When using Facebook, I trade my "privacy" for services. It is a normal exchange, like any other, and has it's own supply/demand graph. There are those for whom privacy is worth more than what FB can offer in return, whereas I don't particularly care how well someone else knows me, unless they plan to use that information to disrupt my life. Am I important enough for that? Nowhere close.
It'll be hacked, then patched, then hacked back... I have no idea how Oculus plans to work, but afaik it is just a fancy monitor + input system. It requires the user to have software capable of understanding the input from the Rift and also something capable of rendering stereoscopic 3D to output to the Rift.
There'd need to be special software which you'd be forced to (or guided to) install for FB to intercept these things and in real time analyse them. That is what I imagine hackers would target.
This is pure speculation and I obviously do not condone breaking ToS and laws etc. but I don't imagine it'd be horribly difficult to do.
As I said on a different thread, FB makes $1B a year. Less than $2 per user. Let's imagine the cost savings of the rift being sold "at cost" (whatever that means) is >$10 - this saving is in exchange for your privacy as noted above. Would you be willing to pay $20 a year for no tracking/ads (in theory?).
Everyone benefits - those who like their privacy are happy so VR has greater adoption, they still pay less than otherwise. FB gets more money, and advertisers don't pay for ads to those who would ignore them anyway.
As above, I myself don't mind being data-mined and actually look forward to walking round virtual cities with giant billboards with tailored ads around. I don't believe FB would ruin the user experience by popping huge ads up in your face during loading screens/random times.
Edit: removed the term "tin foil hatters" as skupples pointed out it is insulting, and I apologise for it.
Edited by Moragg - 3/31/14 at 7:59am