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

71–80 of 91 posts

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#71

Post by rhizome »

DannyBee wrote: post #53
bobloblaw2 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yeah. If you are being threatened with legal process in a foreign country, step #1 is always "contact your embassy". This is actually one of the main reasons they exist. If they let you, your embassy should be helping (at the very least, understand your rights/options, etc. They generally will not provide legal advice but can give you an overview) If they don't let you, then either: 1. What is happening is very very…

If you are being threatened with legal process in a foreign country, step #1 is always "contact your embassy".

I've always known this to be good advice in a criminal context, but not political ones like this unless to relay that the USG in general should intervene. I have not heard that the guy was detained.

I really don't think an embassy has the juice to go up against UK Parliament, the current US Ambassador to the UK is a old-money Republican fundraiser with a history degree, whose most recent accomplishment is owning the New York Jets NFL team.

Also, do we know that he didn't contact the embassy?

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#72

Post by rikkus »

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 isn’t legally required by the laws of a land but it was felt by many that he did, in fact, owe his presence.

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#73

Post by nolok »

izacus wrote: post #61
candiodari wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Eh, you could argue about the making available to access for a long time either way. But there is a much more straight to point argument: they want, and take, money from UK customers (advertisers). If they want to keep doing that, they need to follow UK laws.

It's like how your little website may do things that are not ok in country X and you don't care, but if you want people and businesses from country X to be able to spend money on your website then you need to care.

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#74

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#75

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#76

Post by DannyBee »

rhizome wrote: post #66
DannyBee wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

FB's behavior is 100% irrelevant here. If they seized them from FB you may have an argument. But they didn't.

As for holding them liable, this is a very clear violation of a protective order either way. The correct answer, as I said, is to take it to court, where Facebook, you know, the rightful owner of the documents, can intervene.

If he actually was in possession of the documents, I would definitely push hard for sanctions.

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#77

Post by DannyBee »

rhizome wrote: post #71
DannyBee wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. If you are being threatened with legal process in a foreign country, step #1 is always "contact your embassy". This is actually one of the main reasons they exist. If they let you, your embassy should be helping (at the very least, understand your rights/options, etc. They generally will not provide legal advice but can give you an overview) If they don't let you, then either: 1. What is happening is very very…

If you are being threatened with legal process in a foreign country, step #1 is always "contact your embassy". I've always known this to be good advice in a criminal context, but not political ones like this unless to relay that the USG in general should intervene. I have not heard that the guy was detained. I really don't think an embassy has the juice to go up against UK Parliament, the current US Ambassador to the…

He was in fact detained by the sergeant in arms, according to the articles I've read.

The rest I agree with, but the goal would be to give Facebook a chance to intervene

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#78

Post by rleigh »

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…

It's a huge conceit to suggest that "internet companies" have not got a "real" location.

They are registered companies. They have head offices. They have regional offices. They own entire datacentres. They are traded on stock exchanges. They trade for money with customers in countries all over the world. They are not above the law.

Legally, is Facebook any different than say, 3M or IBM? Both are US corporations with offices, manufacturing and distribution facilities in the UK. They are obviously subject to UK law. The precise location of particular data stored by the company, and servers accessing the data, seems a very odd criterion upon which to argue that the company is not subject to the rule of law. The company exists as a legal entity in the UK, it has offices and employees, and customers. It does have a presence. And it should absolutely be required to obey the law of the land.

(A few years ago, I might have had a slightly different view. But companies like Facebook and Google have taken such gross liberties with the law, and even the fundamental functioning of democracy itself, that I think there's an urgent need for them to be reigned in, harshly. They brought it entirely upon themselves.)

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#79

Post by Latteland »

johneth wrote: post #64
Latteland wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've been told the uk has an unwritten constitution. But they must have limits, like the us. The us Congress can't make a law overriding the Supreme Court. What about in the uk? My point is countries are "soverign" but they often have legal limits on the leader, parliament etc. Parliament can't say sentence someone to death for making fun of them or something surely. In the us you can still plead the 5th amendment even when supoened by the Congress, for example (avoid self-incremenation).

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#80

Post by slededit »

Latteland wrote: post #79
johneth wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I've been told the uk has an unwritten constitution. But they must have limits, like the us. The us Congress can't make a law overriding the Supreme Court. What about in the uk? My point is countries are "soverign" but they often have legal limits on the leader, parliament etc. Parliament can't say sentence someone to death for making fun of them or something surely. In the us you can still plead the 5th amendment ev…

> Congress can't make a law overriding the Supreme Court

Indeed they can, the Supreme court merely interprets the law. If congress decides to change the law then the Supreme Court's interpretation is moot.

These days changing the constitution is politically infeasible so it may seem this way - but ultimate power rests with Congress.

Post reply on HN