Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers • Hacker News Board

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#41

Post by ubernostrum » Sun, Nov 25, 2018, 8:52 AM UTC

bertil wrote: post #17

andyjohnson0 wrote: post #2

"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…

Sending them in town has no close equivalent in the US, maybe threatening someone to be in Contempt of the Supreme Court.

The US House of Representatives and the US Senate also have Sergeants at Arms:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_at_Arms_of_the_United...

There have been multiple occasions in recent decades when, in theory, either house of Congress could have resorted to enforcement of a Congressional subpoena by sending its Sergeant at Arms to arrest the non-responsive party. The most recent occurrence was early in Trump's term when several of his high officials refused to appear before Congressional committees which sought to question them; there was talk of whether Congress would provoke a showdown by issuing and enforcing subpoenas. And a court ruling during the George W. Bush administration confirmed Congress could compel members of the executive branch to appear and answer questions:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-bush-idUSN31...

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#42

Post by bulatb » Sun, Nov 25, 2018, 8:54 AM UTC

Latteland wrote: post #39

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.

You can ask them to delete your data, but unless their only legal basis for having it was your consent, they may be able to refuse. [0] They'd have to argue to the regulator that their interest in retaining it should override your interest in deleting it.

You also aren't allowed to dictate how specifically your data is processed, so you can't just boss them around. You only get to choose which data, for which purposes, by whom, and only if the processing requires [1] your consent.

[0] https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/right-to-be-forgotten/

[1] https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/consent/

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#43

Post by mtgx » Sun, Nov 25, 2018, 9:17 AM UTC

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.

Doesn't Facebook have a subsidiary in UK?

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#44

Post by mtgx » Sun, Nov 25, 2018, 9:18 AM UTC

umichguy wrote: post #35

sys_64738 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The us would do worse like sending FBI in other countries to arrest people. Or CIA.

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#45

Post by jsmith99 » Sun, Nov 25, 2018, 9:18 AM UTC

CrawfordJF wrote: post #11

andyjohnson0 wrote: post #2

"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.

Many consider these powers to be essentially spent: they have not been exercised to any significant extent in a very long time, and since then various changes (e.g. the need to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights) have put them on very shaky ground. If he had refused to go along with the Serjeant at Arms, I suspect nothing would have happened because parliament is keen to avoid a small constitutional…

Given that his company is suing Facebook, he was possibly quite happy to comply. He doesn't seem to have lost out, and got a historical trip in the bargain.

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#46

Post by sambeau » Sun, Nov 25, 2018, 9:22 AM UTC

  Facebook really aren't afraid of a British man in tights or
  willing to reform without regulation. That's why Zuckerberg
  hasn't turned up to the Commons, & they are appealing the UK
  ICO's important but tiny fine. Time for the EU to move on
  them, and I believe that's inevitable.

—Claude Moraes MEP (the chair of the EU committee that is leading investigation into Facebook and Cambridge Analytica) ‏

https://twitter.com/Claude_Moraes/status/1066486777136013317

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#47

Post by Lio » Sun, Nov 25, 2018, 10:18 AM UTC

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 should have been issued with an arrest warrant in the same way we issue them for contempt of court.

I don’t think a dangerous precedent has been set. I think foreign tech should be aware right from the start, if you break the law you and your staff will be punished.

It’s the same deal for UK firms working in US. HSBC was quite rightly punished for money laundering in the US.

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#48

Post by omnimus » Sun, Nov 25, 2018, 11:01 AM UTC

Latteland wrote: post #39

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.

I am also suprised about GDPR because it seems that on facebook side it didn't change anythin. They added few more checkboxes and thats it. European companies had to change a lot (for better in my opinion).

Maybe thats why EU politicians are starting to be harsher about this. They feel powerless.

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#49

Post by pmyteh » Sun, Nov 25, 2018, 11:20 AM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #40

M2Ys4U wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

In British usage, the government is strictly the executive. We don't have formal separation of powers, and the courts and Parliament are very clear they aren't part of the government. You can see this from Parliament's insistence on using 'parliament.uk' rather than .gov.uk, and the judges similarly with judiciary.uk.

Bluntly, Parliament is Parliament. (Her Majesty's) Government overlaps it, but is not the same. The DCMS committee in particular scrutinises government, but isn't part of it. I guess you could describe Parliament as being able to exercise (a few) State powers, but they really aren't a branch of government on the US theory.

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#50

Post by tobylane » Sun, Nov 25, 2018, 11:24 AM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #40

M2Ys4U wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I believe it's normal to use the language of the context/subject, that a brand new Congressman is part of the US government but the chairman of a Parliament select committee isn't. Other times that chairmain could be considered part of the government, such as when he follows the whip on a vote.