Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 91 posts

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#31

Post by sys_64738 »

enraged_camel wrote: post #26
lancewiggs wrote: post #24

This 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.

I thought he was quite right to turn them down. He doesn’t owe a foreign government his presence to answer to them unless he’s got a warrant for his arrest.

I could imagine that there are implications for tech companies now operating in the UK if they’re subject to raids by the British police force. It sets a dangerous precedent.

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#32

Post by _bfhp »

lancewiggs wrote: post #24

This 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…

If we casually allow that there are "unwritten" rules, then we accept that every government is merely a dictatorship ruled by whichever individuals have the most access to physical power. It would be great if everyone could by explicit on this, and if they are happy with it or not.

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#33

Post by NeedMoreTea »

sys_64738 wrote: post #31
enraged_camel wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I thought he was quite right to turn them down. He doesn’t owe a foreign government his presence to answer to them unless he’s got a warrant for his arrest. I could imagine that there are implications for tech companies now operating in the UK if they’re subject to raids by the British police force. It sets a dangerous precedent.

Why does it set a dangerous precedent?

Facebook in the UK is wholly subject to the decisions of Facebook in the US. He may not be a British subject, but his business operates in the UK. All business in the UK should be subject to UK law and regulation and the officers accountable. It should not matter if the law is old or the company has a head office elsewhere. Same for companies operating in other countries.

If I choose to start operating my business in the USA I would reasonably expect to be subject to US law, and accountable to it.

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#34

Post by mikeash »

sys_64738 wrote: post #31
enraged_camel wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I thought he was quite right to turn them down. He doesn’t owe a foreign government his presence to answer to them unless he’s got a warrant for his arrest. I could imagine that there are implications for tech companies now operating in the UK if they’re subject to raids by the British police force. It sets a dangerous precedent.

He doesn’t owe them his presence, and they don’t owe him the right to operate in their country. If he doesn’t want to deal with the UK government, he could pull out of the country.

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#35

Post by umichguy »

sys_64738 wrote: post #31
enraged_camel wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I thought he was quite right to turn them down. He doesn’t owe a foreign government his presence to answer to them unless he’s got a warrant for his arrest. I could imagine that there are implications for tech companies now operating in the UK if they’re subject to raids by the British police force. It sets a dangerous precedent.

Simple answer: You want to do business in any country, you abide by their laws within their jurisdiction. Don't like it? Pull out. Simples.

Don't you think the U.S. would not have done the same (probably would've done much sooner) if a company was repeatedly turning up its nose and thumbing it?

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#36

Post by robomartin »

I have always thought companies like FB ought to be legally required to erase any and as much stored personal information from their databases as a user requires.

In other words, I ought to be able to specify that I only allow my activity to be stored for one week, anything older than that should be erased from all databases and backups. Same with personal information, controlled and owned by the user, not the service.

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#38

Post by Latteland »

enraged_camel wrote: post #26
lancewiggs wrote: post #24

This 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.

Parliament shouldn't be able compel any random company to hand over internal papers just on a whim. The police can't do that. You have to have a reason, and it can't be a fishing expedition as we say in the us. You must have cause to suspect something. In this case, it's unclear what the cause to justify this could be.

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#39

Post by Latteland »

robomartin wrote: post #36

I have always thought companies like FB ought to be legally required to erase any and as much stored personal information from their databases as a user requires. In other words, I ought to be able to specify that I only allow my activity to be stored for one week, anything older than that should be erased from all databases and backups. Same with personal information, controlled and owned by the user, not the servic…

Isn't this one of the requirements of the gdpr compliance? I want to get to that in the us, but it's going to be like pot laws. Liberal states will do it first, conservatives will try to stop it in the us congress, and it's possible the will of the majority will change.

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#40

Post by thaumasiotes »

M2Ys4U wrote: post #15
nighthawk1 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Due to their lawsuit with FB in the USA. I imagine those documents were obtained by court order. Pretty bold move by the UK gov. Looking forward to the leakage of said documents.

>Pretty bold move by the UK gov. This wasn't the UK government , though, but Parliament through its Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee. Parliament doesn't allow government ministers to be members of parliamentary committees, only backbenchers, as Committees are one of the main ways that Parliament holds the government to account.

> This wasn't the UK government

In American usage, "the government" is the totality of the body which exercises sovereign authority. All MPs, minister or backbencher, are part of the government, because Parliament is a government body. Similarly, any official action by any part of Parliament is an action of the British government.

Post reply on HN