From a different case a few years ago, a good description of Contempt of Parliament and the power of the Searjent at Arms in such a situation - "Mike Ashley: Could Sports Direct boss be jailed in Big Ben?": https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-35783408
Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers
21–30 of 91 posts
Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers
#22"In another exceptional move, parliament sent a serjeant at arms to his hotel with a final warning and a two-hour deadline to comply with its order. When the software firm founder failed to do so, it’s understood he was escorted to parliament. He was told he risked fines and even imprisonment if he didn’t hand over the documents." Wow. I've never heard of the British parliament being this assertive before.
For anyone wondering: the serjeant-at-arms is a mostly ceremonial role that keeps order in the common parts of the Parliament. You mainly see them carrying the Royal Mace, the symbol of executive power that is kept in Parliament for obvious symbolic reasons. They litterally enforce the authority of the Sovreign. https://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/principal/serj... Sending them in town has no close equivale…
Probably the closest thing in the US would be a Congressional subpoena. In contrast to the UK Parliament's shakier justification, both Congressional rules and the Supreme Court case Wilkinson v. United States have affirmed that committees can subpoena witnesses.
Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that (not being allowed to hold copies of the documents from discovery) standard practice in such cases, did I miss a reference in the article or what's the reason to assume that the "documents weren't in the UK"? I'd assume various legal aspects treat the VPN access scenario differently than carrying a copy that gets seized, despite the result being basically the same?
1. You would not be allowed to take such documents on a random business trip to the UK. You are required to protect and treat them as confidential. If you were going to expose them to legal counsel in the UK for some reason, you would have had to seek the court's permission, etc. 2. The reason to assume is it because the story essentially implies it. They didn't stop the guy and confiscate the stuff he had, they orde…
thanks for the detailed answer!
Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers
#24This is Sovereign power in action, being the power that each country has to escalate when people or companies do not behave according to their norms. We generally don’t see it a lot but when it happens results can be severe.
It serves as a good warning that when doing business in any country you need to abide by the written and unwritten codes of conduct for that country. Two other less pleasant examples are Assange and Khashoggi.
Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers
#25Following AMP links makes me sad. Here's the real link: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/24/mps-seize...
I didn't realize it was an AMP link until I clicked and saw that it had been blocked. I have a growing hosts block list specifically for AMP hosts. If anyone else wishes to block some AMP hosts, here is the link: https://github.com/lightswitch05/hosts/blob/master/amp-hosts...
I don't use Google anymore, so the list only has 362 at the moment, but I keep adding more as I find them. Pull requests are welcome!
Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers
#26This is Sovereign power in action, being the power that each country has to escalate when people or companies do not behave according to their norms. We generally don’t see it a lot but when it happens results can be severe. It serves as a good warning that when doing business in any country you need to abide by the written and unwritten codes of conduct for that country. Two other less pleasant examples are Assange…
Exactly. I'm very happy with this turn of events. In repeatedly turning down the British Parliament's request to testify, Zuckerberg displayed a stunning level of arrogance, and brought this upon himself.
Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers
#27I found an article about the ongoing Six4Three case in CA [1]. From the article:
> David Godkin, Six4Three’s lead counsel said: “We believe the public has a right to see the evidence and are confident the evidence clearly demonstrates the truth of our allegations, and much more.”
I have little-to-no legal understanding, but it seems to me that it was in Six4Three's interest to have these documents seized and perhaps released to the public? I see others here talking of how bold of a move this was for Parliament and that it wouldn't have worked if Six4Three simply refused. However, if Six4Three was trying to get the documents released anyways, was this really that bold of a move? Seems to me its more just giving Six4Three an excuse to leak the documents.
1: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/may/24/mark-zuck...
Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that (not being allowed to hold copies of the documents from discovery) standard practice in such cases, did I miss a reference in the article or what's the reason to assume that the "documents weren't in the UK"? I'd assume various legal aspects treat the VPN access scenario differently than carrying a copy that gets seized, despite the result being basically the same?
1. You would not be allowed to take such documents on a random business trip to the UK. You are required to protect and treat them as confidential. If you were going to expose them to legal counsel in the UK for some reason, you would have had to seek the court's permission, etc. 2. The reason to assume is it because the story essentially implies it. They didn't stop the guy and confiscate the stuff he had, they orde…
I was also thinking the same thing about the "secret deal" thing since 643 had previously fought Facebook in court and there might be some bad blood there. But the guy is a US citizen so it'd be very risky to intentionally pull a stunt like that when a US court ordered him to keep the documents sealed.
I agree it seems this was a pretty major incident and people are letting their hatred of Zuckerberg blind them to it.
In essence the 643 guy was threatened with UK jail if he didn't produce the documents. And threatened with US jail if he did. Over something that he did not own or had any part in creating. I'm no expert but it seems like a rights violation. He didn't do anything illegal.
Do embassies really step in in this case? If not, what would be the correct process to untangle oneself.
Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers
#29Looks like Six4Three is at fault here. It should have protected the papers to be not accessible by whoever is outside the US. We will see more of this as national jurisdictions collide with the international internet.
I'm not entirely sure that's the case. The guy is the CEO.
So let's say he can't access it from the UK. The UK guys tell him "give us the documents or you go to jail". Well then he could ask an employee who is currently in the US to unlock them for him, maybe even give them his password. Basically, there is usually a way to get things done if there is a threat of jail pending.
The greater issue is how the UK was allowed to even do something like this to a person who hadn't done anything illegal.
Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers
#30Following AMP links makes me sad. Here's the real link: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/24/mps-seize...
Switched now.