A simple test for figuring out which of Facebook's arguments are sensible is to substitute "Facebook" for a different entity such as, say, a neighborhood association, the phone company, or a government agency. For example, take the subtitle of Zuckerberg's op-ed in the Wall Street Journal: "We need your information for operation and security, but you control whether we use it for advertising." Substituting:
* Would you be OK with your neighborhood association installing spyware on your cellphone because they "need your information for operation and security, but you control whether they use it for advertising?"
* Would you be OK with the phone company installing spyware on your cellphone because they "need your information for operation and security, but you control whether they use it for advertising?"
* Would you be OK with a government agency installing spyware on your cellphone because they "need your information for operation and security, but you control whether they use it for advertising?"
* Would you be OK with your neighborhood association installing spyware on your cellphone because they "need your information for operation and security, but you control whether they use it for advertising?"
* Would you be OK with the phone company installing spyware on your cellphone because they "need your information for operation and security, but you control whether they use it for advertising?"
* Would you be OK with a government agency installing spyware on your cellphone because they "need your information for operation and security, but you control whether they use it for advertising?"