Good points all. As I alluded to in the post, what may be most interesting in all this is what is discovered if the judge allows searching deeper in the mechanisms Facebook deploys for various reasons. The reason I mention this is, for most of us who accept a loss of privacy and know nothing is free, the geek mentality behind these developments is a hacker one. In my informed view at least.
The larger issue for me, concerning the average user, is how reasonably visible the potential for data privacy incursion or damage is. What I mean is, should the law protect people from obscure or confusing language? Are the TOS clear enough, and for whom?
We create TOS for clients sometimes, to be honest the legal mumbojumbo we are forced to use in content is indistinguishable from hyroglyphics for the layman. Point is, "should people be protected from their own impatience?"
Anyhow, this is for the courts to decide. As one person told me yesterday, "this is an attorney gold mine."
Thanks for taking your valuable time to add two cents Mark.