Update: Well, this is not as controversial as I first thought.  Turns out the .img in question was released by Mr. Medhora himself long time ago.  Interestingly enough, I do wonder if it still *is* a violation of Facebook’s TOS, as when read to the letter, no one is really allowed to republish anything that they didn’t actually create — which creates an interesting situation, as Mr. Medhora’s intention has probably never to have had that .img under any exclusive terms (since he captured it), but on the other hand, it *is* a capture of a site which does have fairly restrictive terms … on his own information!   Also, it doesn’t get around the hypothetical situation, where someone’s information actually *IS* republished, where the original author didn’t implicitly or intentionally give it away in the first place.  What will happen then?

So, here’s something interesting to chew on for this weekend. Indian-American Neville Medhora wakes up one day and finds out that his Facebook profile is splashed across the front of a Lebanese newspaper. He’s vaguely amused, particularly since his *phone number* was also reprinted, along with whatever personal information that he’s posted up on his profile.

Its a little curious that Mr. Medhora wasn’t outraged that his privacy was violated, but that’s his business. What’s even MORE curious is examining it from a Proprietary Rights and Limited License point of view. Now, I’m not a lawyer (IANL). I’m not even close. Maybe as a rule of law lawyers are higher up on the food chain than physicians — like they *eat* them or something as part of the natural cycle of things. But getting the IANL out of the way, it is curious when you examine Facebook’s own TOS, right around … you guessed it, “Proprietary Rights and Limited License.”

I quote:

No Site Content may be modified, copied, distributed, framed, reproduced, republished, downloaded, displayed, posted, transmitted, or sold in any form or by any means, in whole or in part, without the Company’s prior written permission, except that the foregoing does not apply to your own User Content … that you legally post on the Site. Provided that you are eligible for use of the Site, you are granted a limited license to access and use the Site and the Site Content and to download or print a copy of any portion of the Site Content to which you have properly gained access solely for your personal, non-commercial use, provided that you keep all copyright or other proprietary notices intact. Except for your own User Content, you may not upload or republish Site Content on any Internet, Intranet or Extranet site or incorporate the information in any other database or compilation, and any other use of the Site Content is strictly prohibited.

[the bold is my own emphasis, 'natch]

Now, I’m going to presume that Mr. Medhora didn’t authorize that his profile be explicitly published because that’s what he’s written [although he did do the screen cap himself and published it on his own blog first -- see above]. And I’m further going to assume that said Lebanese paper didn’t get permission a priori to publish Mr. Medhora’s profile.

Well.

In that case, to *me* it looks like a clear violation of Facebook’s Terms of Service. An entity, or someone belonging to that entity, decided to publish information that it didn’t have a right to do (without “the express written consent”, as it were). Never *MIND* that it was someone else’s personal information, what will Facebook do now?

Will it take the high road, and use some of that VC cash to do the Right Thing, and defend its users from these kind of shennanigans? (at this point, someone from the audience can comment on the futility — or lack thereof, perhaps — of international law in these cirumstances) Or, will this be the first of many episodes where Facebook’s users will find that their information is republished with impunity?

[and what will *THAT* do to its valuation?]

Hey, I don’t have the answer.

The ball’s in Facebook’s court, I think.