on them in the 90's.


Wheels

*Not sure if it was $1.00 but it was quite substantial.

I think this is great. We could use far less Facebook and far more actual conversations. Never had it. Never will. Facebook should just flat out state that is is akin to a worldwide crack pipe for narcissistic and otherwise self-absorbed folks "liking" themselves.

What were people expecting? It was only a matter of time. I'm surprised it took this long.

This is only an experiment right now, to see how people react. If there isn't much protest they will
implement other means of increasing their revenue.

There is only one way to deal with things like this. Move on to another service.

I suspect lawsuits will come eventually, but like many others before, they will serve only to
fatten the pockets of the layers.

Maybe Google will end up coming out on top in the end if people chose to go there.

Maybe some other service will appear.

Time will tell.

I predict that all Facebook users will migrate to SimHQ and then Guod will have to offer forums for Mafia Wars and Farmville. And everytime DesertEagle posts a link, I'll have to decide whether to 'Like' it or not...

Properly packaged, why would people complain? It appears to be marketed as a "service" they are calling "Highlight". There will be some people who value what it sells.

Besides, didn't I see that Facebook is now publicly traded? Or soon will be? We can guess where that will lead.

"Like"

They will complain first because the service was taunted as always being free and because those who use the new feature will get more
attention to their messages. Soon it will turn things into an attention war, and those who can't pay will feel discriminated.

They start charging for stuff like that is the day I disconnect FB.

Got to support that valuation of $104 billion somehow...

AMEN!!!!

Can anyone see facebook going the same way as Friends Reunited?

It's been going 7 - 8 years now? I reckon folks have too much going on with FB to switch to a next best thing.

Why do you hate capitalism?

I don't see this getting a whole lot of use outside of the really addicted circles, companies etc.
Can always stop using FB if it gets too annoying.

"like"
While I have a facebook I seldom use it and recently removed most of my info and pics from it

So you think, Facebook keeps that info forever whether you deleted it or not.

If they do I'll just disconnect my account... I was in the "I hate facebook" team for a long time... then created an account to watch my 2 kids account, I made them "friend" me, lol... since then I've found 12 old Army buddies, 6 old High School friends, and 2 ex-girlfriends... so Facebook is a nice tool for old connections... but will stop and can stop if needed.

A valuation that will be a lot less than 104 billion next year. Mark my words.

Yeah, when you already have most users on the internet, there isn't much place to go. On the news I think they said 900,000,000 of 1.5 billion internet users already use it.
I was thinking they should charge 1 cent per post, even with that they could make a killing with these people that do nothing but post every little thing they do all day and thought that pops into their head.
Personally, I don't like it, or use it. My wife used to, but hasn't for about a year. It's blocked at the router for my kids' pc, for the day my son's friends finally talk him into trying to set something up without clearance.

As long as the fundamentals of what was free before are still free, I don't see the complaint. Countless other web services stand proudly by their "always-free" product, yet still offer added-value features for payment.

As to an attention war. Isn't Facebook about seeing and being seen? And I very sincerely doubt there are many of their users who "can't" pay, or are somehow victims here. Perhaps some will not think that their messages are worth the fee for added promotion. Perhaps others will resent the self marketing focus becoming more aggressive. Fair points. But lets not forget that businesses have been putting big bucks behind putting their social media presence before the public for a good while now. A paid promotional feature would appear to fall right in step with these kinds of advertising campaigns.

I hope they do. People wold be less likely to post the kind of inane narcissistic drivel they are so fond of. Of course they'd probably just migrate to google plus and ruin that.

Ok I gotta ask here, did you go looking for them or did they find you? I had more than a few ex girlfriends find me. Two that wanted to re-connect and one of them is married.

What pisses me off about this is that they are slowing dumbing down the news feed. I only have about 30 friends on there but I cant see everything they post as it only shows a few post a day now. Then they want you to pay so that your post always shows up? I dont think so. I'll switch to something else before I pay and if they continue to dumb down the news feeds I am gone as well. No point in staying if you cant stay in contact with your friends 100% of the time.

Heh already been close to closing down Glitchbook, things dont show up most of the time as it is, and the stupid thing just keeps changing and stuff, maybe this is where i say goodbye to it.

great move for facebook - with google+ as a major competitor they are beginning to alienate their userbase.

nice work!

a classic move by f*cking idiots with MBA's who THINK they know what they're doing.

Pay Per Post isnt what people think it is,

the charge is to "Feature" your post, meaning its always on top or the recent/top stories in your news feed.

Which is only gonna be abused or used by companies for advertising purposes.

The new version with paid apps will be called Facester.

Wow, I've never understood why some people get so angry with the free market system. If I collect a bunch of big rocks along the side of the road, paint happy faces on them and then they sell like hot cakes to customers, isn't that awesome? I'm filling a demand in the marketplace!

Facebook is doing exactly the same thing here.

Whether you like the concept of social media taking over people's everyday lives, Facebook has to do something, it can't simply subsist off an advertising based model, or else it hasn't much place to go. Why wouldn't it eventually become the next Myspace (which for its part ended Friendster)?

Unlike tech companies, this is still kind of the problem of the .dot-com bubble, there's no actual product being sold here, there's just a cyberspace address the company owns. Advertising alone won't cut it any more to justify the stock price, and the majority of users tend to ignore or block ads. I think that Facebook will probably get into other things like having an online store to purchase apps, music, concert tickets, and have subscription based premium services before they can milk it for every penny and users migrate on to the next big thing, or just kind of get their needs met by all kinds of other startups offering similar services. The industry moves fast and people's attention spans will just move somewhere else- maybe there's three to five years of this before something else replaces it.

Ok, so what do you think they should do? Simply offer free accounts? Well, there's no money in that, obviously, now that it's a publicly traded company, they owe an obligation to shareholders to come up with the money for their investment. So, what is your business strategy?

People expect free swag. Of course, it never really works this way. Since we don't live in a system of bartering, all of life boils down to: buying and selling. Someone tries to figure out a way to sell something, whether it's a pet rock, a container of sugared water, or an online account. A free account doesn't earn anyone a living, but there's an expectation out there that it should all be for free, and this attitude carries over with a lot of the people who justify piracy.



It will not be a mere experiment, it will eventually move in that direction. If people move on to another service, it will work the same way. Up until now people just got a free service that was funded by advertising. Institutional investors- the people floating the most money into this, remember the .dot com bubble and want to see something for their money. This is why you even saw Google move away somewhat from just being another .dot com and getting into technology and selling other products, less just another .dot com but competing with the likes of Apple and other tech companies. You will pay or the company flunks, it wasn't going to be free forever.



Lawsuit based on what?

If it is funded by advertising then it is not a free service, therefore; they are already being paid plenty for their service. I have no interest in Facebook anyway, free or not, but to claim they are providing a free service while they are getting rich off of data mining and advertising is BS.

I would assume based on the laws

I picked a bad day to give up sniffing glue.

This thread reminded me that I have an FB account. Upon trying to log into it, a warning said that someone tried to login into my account from a city 500 miles away from where I'm living, so I had to change the password. The main page took forever to load, and it looked so different from the last time I saw it. It was full with people asking help with their games, people selling stuffs (there's an imported bikini for 20 bucks if I buy it today!), people saying where they were and when they're going back (good info in case I want to crawl through their window), things like that. I don't know 50% of my "friends", and none of about 15 that requested to be my friends. Probably another bikini salespeople. So we have to pay to post now? No big deal, now I know better than loging in into that hellhole.

How about some coffee?

obligations to stakeholders are the same things that consistently get american companies into trouble with overexpansion and brushes with illegality.

how about ethics once in a while.

facebook has basically decided to sell out to the highest bidder. it's straying from its original mission and has taken its first step as more of an advertising platform than an SNS

I really don't understand your point- that is, I'm totally lost. It seems to be answering a different question.

Facebook has been offering a free account like many Web-based service providers, the only way it can do this is by selling space to advertisers aimed at its users. Before long, people of course complain about being bombarded by ads, yet they don't want to pay anything either, expectations have been set that everything you get on the Internet is free with no hassle.

Eventually the ad revenue won't be enough to really justify the share price now that you have a public company, and advertisers realize that few of those millions of users click on ads or bother looking at them, either making them re-negotiate how much they will pay Facebook, or just get out of Facebook altogether. If Facebook were to remain profitable, it must do something to change it up- it doesn't actually sell anything else.

So, again, let's say that you were running the helm. What would you do?

i guess everyone missed the post where i said:

Facebook is not gonna charge you per normal post, they are gonna charge you per "Featured Post", which is a post that will remain on the top of your friends/fans News Feed for so many days.

I think it has to go beyond what people recognize it as today- it won't be the Facebook that people know, it will change. Signing up will be free, basic features will be free, but there will be expanded premium subscription based content for a price.

I would dismantle Facebook and tell users that the government and police where using it to spy on them and is why I dismantled it.

I have to say that Kontakt is making perfect sense here. From a purely business perspective, going public was a logical inevitability for Facebook.

Er, no. It is a free service for its users, just like you aren't paying for a SimHQ account, but they have banner advertising. What you determine is plenty enough really isn't the point.

I can promise you that Facebook won't be earning $104 Billion in ad revenue- before a company goes public, its worth is completely arbitrary, that's the whole point of Facebook trying to court investors to get some cash to put in the bank. They won't earn that much from ads, and even if they had today, there's no guarantee of staying at the same level as next year, there simply won't be enough money from advertisers.

Did someone mention lawsuits?

err, facebook isnt gonna change from its current format.

They can track me all they want, cuz i facebook, here, combat ace, a few hacker/overclocker forums. and the rest is all pr0n.

I pay. 20mm makes me pay a monthly subscription fee. Said it was standard practice.

the point is that you're able to pay to have your message prioritized above other people's message.

that is to say, if you have more money, your opinion is more important.

totally unethical IMO

don't try saying most other companies do this - they don't - even google adwords doesn't work like this. i have a small business and yet i'm able to compete with very large businesses on google adwords despite how much money they throw at advertising.

facebook is digging its own grave IMO. google+ will destroy facebook if they continue making poor decisions such as this one or the institution of forced, horrible interface changes.

i'm curious, why are you running so quickly to the defence of facebook? they do not exactly have a great track record for ethics or laws and i'm not what you'd call a sensitive person - i don't give a damn about my name being out there on the net, but facebook's policies have been and continue to be awful regarding privacy and information control. this latest move is just another example.

they've been doing "Featured Posts" for pages for months now... and the reason they are expanding to normal users is to see if that generates any revenue, because the page owners simply dont care

As a super rough guesstimate with 900 million users (most likely including ex-users generally and once-and-never-again-users specifically) and a company worth of 100 billion+, it means investors value facebook users at more than 100$ per head - in advertisement, extortion or pay per post. Good luck with that.

I'm not defending Facebook. I'm not saying I think whether you should have a Facebook account. I'm explaining what this industry is all about, and if you were serious about staying competitive in it, this is the reality that you'd be looking at. They could sell baby poison and any ethics aside, I would be explaining why they can't assume to do what the were doing pre-IPO as they are now that they are a public company.

myspace once overestimated how much it could control its users too. the myspace news corp deals was one of the biggest bungles in recent history. tech companies can come and go in a flash and all it takes is a stupid decision or two to bring down the house of cards.

all i'm saying is that while facebook might think they can continue to erode its users ability to control information they see and release, control of that information is basically the very core of facebook.

with google+ being able to do the same thing which at the same time is arguably better, facebook shouldn't be pushing the limits of its users patience with garbage like this - there are better ways to make a profit without risking sending a chunk of its user base off to the competition.

Google is a different kind of company, it's not merely a .com any more, it now competes with the likes of other tech companies like Microsoft, Oracle, Apple, etc.; that's actually illustrating my point that Facebook probably has to do things to expand, like Google has done, or remain consigned to an Internet domain which over time loses its market share to other online companies and start ups. Google + is just one more service out of an array of services that Google offers, whereas Facebook right now only has one property.

For what it's worth, I would hedge against social media generally, that market changes quickly, consumers change quickly, as we have seen, it was Myspace and then Facebook, there's no reason why eventually users couldn't migrate elsewhere from Facebook or change interests as time goes on. These companies don't sell a tangible product, there's not much in the way of collateral or anything.

Um, no, if a person is being inundated with annoying ads and having their info sold to the highest bidder there is nothing "free" about it. As the saying goes, "there is no such thing as a free lunch".

You're abusing the notion of the definition of free. Are you paying for the account? No, then the service that Facebook offers is free. You're trying to con me with the idea that users are paying for the service, they are not- at least, not yet. That you have to see ads (that you probably ignore anyway), isn't what creates the idea of a paid account somehow.

If you're going to be that loose with the definition, ok, yeah nothing is technically free, except perhaps the air you breathe. Assuming you're paying for an Internet connection or for the bus ticket or the gas to go to a public library that has one, you spend money one way or another. But that's not what is meant as a free service. It sounds as though you would complain if you had a free ticket for admission to Disneyworld- because you had to spend the money to travel there somehow. That doesn't mean that your ticket isn't still free to you. Ever know someone that had to give away his ticket to some event? Did you turn it down because by some convoluted definition you didn't think it was free? I bet that would be pretty insulting to the person who offered it to you.

You sign up for the service, there are no charges to your credit card. That's just really stretching things to try and say it's not a free service. Hell.

127.0.0.1 is how I deal with douchebag companies like Facebook.

They are making money off of their gullible users so it is not free. Whether a person pays them directly or indirectly makes no dif because at the end of the day it is all about lining their greed driven pockets and not offering any free service. Oh, and lets not forget about helping spy agencies to keep track of the sheeples.

The notion that they don't sell anything else is not exactly true. You are paying for the account, by allowing them to sell your personal info. Here's an example:

When my daughter was 15 she wanted a Facebook account, I told her when she entered her info to sign up, to use our dog's name and to keep her profile private. She did it....now the dog gets stamped mail in our mailbox for colleges and other junk mail B.S. God only knows how much junk e-mail she gets in her box come from Facebook selling her e-mail address as well has our home address.

So please....stop the hand wringing about how facebook only makes money on ads and that it's free. Your personal info alone is a hefty pricetag.

You're changing the subject. Whatever the reason you think they are doing it, it's free. Do you think a company offers its service for fun, even at a loss? As I said, for other industries, these expectations don't seem to exist. You don't drive off the car lot with a 'free car,' you don't go and see a movie for free, and if you did, you'd probably have the idea that you were flouting conventions by sneaking in anyway.

If you think that you're paying for it, well, then the argument is the same that you're paying for your SimHQ account- well, I hope you get your refund if the paid service isn't everything you want it to be.

That's not what's meant by free account in a financial sense- you can get into all kinds of philosophical arguments about different senses of the word free- such as freedom from tyranny and so forth.

It's pretty much a given when you sign up for free services and accounts, and Facebook isn't the only one that does this- that they collect certain information about the activities of users in order to tailor ad content for each individual user. Now, you may not like this, but that's what people sign up for with any of these online companies with free accounts. But that isn't to suggest these are paid accounts, in the normal sense of the word paid either.

SimHQ doesn't require your home address and phone number so they can sell it to telemarketers and such...apples and oranges.

The point is...THEY ARE MAKING MONEY OFF THEIR USERS INFO....your acting as if poor Facebook needs to start charging per character typed, because they are giving you a free account out of the kindness of their heart. They are doing fine financially...they are just getting greedy.

It's a free account- again, you are stretching things to suggest that collecting information about its users amount to an account not being free. If you stretch it the way you are doing, SimHQ isn't 'free' either. You have to pay for an Internet connection, if you want to have a membership and post, you have to have an email address, so it comes back to 'costing' you, and you don't have a free SimHQ account, either. Well, how far does it go that you guys expect your refund from SimHQ if and when the day comes you stop payment on your SimHQ account?

Let's parse our definitions here. Let's agree that the accounts are free in the financial sense. If you want to argue that it's not free with the sense of liberties being constrained, ok, whatever. But I want to see either one of you argue against this. Cost of joining SimHQ currently = $0 American. Cost of a Facebook account = 0$. They are free in the sense that you don't have a subscription based paid service.

Who's the person here who claimed a USA company is not bound by other countries laws in regards to the FBI wanting back doors to social networking sites? He said he is a silicon valley lawyer so knows that to be true. Read the below because he is wrong. Facebook is a USA company but has their servers in Ireland so are bound by Irish law so the FBI can forget about backdoors to Facebook thinking they are protected by USA law.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/europ...c-not-data/4608

On its website, Europe versus Facebook shows how to request a copy of your personal data from the social network (see how Reddit overwhelmed Facebook with data requests). It explains that because of Ireland’s 1988 Data Protection Act (DPA), Facebook has to send you your data on a CD within 40 days of a request.

-------
That's right, I don't consider anything on the internet free because I actually pay a monthly fee to be spied on.

You are aware that Google does the same thing, right? Why is this a revelation now? People have traded privacy for access to information- I have said this repeatedly in another thread. Don't like Facebook, yeah, you probably shouldn't be using it, then.



What in the world are you talking about? It's you guys who are acting as though they should offer services with no profit motive. I don't understand how you're reversing this on to me.

127.0.0.1 facebook.com
127.0.0.1 google.com

You betcha!

So...you think they haven't made any profits? LOL. Ok...I think I'm getting the picture now. Looks like "someone" bought a large chunk of Facebook stock during the IPO...so this debate has become pointless.

You certainly didn't know what you were talking about in that thread, and you don't in this one. I'll repeat this one more time. Say someone uses a Facebook account who is from Argentina. Too bad- Facebook is a US registered company domiciled in the US, its records are subject to US law- that means potential subpoena or search and seizure of those records. What this doesn't mean is that the US is arresting and prosecuting that user from Argentina, ok? But they can get information from Facebook as to regards to its business records. Understand? On the other hand, the Argentinian government wouldn't be able to gather information on a US based user, unless Argentina had a treaty with the US government and invoked an MLAT request through the proper agency- such as the US Justice Department.

I'm not really sure if you're actually reading what I wrote, it just seems that you're making up things to respond to.

Yep, you must be a lawyer because you opened with an insult and then you give me some BS doublespeak. Facebook is bound by Ireland's laws and is all my contention is. Now prove me wrong, which you have not done.

If facebook go much further down that road, they will suddenly no longer be prominent. It is a long-standing rule of online business, when a free thing becomes a paid thing, that thing disappears. That will happen to facebook too, no matter how popular it is.

Then again, a free thing disappears as well- Myspace, Friendster, that was what the whole dot com bubble was about. So, anything can disappear- paid or free. The question is more how to stay fresh and relevant and offer something that people want. You're going to have to find a way to make money, off it though.

These companies can go away, paid or free, regardless, or sooner rather than later. But there has to be a viable business model behind them. The tradeoff is calculated whether that happens whether it stays largely free, moves to premium subscription based, or a mix of both.

There's no insult, you're making that up. Telling you that you don't know what you're talking about, particularly in the way you are so certain is not in and of itself an insult.

Alright, under (Title) 18 US 2703, you can start there to see what compelling powers a US Government agency has.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2703

Then you can go state by state to see what local state agencies can compel these companies with as as well. A Search Warrant is generally needed for most content- i.e., whether it is ECS content, (emails or other kinds of electronics communications), or if it's RCS content (such as stored files, pictures and images) a (d) Order might be sufficient. A subpoena would likely suffice for basic subscriber information. Due to the recent Warshak ruling in United States v. Warshak, et al., No. 08-3997 (6th Cir. Dec. 14, 2010), the government can no longer compel a company to provide email content in electronic storage over 180 days or more with a subpoena or court order, a Search Warrant is always needed.

I'm going to say it again- Facebook is a US based company. As such, its records are going to be subject to US jurisdiction, it makes no difference at all if the accounts belong to non-US residents, the accounts are the business records of a US company. Now, overseas jurisdiction will also have their own mechanisms to obtain information from Facebook as well.

Yes indeed, that's the wonderful thing about the internet, it's transient, it evolves.

Now it is my turn to say you don't know what you are talking about because if you had actually read the article I posted you would have learned that Facebook is based in Ireland and not the USA so are fully bound by Irish law and not USA law. Just because douchebag Zuckerberg is an American does not mean his company is bound by just USA law. If what you say is true then explain Microsoft and other USA companies having to answer to the EU courts, on multiple occasions.

The more I explain everything to you, the more you just deny. Please see what I wrote in that thread. I like how you have no answer to the either the Stored Communications Act or the Warshak ruling, and you just ignore them both. Every time I tell you what happens, you just deny it.

Facebook does business around the globe, so yes, it will be subject to individual territorial jurisdictions. So, a UK agency might request records with whatever mechanism is available to them, let's say to search for a suspected criminal, or a missing child, someone who posts a message claiming to be suicidal or whatever. They can compel Facebook with their own legal process, unless those accounts are of someone who agreed to a US based TOS (terms of service agreement), then they might have to go to the US DOJ and petition to get that information.

A US agency on the other and isn't limited to an MLAT request because Facebook is not a UK based company, it is a US based company, they can get whatever records they want so long as they serve the proper legal process- i.e., a Search Warrant for content. That doesn't mean they are prosecuting someone not from the US, after all, they are subject to their own laws. But they can certainly get the account records from Facebook. Then they might pass that information along to that foreign government for them to handle.

By the way, Facebook is headquartered in Palo Alto, CA, it is not based in Ireland. I don't know where it's incorporated- probably either California or Delaware. Many companies like to incorporate in Delaware, it wouldn't surprise me if it's a Delaware corporation. Ireland has nothing to do with it.

who is this "facebook"?

I don`t need it, so it is irrelevant.

Just to keep this moving: Facebook was registered as a Delaware corporation in July 2004.

No surprise- I didn't bother reading some link about headquartered in Ireland, because I knew off the bat that made no sense. Everyone knows you incorporate in Delaware.

Let's play nicely please.

For what it's worth:

- Facebook LLC was formed in Cambridge, MA

- Later Facebook Incorporated was registered in Delaware, like about 50% of corporations in the US. That corporate entity bought the LLC and diluted the other founder's holdings - they even made a movie about it . That state laws are fairly unique in that the owners are explicitly not liable for losses/damages, plus you don't have to pay corporation tax out-of-state for those shareholder by-laws. Most lawyers are also very familiar with the Delaware business friendly statutes, so it's very common thing to do. As the company is head-quartered in California, they still have to operate under local corporate bylaws for that state.

- Facebook Ireland Ltd in Europe is registered as an Irish organization, as Ireland is part of the single EU market and offers one of the lowest corporation tax rates (12.5%). This is very common where a company needs to physically locate somewhere in Europe, i.e. the large Facebook data-centers. If you are a user in Europe then your user agreement is through Facebook Ireland to be compliant with the various EU data protection rules.

They are going to be registered in each of the 50 states they do business in and any other jurisdictions they are qualified to do business in. But it's headquartered in the US- meaning where the majority of its business records are located are subject to US law. The international character of the Internet might lead people to think that it doesn't work that way, but remember- it's just the records we're talking about. It doesn't mean that the FBI is arresting people in Ireland.

The data for Europe is stored in Ireland. European's terms of use when joining are with Facebook Ireland Ltd rather than Facebook Inc. Ireland and the USA have an extradition treaty as well. Are you claiming that European laws aren't applicable to Facebook generally or am I misunderstanding you a bit here?

So, any company can have an overseas local office to handle things administratively. Whether Facebook has servers located physically in Ireland I haven't a clue, but they might have offices in Ireland and they are qualified to do business in Ireland. What this probably means in the case of Ireland is that the Irish authorities, or let's say a lawyer with a lawsuit goes to Facebook Ireland inquiring about Irish accounts. No problem- they go to Facebook Ireland's offices, they follow all applicable local laws. Their people in Ireland can probably retrieve the data from the US if all their servers are located there, or from their Irish based servers, if any. If for some reason there was some US based account they were looking for, now it won't work that way, Irish authorities are going to invoke a treaty and petition the US government to get that information for them. The US government will search Facebook using their available mechanisms, and turn that over to the Irish authorities.

However, let's say the US Department of Homeland Security wanted information on what turned out to be someone in Ireland. They are just going to get it from Facebook in the US- because basically the majority of Facebook's contact with the US is where it is incorporated, domiciled, physically located. It's a US company for their purposes, and they can get what they want. Because of the international character of the internet, and information can travel across different states and different countries, everyone has to sort of agree where they reside for all practical purposes. For a US agency, or a lawyer in private practice, Facebook's business records are fair game (the contents of emails and things like that will be subject to US privacy laws however, even if it is a foreigner using the account, they are still protected by US statute).

It's quite a complicated (and dull!) area, but it's not really as simple as the FBI being able to do that - not in the case where the sole evidence for prosecution is from Facebook like that. Of course the FBI will look and do other things to build a case, but the bit you might not be appreciating is the various legal structures and contracts between the user, Facebook Inc, Facebook Ireland Ltd and the EU Data Protection laws that have been agreed to when signed up.

If someone from a EU member state, say Spain or France, gets an extradition request and that evidence is based on information obtained in the US on Facebook servers that is a copy of the data that's held in Ireland then it's unlikely (although not impossible) that anyone is forced on a plane. Facebook Ireland Ltd is legally bound by Irish law, Irish law is superseded by the EU Data Protection law and the terms of use for a Facebook user in Europe is, like I said, with Facebook Ireland Ltd and not Facebook Inc. If the FBI break that contract (and perhaps they do all the time, probably) then that's fine until you need to provide an admissible case for extradition that's dependant on it

PS Anyone like sims?

It is as simple as that. A US company cannot enjoy the privileges and protection of US law, and then suddenly turn jurisdictions when it wants and deny US law, and then go back and forth again. Decide- are you a US company? You are subject to US law. This also means that if say the FBI were looking for an Irish terrorist, they have to follow US law in order to do so, not Irish law- that means that the Irish account still gets the same protection: it is a US based agency, subject to the US Constitution and applicable US laws. Cannot suddenly act as though no laws apply to it, or that another country's laws apply. So they would still have to get a valid search warrant in compliance with Federal guidelines, they couldn't just seize whatever they want without legal process.

A US company doing business in Ireland with its overseas divisions located there will also follow Irish law, just as a company headquartered in CA doing business in any state will also follow their laws. Their overseas divisions will have a different set of laws entirely to deal with regarding disclosure and privacy as it concerns the Irish authorities, but US authorities won't be constrained the same way for a foreign account.

Scenario 1

In the case of Irish authorities:

Is it an Irish based account, or does the account when it signed up agree to an Irish TOS (terms of service)? Then if Irish authorities want it, then yes, they follow Irish law.

Scenario 2
In the case of US authorities:

Is it an Irish based account, or does the account when it signed up agree to an Irish TOS (terms of service)? US Authorities don't care about that at all, they follow US law to get the information from a US company. The company and their records are under US jurisdiction, no MLAT treaty required. The only thing that happens is that a judge might rule against the petitioning agency for one reason or another, but potentially, all is fair game.

Scenario 3
In the case of Irish authorities:

Is it an US based account, or does the account when it signed up agree to an US TOS (terms of service)? Irish authorities invoke an MLAT treaty and go to the US government- like the US DOJ, through the embassy or consular office, or get nothing at all. The account is protected by US privacy laws.

Scenario 4
In the case of US authorities:

Is it an US based account, or does the account when it signed up agree to an US TOS (terms of service)? No surprise, the US agency gets what it wants.


I promise you this is how it's done.

I think you might be misunderstanding scenario 2 Kontat? For scenario 2 they are not US accounts. As I've mentioned a few times now Ireland is a member of the EU and the EU-based users have signed a user agreement when creating their account that complies with the EU Data Protection legislation. Just like in your scenario 3, where it a US member is protected by US privacy laws, the EU user is protected by those similar ones within those member states.

You originally seemed unsure why Delaware was used for corporations, and how the EU laws fit within the Maastrict Agreement of the member states, and how Facebook has two major data-centers in Ireland for tax and data privacy reasons, so really my comments were more to help highlight some useful info about the discussion you and comache were having, as it was getting a bit derogatory etc. I'm not really here to prove anyone right or wrong (it's the internet, everyone is right), more just to keep the peace

Once more. It is a US based company. So, in scenario 2 where there is an Irish based account and US authorities want information about it, they only care about the fact that it is a US based company. To whom the accounts belongs to MATTERS NOT. It's a US company, it's a US company's records under subpoena or search warrant. The Company might be registered in Ireland, it STILL is a US based company, not an Irish based company. A US company will be REQUIRED to turn over information about its records to US authorities with the proper, legal process. It is subject to US privacy laws irrespective of whom its customers are. If it were the other way around and it were an Irish company, then all scenarios would be turned on their heads.



Uh? what? No, I said I didn't know if Facebook was a Delaware or a CA corp. You're really adding things I never said, I'm afraid. Go back and look what I said- I said I don't know if it's a CA corp or a Delaware Corp, but I wouldn't be surprised it was a Delaware Corp, because, Delaware is where you would probably want to incorporate. Nothing unusual about that, Delaware is one of the earliest states people were forming corporations, as such the laws have a long history and tend to favor corporate insiders over investors for tax and liability purposes.

So, let me tell you I work in this industry, I deal with all of this, among other things. This is what I do specifically. You couldn't be more wrong about what you're saying I don't know.

Here's my question to you, because what you think entails a strange circumstance. If everything is as you say, and US authorities can't get this information as you seem to think because the EU agreements wouldn't allow it, then why are people complaining about it? What's the problem? Why are they worried? How do you think the US government authorities are getting information about foreign accounts from US companies? Evidently, it's not happening, and it can't happen, so what's to worry?

We're probably saying the same things, but I think the difference in what we are saying is not really on the ability for the FBI to legally see the data but in being able to use it against someone outside the jurisdiction of the US, with regards that the privacy agreement in the EU has been broken.

There's a fair amount of CAPS in that reply, so I'm done as don't feel that strongly about it..

The FBI isn't going to go abroad and arrest a EU citizen to be prosecuted in the EU by US laws, that's the only thing I can think of that's being confused here. Everyone generally can only be prosecuted under their own country's laws, unless they were in another country breaking that country's laws. So if I were in Ireland and stole something from a shop, I can be prosecuted in Ireland.

Collecting data however doesn't work the same way, it's different how that works or if not, everything you've heard about the Patriot Act or anything else you may have heard about wouldn't exist.

So, I was convinced by my wife today to start a Facebook account. Yeah. Apparently "never" meant about a month. If I ever put "headed to do laundry" or "yet another title for the (insert random 10 year old sports team)" I hope someone punches me in the face as hard as they can.

Actually, if the FBI wanted to look into a FB account that's based out of the Irish servers they'd just call over and say that Timothy O'Toole is a hinkey SOB and needs looked into. And with a couple of secure faxes showing what the FBI had the appropriate EU member would issue the warrant and get the information.

And, because the USA and the EU (both as an organization and as individual member states) don't look at each other as sworn bitter enemies as much as they do partners against international crime and terrorism, they'll share the information found.

Anti-Americanism is fun in a cafe or in a march but doesn't hold much weight for the folks actually trying to quell terrorist attacks.

Again. If it's a US company it stops right there- the FBI can get what it wants, this 'foreign account' or Irish server issue doesn't matter. The FBI won't need permission, it won't disclose anything about the investigation with a foreign government- it doesn't have to. They might alert the foreign government when it comes time to arrest someone- then of course the FBI might work with a foreign government to locate their target. But in the phase of gathering information and surveillance on a target, that's not necessarily going to happen in a sensitive or confidential national security matter.

The reverse is not true, however- non US authorities would have to go through hoops to get data on a US based account.

18 USC 2703 does not make a distinction about the origin of the records- it just says a service provider is compelled with appropriate legal process. In fact a Homeland Security agency gathers records because they are foreign. Even local police agencies get that information. Example- someone in Chicago is a victim of a Nigerian scam using a US based email service, the crime originates in Nigeria (although they don't know that yet). The victim goes to their local police department in Chicago, which has a high technology crimes unit. They issue an investigative subpoena for subscriber information to find out who they're dealing with, they discover at that point when the get the records from the company pursuant to a subpoena by tracing the IP address that it leads back to Nigeria, and say to the victim, "ok, we can't do anything more than that, the scam is out of our jurisdiction, and we don't have any connections with the Nigerian government."

Or, let's say it were something to do with FISA or national security. Once, again, the FBI investigates a foreign account, they go and get a warrant and search the mail account contents. It makes no difference if the target is from Yemen or Pakistan or the UK- in all cases, this is a US company, it falls under US laws, or do people think the FBI gets permission from the Pakistani government to do that? At the same time, a US agency has to comply with US privacy laws and the US Constitution, whether investigating a US or foreign target. So even a foreign account still has protection from illegal search and seizure under US law. But there's no more to it than this. If people deny this is the way it works, there's not much more than I can say other than to suggest they don't have to worry about anything, since evidently US government agencies can't get that information according to their beliefs (yet at the same time, they seem to be criticizing the fact that the US is getting this information somehow, which is a contradiction to their belief that the US can't get this information).

We've all heard of the Patriot Act, right? The PA would be completely nullified if it mattered that these were foreign accounts, that's the whole point of the Patriot Act- to gather information on foreign accounts. But it doesn't stop with the Patriot Act. A government agency, say even a local police department isn't necessarily constrained, they can get information under their own local laws, and under 18 USC 2703. The reason why is that it is a US based company- location of servers won't matter except to tack on additional enhancements to a crime, such as when illegal activity crosses multiple jurisdictions.

I registered with FB. Don't really know why - out of curiosity I think. Then, I realized my privacy was of much greater value than anything I was likely to gain from such an expansive and shallow plaything. Never used it.

SimHQ is so much more preferable.

I realized that I didn't belong on Facebook the day I posted about my house catching on fire,(with photos) and not a single one of my "friends" commented or acted concerned at all. The same day one of them posted some random song lyrics (with no context)and got about a dozen "likes" and comments. I mean WTF? Am I THAT unlikable or something?

My wife always complains when her friends whom she has known since grade school, and who were actually good friends in the past, don't even bother saying happy birthday even though Facebook tells everyone when it is a friend's b-day...

I mostly maintain my account simply to kind of keep track of what my brothers are doing. There's just no point in me posting anything because no one gives a crap.

+1 lol

I hope they do it, start charging people and I will have an excuse to not go there anymore and have my mother comment on any thing I write that she doesn't get or misses the point on or to read my Brother-in-Law's latest scheme to not go out and find a job that requires him to leave the house and the computer. Facebook was cool at first but it's a minefield of stupid now.

Well, the use I have with Facebook isn't so much seeing everyone's inane posts, but there's useful information about what to do on a weekend night- I can see what shows or events people are going to that I didn't know about. That's where I think Facebook will likely evolve- at some point offering more services, premium content music, apps, online stores, ticket counters, that sort of thing.