So, I'd dearly love to know why it is Mark Zuckerberg isn't being asked to stand before a judge and explain himself over hiring that PR firm to trash talk Google to the press. (Don't be a dolt--regardless of what FB claimed their motives were, that's exactly what they did.)

It's pretty clear now the way they intend to "take on" Google is by stirring up press hostility for Google to keep them doing as little as possible with the information they could glean from their users--and then themselves deploying services that are exactly as fishy as the things they're "not quite" accusing Google of doing.

Worthy of note is that Google actually walked away from an application to allow users to use facial recognition software to identify who is in a picture because they didn't like the privacy implications... but Facebook knows that your privacy is their money so they're going to sell it off any way they possibly can.

By default, all the photos you might have put into Facebook are fair game for their software to work out better ways of automatically recognizing your face... the idea being that users can upload a picture of someone, and Facebook will tell them who it is (and companies who might want a really good way to snoop on random passers-by to find out who they are can pay Facebook to use that, I'm sure). So, once again, Facebook does something that exposes formerly private user information to new forms of public scrutiny, and you have to opt-out to avoid it.

If Google has to have government snoops up in their business for two years over some packets that were the equivalent of wifi confetti, Mark Zuckerburg should have an entire committee devoted to watching him while he pees to make sure he's not up to something--just because the word "leak" might be used somewhere in a sentence.

Facebook strips more of your privacy away, by default