Eh, personally I pretty exclusively use CentOS for my Linux server needs, but Ubuntu would certainly be me desktop of choice these days (if I didn't have powerbook). Either way, yes, Redhat screwed up in my book and it does look like they will suffer for it.
Of course if Redhat goes down, CentOS goes with it. No big deal, OpenSolaris is looking quite nice these days and there is always Debian/Ubuntu
Bowling balls weigh a lot more than bullets, and can have significantly more momentum. Also, I could easily jump into the air or stand on one foot and fire a handgun and not be affected. The force is spread out over a greater area (my hand and arm) and in the case of a semi-automatic pistol, spread out over a slightly greater span of time, but it is almost exactly the same amount of force directed at the target. Even if I were to place the gun against my chest and fire it, I would not be thrown backward (I would probably break a few ribs and be in serious pain though). The difference is that the bullet directs the force into a much smaller area.
The image your suggestion brought up is intriguing:)
There is a difference between knocking you off balance and throwing you back.
Shotguns will knock you off balance easily if you are not prepared, but no gun on earth is going to lift you off your feet and/or toss you backwards. The ones that are powerfull enough to (military cannons) just rip you to shreads instead.
Bullets do not have enough momentum to knock you down, that is a hollywood invention. Think of it this way, if shooting the bullet does not knock the shooter down, it isn't going to knock the person he shot at down either.
True, but in this case there is very little/no doubt. I'm not talking about firing a cop every time a detainee complains about abuse of power, but if a cop tries to book someone on a crime that does not exist (like this one), that ought to be enough really. Plus he did this in full view of witnesses.
Or did you mean immediately after they've been given a fair trial, had the right to legal counsel, had the right to appeals, etc. and so forth?
This case seems pretty cut and dry. If you unlawfully detain and arrest someone for violating a law you just made up on the spot because you did not like what they were doing (even though it was legal), you are simply abusing your power to intimidate the same people you are suppose be serving and protecting. So yes, fair trial and due process of course, but in found guilty of abusing power, the consequences need to be quick and decisive. It is more important to get corrupt and otherwise "bad" cop off the street than it is to keep the staffing numbers up. If the choice is between having 10 good cops and 5 bad cops or just 10 goos cops, society is much better served by having only 10 good cops.
So, I'm not suggesting bad cops get a bye or are let off. Yet at the same time, they too have to be given due process. That's called not compounding a wrong with another wrong or making a bad situation worse.
I am in complete agreement.
And yes, a good solution to this would be paying higher salaries and thus requiring better educated and higher quality police. Unfortunately we place lower taxes above all else so we are getting what we asked for.
(On the other hand, it is not surprising that we demand lower taxes when we see how poorly our tax dollars are allocated)
Again, this was not an accident. This guy invented laws he knew did not exist, accused someone of violating these fairy tale laws, then wrongfully arrested him. This was a cause of intentional abuse of power for purposes of intimidation, pure and simple. There is no training to change this mindset, this man is simply not fit to be a police officer and should be terminated.
Yes, the outcome you described in your incident was worse, but it was the result of a mistake, not willful abuse of power. Training and punishment would be a valid response to that, but not to this.
This officer deserves a reprimand for this but not outright dismissal. If there is a pattern of this with an officer then dismissal would be appropriate but we do need to cut people some slack when it comes to things like this.
No you do not. When you give someone a gun, a ton of power, and the ability to arrest/detain everyone else, that person needs to be held to a much higher standard. Abusing that power is NEVER EVER acceptable, and is a violation of the public trust. Second chances are for middle managers and burger flippers, not civil servants tasked with preserving law and order.
I would say that a public apology from the Police Department and an official statement saying that what the person did was not illegal would be nice as well. This would help dispel the image that photographing the police is a crime.
That will not happen, they (the police community as a whole) want it to be illegal and if the public thinks it is, then that is just as good.
I do not like abuse of power by the police we do need to at least admit that they are human beings doing a necessary and stressful job.
If most of them can do their stressful jobs without ever abusing their power then they all should be able to. Those who cannot simply should not be allowed to be police officers. Simple as that.
They will make mistakes and should be required to admit and pay for those mistakes as appropriate.
Filling out a form incorrectly is a mistake. Heck, even arresting the wrong person is a mistake. Willfully abusing power, inventing charges (or laws that do not exist) and oppressing people simple because you do not like what they are doing is not a mistake. It is a flagrant violation of their duties and responsibilities and given the position of power they hold, should be grounds for immediate job terminations.
Given the stresses and danger of police work, we as a society should give some leeway to those who commit honest mistakes and accidents. Abusing power is never a mistake or accident, and should never be tolerated even once.
What *really* scares me is that people genuinely, legitimately believe this, and believe that police and government are out to get them, and that they're all corrupt and only looking for ways to extend their power or line their pockets.
The police? No most of them are good but it scares me a bit that the "us against them" mentality is so pervasive that even the good majority will back the bad apples in a "band of brothers" sort of way.
But government? It scares me that you can look at congress and honestly believe that they are NOT all only looking for ways to extend their power and line their pockets. The number of honorable congress-critters who are not in the pocket of a special interest or corporation can be counted on one hand.
The conspiracy is that this cop will still have his job tomorrow, when he has clearly shown that he does not deserve it. Abusing his power and violating the public trust should be grounds for immediate dismissal. Sadly, he will probably be congratulated in the locker room for showing one of those uppity photo-jerks who is boss and making others think twice.
If the [P]olice do something wrong, they should be [P]unished just like the rest of us!
Yes they should, and they should also IMMEDIATELY lose their job. They are given powers and abilities above that of normal citizens and with that comes responsibility. We place our trust in them and once one of them violates that trust there is absolutely no reason at all to keep them. A crooked or corrupt cop is a much greater risk to society than your average joe.
If a cop is caught abusing his power, violating the law, or anything of that nature, he needs to be fired ASAP. No cushy desk job, no paid leave, gone. We as a society have become far too accepting of crooked cops and the police community is far to protective of its own, even when they are giving all a bad name.
"Beat your child till she eats healthily!" -- I like your style... Personally, I'd go for a clear, calm explanation and providing an enticing but healthy alternative to McDonald's, but hey, to each their own.
Because nothing gets through to most tantrum throwing children like clear calm explanations.
Look, I'm against hitting kids, but let's not pretend they are just short adults and can always be rationally dealt with. They test limits, throw tantrums, and often logic is of no use against them. Sometimes punishment needs to be dealt out to alter behavior. I'm more a fan of removing privileges (tv/computer time, playing outside, treats, etc) than corporal punishment. To me corporal punishment is the last resort of a parent who let a situation get too far out of hand and lacks the ability to deal with it. But regardless, as someone who has tried many MANY time to explain things rationally to a 9 year old, I believe sometimes punishment is often the only thing that can REALLY get their attention.
Wow, I had totally forgotten about S:AaB, that show rocked. Along with SeaQuest DSV (which I have fuzzy memories of being on at roughly the same time) it pretty much was all the scifi I was into in my younger years. Two years ago I borrowed the B5 DVD sets from a friend and went through them and now I want to see all the original star trek and next generation series, doctor who, and the original BG. I guess you could say B5 kicked me into "scifi geek mode" lately, I would welcome seeing some more work from jms.
I cannot imagine the current broadband monopoly setup existing forever. Many places are already served by DSL & Cable. And wimax, satellite (?), and stuff that has not been thought up yet will hopefully provide the broadband comsumer with more choice in the coming years.
If/when the consumer had more choices, the tables will turn for the providers. Suddenly people will realize they could care less about the method of access, and more about the content. Myspace, youtube, google, all of the sites popular with the kids today might think to throttle their connections to verizon, comcast and the like unless THEY cough up some money. The users will go with whoever has the best access to the content they want.
Well, we could make people aware of it, and hopefully persuade people to stop using their service. Or to turn them against laws such as the USAPATRIOT act. Which is exactly is being done here.
That is all well and good (and I am in support doing just these things) but let's not act like a horrible travesty has taken place. People also need to be made aware of what can happen when you agree to TOS that states that anything you upload to a service becomes their property. Think about what would happen if Facebook went bankrupt? By law they would have to sell off their assets, and guess what that includes?
Do you think it's good if we are unable to use the Internet for anything we wouldn't want everyone in the world to know, even if we password protected and/or encrypted the information?
This is a completely separate argument. Now if your ISP claims copyright and ownership on everything that goes over their lines than you have a point and that would be scary. As for encryption, nobody else SHOULD be able to get it, unless you are using really bad encryption. I do use the internet for things I want private, and a social networking website's TOS has no bearing on my ability to do that.
But this is a case where someone willing agreed that everything the upload becomes property of facebook to do as they please. Is what facebook did kinda sucky? Yes, but it certainly should not be unexpected. This is why you avoid places like facebook to begin with who state up front they claim ownership over user generated content.
What's curious is right under their "irrevocable, perpetual, blah blah blah" clause, they say this:
"You may remove your Member Content from the Web site at any time. If you choose to remove your Member Content, the license granted above will automatically expire."
That is kinda curious, especially since their policy allows them "perpetual" use rights and the ability to transfer their rights to a third party. I wonder how the deal internally with this case....
"Shit, recall all those pamphlets, drunkenfratguy30506 deleted the picture we used on the front cover!"
Either way in this case the data at hand was not previously deleted. Or at least there is nothing in this somewhat questionable "friend of a friend" story to indicate that.
Even better, if you go look at their privacy policy: "We understand you may not want everyone in the world to have the information you share on Facebook; that is why we give you control of your information."
It makes you feel good, but it is not a binding policy in any way. Plus they are allowed to change it at will. And in any case they are talking about other users. They own your content, so they are allowed to access it anytime they want, privacy bit or not, and give it to whomever they want (such as law enforcement, recruiters, HR reps, etc).
Your site on your server, sure, but what about the site run by someone else (which is where most people are posting things anyway)?
That is a good point, kinda makes it seem like a bad idea to post stuff like this one someone else's server. Especially after you agree to a TOS agreement that states they own anything you put on their site and can do whatever they wish with it.
Oh there you go making assumptions about me. I never said be defeatist about the situation, I basically said do not delude ourselves about it and call a spade a spade. Nor did I ever say citizens cannot override corporate interests (you provided many good examples from the past), just that as it stands right now congress is more concerned with pleasing their patrons than voters. They will shift more to token voter pleasing measures as the elections get closer of course, but that will be only temporary.
So don't take what I wrote as defeatist or thinking nobody can make a difference, just that in order to make a difference one must recognize the situation for what it is. Right now most people seem to think there is a major difference between a career democrat vs a career republican, and focus on that instead of the ways the system is truly broken (or at least corrupted).
You're saying I shouldn't ask other people to stand up for their rights since mine haven't been challeneged?
No, I'm saying you should never fault other people for not standing up for their rights because the consequences do not fall on you. Do I think employers should not monitor email and personal phone calls? Yes. Am I going to quit my job and threaten the financial stability of my family over that one reason if my company starts? Probably not. But there are many people who would fault me for that.
This is a good point, but unfortunately all you are really saying is that "someone's actions may have consequences". True.
Hey it would suck if someone took pictures of me partying like a drunken fool in college and sent them to my employer (ok, I have partied like a drunken fool with many of them so that is a bad example, but lets say a future employer), but them's the breaks. And girls (all....maybe 3 of you who might be reading this post) the same goes for you and your horny boyfriend who wants to take naked pictures of you. They will quite likely end up on the Internet someday. Actions can have consequences.
No, that's completely erroneous. it's not like that at all. You couldn't be more wrong.
This was a private account that required a password to access.
Have you read facebook's TOS?
By posting Member Content to any part of the Web site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, perform, display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such information and content and to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such information and content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing.
I'm sorry but you could not be more wrong. The content you post to facebook is owned by them and they can do whatever they please with it. You agree to those terms by signing up. They could forward their entire DB to every law enforcement and employer in the nation if they so desire, and there is not a damn thing anyone could do about it. Kinda makes it worth spending the time to read the TOS agreement huh?
By posting Member Content to any part of the Web site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, perform, display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such information and content and to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such information and content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing.
That is in the TOS for facebook. In short, anything you put on their is theirs, and they can do whatever they damn well feel like with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Eh, personally I pretty exclusively use CentOS for my Linux server needs, but Ubuntu would certainly be me desktop of choice these days (if I didn't have powerbook). Either way, yes, Redhat screwed up in my book and it does look like they will suffer for it.
Of course if Redhat goes down, CentOS goes with it. No big deal, OpenSolaris is looking quite nice these days and there is always Debian/Ubuntu
Finkployd
Bowling balls weigh a lot more than bullets, and can have significantly more momentum.
:)
Also, I could easily jump into the air or stand on one foot and fire a handgun and not be affected. The force is spread out over a greater area (my hand and arm) and in the case of a semi-automatic pistol, spread out over a slightly greater span of time, but it is almost exactly the same amount of force directed at the target. Even if I were to place the gun against my chest and fire it, I would not be thrown backward (I would probably break a few ribs and be in serious pain though).
The difference is that the bullet directs the force into a much smaller area.
The image your suggestion brought up is intriguing
Finkployd
Oh, don't even get me started on mutant registration. You know they can walk right into bank vaults?
Finkployd
There is a difference between knocking you off balance and throwing you back.
Shotguns will knock you off balance easily if you are not prepared, but no gun on earth is going to lift you off your feet and/or toss you backwards. The ones that are powerfull enough to (military cannons) just rip you to shreads instead.
Finkployd
Bullets do not have enough momentum to knock you down, that is a hollywood invention. Think of it this way, if shooting the bullet does not knock the shooter down, it isn't going to knock the person he shot at down either.
Finkployd
True, but in this case there is very little/no doubt. I'm not talking about firing a cop every time a detainee complains about abuse of power, but if a cop tries to book someone on a crime that does not exist (like this one), that ought to be enough really. Plus he did this in full view of witnesses.
Finkployd
Immediately lose their job?
Or did you mean immediately after they've been given a fair trial, had the right to legal counsel, had the right to appeals, etc. and so forth?
This case seems pretty cut and dry. If you unlawfully detain and arrest someone for violating a law you just made up on the spot because you did not like what they were doing (even though it was legal), you are simply abusing your power to intimidate the same people you are suppose be serving and protecting. So yes, fair trial and due process of course, but in found guilty of abusing power, the consequences need to be quick and decisive. It is more important to get corrupt and otherwise "bad" cop off the street than it is to keep the staffing numbers up. If the choice is between having 10 good cops and 5 bad cops or just 10 goos cops, society is much better served by having only 10 good cops.
So, I'm not suggesting bad cops get a bye or are let off. Yet at the same time, they too have to be given due process. That's called not compounding a wrong with another wrong or making a bad situation worse.
I am in complete agreement.
And yes, a good solution to this would be paying higher salaries and thus requiring better educated and higher quality police. Unfortunately we place lower taxes above all else so we are getting what we asked for.
(On the other hand, it is not surprising that we demand lower taxes when we see how poorly our tax dollars are allocated)
Finkployd
Again, this was not an accident. This guy invented laws he knew did not exist, accused someone of violating these fairy tale laws, then wrongfully arrested him. This was a cause of intentional abuse of power for purposes of intimidation, pure and simple. There is no training to change this mindset, this man is simply not fit to be a police officer and should be terminated.
Yes, the outcome you described in your incident was worse, but it was the result of a mistake, not willful abuse of power. Training and punishment would be a valid response to that, but not to this.
Finkployd
This officer deserves a reprimand for this but not outright dismissal. If there is a pattern of this with an officer then dismissal would be appropriate but we do need to cut people some slack when it comes to things like this.
No you do not. When you give someone a gun, a ton of power, and the ability to arrest/detain everyone else, that person needs to be held to a much higher standard. Abusing that power is NEVER EVER acceptable, and is a violation of the public trust. Second chances are for middle managers and burger flippers, not civil servants tasked with preserving law and order.
I would say that a public apology from the Police Department and an official statement saying that what the person did was not illegal would be nice as well. This would help dispel the image that photographing the police is a crime.
That will not happen, they (the police community as a whole) want it to be illegal and if the public thinks it is, then that is just as good.
I do not like abuse of power by the police we do need to at least admit that they are human beings doing a necessary and stressful job.
If most of them can do their stressful jobs without ever abusing their power then they all should be able to. Those who cannot simply should not be allowed to be police officers. Simple as that.
They will make mistakes and should be required to admit and pay for those mistakes as appropriate.
Filling out a form incorrectly is a mistake. Heck, even arresting the wrong person is a mistake. Willfully abusing power, inventing charges (or laws that do not exist) and oppressing people simple because you do not like what they are doing is not a mistake. It is a flagrant violation of their duties and responsibilities and given the position of power they hold, should be grounds for immediate job terminations.
Given the stresses and danger of police work, we as a society should give some leeway to those who commit honest mistakes and accidents. Abusing power is never a mistake or accident, and should never be tolerated even once.
Finkployd
What *really* scares me is that people genuinely, legitimately believe this, and believe that police and government are out to get them, and that they're all corrupt and only looking for ways to extend their power or line their pockets.
The police? No most of them are good but it scares me a bit that the "us against them" mentality is so pervasive that even the good majority will back the bad apples in a "band of brothers" sort of way.
But government? It scares me that you can look at congress and honestly believe that they are NOT all only looking for ways to extend their power and line their pockets. The number of honorable congress-critters who are not in the pocket of a special interest or corporation can be counted on one hand.
Finkployd
The conspiracy is that this cop will still have his job tomorrow, when he has clearly shown that he does not deserve it. Abusing his power and violating the public trust should be grounds for immediate dismissal. Sadly, he will probably be congratulated in the locker room for showing one of those uppity photo-jerks who is boss and making others think twice.
Finkployd
If the [P]olice do something wrong, they should be [P]unished just like the rest of us!
Yes they should, and they should also IMMEDIATELY lose their job. They are given powers and abilities above that of normal citizens and with that comes responsibility. We place our trust in them and once one of them violates that trust there is absolutely no reason at all to keep them. A crooked or corrupt cop is a much greater risk to society than your average joe.
If a cop is caught abusing his power, violating the law, or anything of that nature, he needs to be fired ASAP. No cushy desk job, no paid leave, gone. We as a society have become far too accepting of crooked cops and the police community is far to protective of its own, even when they are giving all a bad name.
Finkployd
"Beat your child till she eats healthily!" -- I like your style... Personally, I'd go for a clear, calm explanation and providing an enticing but healthy alternative to McDonald's, but hey, to each their own.
Because nothing gets through to most tantrum throwing children like clear calm explanations.
Look, I'm against hitting kids, but let's not pretend they are just short adults and can always be rationally dealt with. They test limits, throw tantrums, and often logic is of no use against them. Sometimes punishment needs to be dealt out to alter behavior. I'm more a fan of removing privileges (tv/computer time, playing outside, treats, etc) than corporal punishment. To me corporal punishment is the last resort of a parent who let a situation get too far out of hand and lacks the ability to deal with it. But regardless, as someone who has tried many MANY time to explain things rationally to a 9 year old, I believe sometimes punishment is often the only thing that can REALLY get their attention.
Finkployd
Wow, I had totally forgotten about S:AaB, that show rocked. Along with SeaQuest DSV (which I have fuzzy memories of being on at roughly the same time) it pretty much was all the scifi I was into in my younger years. Two years ago I borrowed the B5 DVD sets from a friend and went through them and now I want to see all the original star trek and next generation series, doctor who, and the original BG. I guess you could say B5 kicked me into "scifi geek mode" lately, I would welcome seeing some more work from jms.
Finkployd
I cannot imagine the current broadband monopoly setup existing forever. Many places are already served by DSL & Cable. And wimax, satellite (?), and stuff that has not been thought up yet will hopefully provide the broadband comsumer with more choice in the coming years.
If/when the consumer had more choices, the tables will turn for the providers. Suddenly people will realize they could care less about the method of access, and more about the content. Myspace, youtube, google, all of the sites popular with the kids today might think to throttle their connections to verizon, comcast and the like unless THEY cough up some money. The users will go with whoever has the best access to the content they want.
Finkployd
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day
Finkployd
Well, we could make people aware of it, and hopefully persuade people to stop using their service. Or to turn them against laws such as the USAPATRIOT act. Which is exactly is being done here.
That is all well and good (and I am in support doing just these things) but let's not act like a horrible travesty has taken place. People also need to be made aware of what can happen when you agree to TOS that states that anything you upload to a service becomes their property. Think about what would happen if Facebook went bankrupt? By law they would have to sell off their assets, and guess what that includes?
Do you think it's good if we are unable to use the Internet for anything we wouldn't want everyone in the world to know, even if we password protected and/or encrypted the information?
This is a completely separate argument. Now if your ISP claims copyright and ownership on everything that goes over their lines than you have a point and that would be scary. As for encryption, nobody else SHOULD be able to get it, unless you are using really bad encryption. I do use the internet for things I want private, and a social networking website's TOS has no bearing on my ability to do that.
But this is a case where someone willing agreed that everything the upload becomes property of facebook to do as they please. Is what facebook did kinda sucky? Yes, but it certainly should not be unexpected. This is why you avoid places like facebook to begin with who state up front they claim ownership over user generated content.
Finkployd
What's curious is right under their "irrevocable, perpetual, blah blah blah" clause, they say this:
"You may remove your Member Content from the Web site at any time. If you choose to remove your Member Content, the license granted above will automatically expire."
That is kinda curious, especially since their policy allows them "perpetual" use rights and the ability to transfer their rights to a third party. I wonder how the deal internally with this case....
"Shit, recall all those pamphlets, drunkenfratguy30506 deleted the picture we used on the front cover!"
Either way in this case the data at hand was not previously deleted. Or at least there is nothing in this somewhat questionable "friend of a friend" story to indicate that.
Even better, if you go look at their privacy policy:
"We understand you may not want everyone in the world to have the information you share on Facebook; that is why we give you control of your information."
It makes you feel good, but it is not a binding policy in any way. Plus they are allowed to change it at will.
And in any case they are talking about other users. They own your content, so they are allowed to access it anytime they want, privacy bit or not, and give it to whomever they want (such as law enforcement, recruiters, HR reps, etc).
Finkployd
Your site on your server, sure, but what about the site run by someone else (which is where most people are posting things anyway)?
That is a good point, kinda makes it seem like a bad idea to post stuff like this one someone else's server. Especially after you agree to a TOS agreement that states they own anything you put on their site and can do whatever they wish with it.
Finkployd
Oh there you go making assumptions about me. I never said be defeatist about the situation, I basically said do not delude ourselves about it and call a spade a spade. Nor did I ever say citizens cannot override corporate interests (you provided many good examples from the past), just that as it stands right now congress is more concerned with pleasing their patrons than voters. They will shift more to token voter pleasing measures as the elections get closer of course, but that will be only temporary.
So don't take what I wrote as defeatist or thinking nobody can make a difference, just that in order to make a difference one must recognize the situation for what it is. Right now most people seem to think there is a major difference between a career democrat vs a career republican, and focus on that instead of the ways the system is truly broken (or at least corrupted).
Finkployd
A simple robots.txt line will remove your site from the wayback machine.
The real lesson here is not to publish things you would not want others to see in the first place.
Finkployd
You're saying I shouldn't ask other people to stand up for their rights since mine haven't been challeneged?
No, I'm saying you should never fault other people for not standing up for their rights because the consequences do not fall on you. Do I think employers should not monitor email and personal phone calls? Yes. Am I going to quit my job and threaten the financial stability of my family over that one reason if my company starts? Probably not. But there are many people who would fault me for that.
Finkployd
This is a good point, but unfortunately all you are really saying is that "someone's actions may have consequences". True.
Hey it would suck if someone took pictures of me partying like a drunken fool in college and sent them to my employer (ok, I have partied like a drunken fool with many of them so that is a bad example, but lets say a future employer), but them's the breaks. And girls (all....maybe 3 of you who might be reading this post) the same goes for you and your horny boyfriend who wants to take naked pictures of you. They will quite likely end up on the Internet someday. Actions can have consequences.
Finkployd
No, that's completely erroneous. it's not like that at all. You couldn't be more wrong.
This was a private account that required a password to access.
Have you read facebook's TOS?
By posting Member Content to any part of the Web site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, perform, display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such information and content and to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such information and content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing.
I'm sorry but you could not be more wrong. The content you post to facebook is owned by them and they can do whatever they please with it. You agree to those terms by signing up. They could forward their entire DB to every law enforcement and employer in the nation if they so desire, and there is not a damn thing anyone could do about it. Kinda makes it worth spending the time to read the TOS agreement huh?
Finkployd
By posting Member Content to any part of the Web site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, perform, display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such information and content and to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such information and content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing.
That is in the TOS for facebook. In short, anything you put on their is theirs, and they can do whatever they damn well feel like with it.
Finkployd