Facebook can ask for identification under the same authority that you can ask to see someone's identification before letting them into your house.
Another difference is that Facebook suspends you when you are already using Facebook. The analogy would be more apt if you let someone into your house, they hung out for a few hours, and then you physically remove them, and don't let them back in unless they show you an ID.
A coffe shop, a supermarket, a bookstore, etc. doesn't have right to check your ID.
Heck, from what I know, in the US even the police cannot ask you for an id without "reasonable suspicion" that you did something illegal.
For all purpose and effect, it equals a private residence. After all the web service is run by somebody on servers that somebody either owns or pays for.
If I don't want you on my web service I have every right in the world not to let you in/use it because you have no right to demand usage of my private property (servers).
>A coffe shop, a supermarket, a bookstore, etc. doesn't have right to check your ID.
While I'm not 100% sure about the legal situation in the US, I'm pretty sure regular householder's rights apply.
They have the right demand all kinds of things before allowing you on their private premises and you have the right to say "Nah" and not enter their private premises as a result of that, their club, their rules.
>Heck, from what I know, in the US even the police cannot ask you for an id without "reasonable suspicion" that you did something illegal.
In theory, the same was true for German police until... you guess it: 9/11 and the big push for the "war on terror" happened. Since then many countries have adopted additional legislation to allow police more "freedom" with ID checks.
Germany adopted this by declaring certain zones as "higher risk", like near government buildings, public transportation hubs and so on. Police can demand ID from pretty much anybody in a certain radius to such zones, this process is then called "verdachtsunabhänge Personenkontrolle" which loosely translates to "identity check regardless of suspicion".
I'm pretty sure the US has adopted similar legislation, just like the US (supposedly the country of the freest of free speech) adopted the usage of "Free speech zones".
Not sure about that. Some places (like malls or train stations, possibly others) are considered public places to some extent.
Train stations, as part of the public infrastructure, are probably held to a different standard. Locking somebody out from those would present quite a constraint to that individual, so that's probably for the better.
Only by their policy -- whereas for alcohol it's the law.
Facebook most likely doesn't mind the current state of affairs where preteens lie about their age (hook 'em early), but they do not officially condone it.
But if your guests knew you were retaining their data, and still chose to go in your house and give you their ID, it would be perfectly fine to retain their data.
> The analogy would be more apt if you let someone into your house, they hung out for a few hours, and then you physically remove them, and don't let them back in unless they show you an ID
What's wrong with that?