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

61–70 of 91 posts

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#61

Post by izacus »

candiodari wrote: post #52
NeedMoreTea wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

It sets the dangerous precedents of foreign governments imposing rules on internet companies that have no "real" local presence. And before you ask what's wrong with that, let's not forget that Saudi Arabia, China, and I'm sure 5 other countries have forced Facebook/Google/Microsoft/... to hand over data and then used it to execute gays and dissidents. Even in the UK case, it's pushing hard for these companies to jus…

By making their products available to users in the country they effect the people of that country. They ARE present.

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#62

Post by pjc50 »

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.

> subject to raids by the British police force

This is kind of tautologous; if you're in the UK, suspected of having committed a crime, or certain other infractions (health and safety etc), you can be raided. It's more surprising when the FBI managed to do a raid in New Zealand.

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#63

Post by NeedMoreTea »

candiodari wrote: post #52
NeedMoreTea wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

It sets the dangerous precedents of foreign governments imposing rules on internet companies that have no "real" local presence. And before you ask what's wrong with that, let's not forget that Saudi Arabia, China, and I'm sure 5 other countries have forced Facebook/Google/Microsoft/... to hand over data and then used it to execute gays and dissidents. Even in the UK case, it's pushing hard for these companies to jus…

Yet it seems like it sets a less dangerous precedent than heavy handedly seizing a domain via ICANN and closing down poker sites that had no presence at all in the USA. Similar for torrent and streaming sites, or Kim Dotcom. Perhaps the UK should have adopted the heavy handed US approach instead?

Nations, including and often starting with the USA, want internet companies to obey their laws. That shouldn't still surprise.

In the case of less savoury regimes I would prefer that Facebook, Google or whoever would respond ethically and choose to withdraw rather than compromise thousands of people to make a few extra dollars. Better yet I'd prefer that data sharing with such places was legislated against.

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#64

Post by johneth »

Latteland wrote: post #38
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.

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.

Parliament is sovereign. Power flows from it. This means Parliament can do what it wants.

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#65

Post by zeristor »

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…

I suppose a key question is why did he have thes documents with him in London?

If they’re that key there was th3 risk of the computer being stolen, hard drive encryption aside.

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#66

Post by rhizome »

DannyBee wrote: post #14
andyjohnson0 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possible, but doesn't seem likely somehow. What's more interesting is how the committee knew the documents were in the UK. It wouldn't aurprise me if the UK intelligence services tipped the off, with tacit apprival from the government.

They were not in the UK, which makes this a really really bad plan. The person was in the UK, and they ordered them to produce specifically protected non-UK documents that they don't own, simply have access to. To give an analogy, imagine taking a random contractor to your company, who is passing through the UK, and forcing them, under pain of jail time, to login to your VPN and produce records that the contractor ha…

The only reason they would ever get away with such a thing is because everyone hates facebook.

The only reason? Can't it be because FB's behavior was criminal, and/or that FB's behavior has already created an international incident?

Six4three can and should be held liable in a US court for this

Under what principle?

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#67

Post by [deleted] »

Lio wrote: post #47
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.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#69

Post by zorga »

Latteland wrote: post #38
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.

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.

Whether parliament or congress, those who make the laws have the power to do whatever they want; they do not have to have a reason. Police don't make law, they follow law, your comparison is not applicable. Probable cause applies to police, not the law makers.

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#70

Post by M2Ys4U »

Latteland wrote: post #38
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.

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.

>You must have cause to suspect something. In this case, it's unclear what the cause to justify this could be.

Anybody who has been following the DCMS Committee's work in the UK knows what the cause is - Facebook has been lying through its teeth to the committee and refusing to cooperate.

Hell, the Committee has had to organise an international super-committee with half a dozen other national legislatures in order to pressure Facebook to testify.

Post reply on HN