> You broke your promise.

Then you face the legal consequences for doing so. Thats what prevents people from breaking them in first place. Unless you are arguing that all legal contracts are useless because they can be broken.

I am not asking about the logistics of leaking. Yes ofcourse its physically possible, I am asking why the consequences of breaking a contract don't matter in this specific case.

> I am asking why the consequences of breaking a contract don't matter in this specific case

Technically speaking, no contract was broken. When users signed up for Facebook, they clicked a button pursuant to which Facebook indemnified itself from everything under the sun. (It is unclear how enforceable those terms are. EULAs, for example, aren't very enforceable in the U.S. [1].)

Facebook did agree not to do these things with the FTC. (It also made some noises to the Congress, but I don't believe those were under oath.) And there are a lot of things it may have done which are illegal. But enforcing the law and consent decrees requires prosecutors to prosecute. We're waiting for that.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-user_license_agreement#Enf...

> Technically speaking, no contract was broken. When users signed up for Facebook, they clicked a button pursuant to which Facebook indemnified itself from everything under the sun.

I am referring to this

> These partners signed agreements

not users.

It is difficult to say anything about the partners' agreements without seeing them. The problem these agreements exist in the first place. Instead of Facebook writing a Windows Phone app, they had Microsoft write the app and paid Microsoft with users' data.

The difference would be ignored if it hadn't been replicated in the Cambridge Analytica scandal. People are reasonably concerned about how much data Facebook is giving these third parties and how diligently it's ensuring they aren't retaining it.

These concerns are heightened by the existence of these agreements contradicting with (a) the FTC consent decree and (b) Zuckerberg's statement to Congress. It may also be material in the ongoing biometrics lawsuit in Illinois.

> paid Microsoft with users' data

That sure sounds like a misrepresentation of what happened here. From the article: "These partners signed agreements that prevented people’s Facebook information from being used for any other purpose than to recreate Facebook-like experiences."

I don't think I would represent facebook as "paying" google with user's data just because Chrome has access to user data when a user visits the facebook website.

Contracts are not "useless", but they are also not "preventing" someone from doing something just because they impose a penalty. If you want to see proof: visit a court!

Contracts motivate you to adhere to some previously-agreed-upon behavior, and the degree to which they motivate you depends on how much the penalty actually penalizes you. In the case of large corporations, seemingly big penalties are often actually negligible in comparison, with the resulting motivation to adhere to the contract being negligible as well. That is one important reason why it is deliberately misleading to use the word "preventing" in the context in which Facebook uses it here. The other one is simply that it's factually wrong, even regardless of the size of the penalty.

How do you prove that Bob leaked the information? How do you prove that Abe told Bob? How do you prove that FB was the source of information to Abe? How do you demonstrate that FB, Abe, and Bob did not take all good faith efforts to keep the information secure?

How do you show any actual damages?

>How do you prove that Bob leaked the information? How do you prove that Abe told Bob?

Data watermarks, small changes (little tiny bits) that allows to track the leaks.

Also audit logs, you know who has what, etc. The topic has been hotly discussed with GDPR as the leaks have rather harsh consequences (beside being dragged through the mud, erm newspapers).

> How do you show any actual damages?

All that presumably is figured out before signing a agreement. Thats the whole point of an agreement vs pinky promise.

Even if they broke their promise (EULA), what remedy does that EULA provide for FB breaking their promise? What legal consequence is there?

The burden is on the plaintiff to prove FB violated the agreement, that violation caused damage, and the value of that damage. The EULA doesn't say the user gets a pay out if FB admits (or is obviously caught) non-compliance with the agreement.

Right. And they should be punished harshly for it, so that everyone else is much more careful about who they share that stuff with in the future.

None of this changes the fact that I want Likes on my vacation photos, kid photos, and pics of my food, all of which are of better quality than yours.

This was a satire by the way