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

Facebook spooked after MPs seize documents for privacy breach probe

theregister.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 97 posts

Re: Facebook spooked after MPs seize documents for privacy breach probe

#11

Post by throwaway2048 »

londons_explore wrote: post #6

No government should have to resort to 'sneaky' measures like this. If you have a suspicion that a company is breaking the law, you ask a judge for permission to inspect them. If permission is granted, you show up at the main office and do your investigation. If a judge won't grant you permission do do that inspection, you drop the case entirely. None of this 'we used sneaky laws from centuries ago to take documents…

It is not a sneaky measure, its well within the purview of Parliament in the British system. They asked Facebook to present documents and evidence, and Facebook refused. It is a terrible idea to refuse to present evidence before a body that has what amounts to unlimited power under British law, especially when public opinion of you is low, and falling.

Re: Facebook spooked after MPs seize documents for privacy breach probe

#12

Post by kevin_b_er »

londons_explore wrote: post #6

No government should have to resort to 'sneaky' measures like this. If you have a suspicion that a company is breaking the law, you ask a judge for permission to inspect them. If permission is granted, you show up at the main office and do your investigation. If a judge won't grant you permission do do that inspection, you drop the case entirely. None of this 'we used sneaky laws from centuries ago to take documents…

The concept is called Parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament in this case is supreme over the judiciary. Its how the UK has operated for a long time.

Re: Facebook spooked after MPs seize documents for privacy breach probe

#13

Post by stewartm »

lixtra wrote: post #3

> ... process during its court case against the Zuckerborg , in which it is alleging Facebook defrauded ... Seriously? What happened to journalism?

You either need to read a lot more of The Reg, or none at all. The Reg is written with a certain brand of humour that is appreciated by a fair chunk of its tech readership.

If you want a humour free version of the article, checkout the link to The Guardian article cited. Brace yourself for lots of speling mistakes however.

Re: Facebook spooked after MPs seize documents for privacy breach probe

#15

Post by meddlepal »

lixtra wrote: post #3

> ... process during its court case against the Zuckerborg , in which it is alleging Facebook defrauded ... Seriously? What happened to journalism?

> Zuckerborg

It's the new M$ / Micro$oft.

Childish and appealing to a small minority.

Re: Facebook spooked after MPs seize documents for privacy breach probe

#16

Post by Jonnax »

londons_explore wrote: post #6

No government should have to resort to 'sneaky' measures like this. If you have a suspicion that a company is breaking the law, you ask a judge for permission to inspect them. If permission is granted, you show up at the main office and do your investigation. If a judge won't grant you permission do do that inspection, you drop the case entirely. None of this 'we used sneaky laws from centuries ago to take documents…

The UK is not the United States.

Re: Facebook spooked after MPs seize documents for privacy breach probe

#17

Post by nicky0 »

CPLX wrote: post #9
londons_explore wrote: post #6

No government should have to resort to 'sneaky' measures like this. If you have a suspicion that a company is breaking the law, you ask a judge for permission to inspect them. If permission is granted, you show up at the main office and do your investigation. If a judge won't grant you permission do do that inspection, you drop the case entirely. None of this 'we used sneaky laws from centuries ago to take documents…

They don't have to ask a judge, they're not private citizens, they're the legislature. They are the government, and they have the right to documents and information. What criteria, exactly, are you using to distinguish between "laws" and "sneaky laws"?

It was parliament (or at least a parliamentary committee), not the government, that did this though wasn't it?

Re: Facebook spooked after MPs seize documents for privacy breach probe

#18

Post by [deleted] »

CPLX wrote: post #9
londons_explore wrote: post #6

No government should have to resort to 'sneaky' measures like this. If you have a suspicion that a company is breaking the law, you ask a judge for permission to inspect them. If permission is granted, you show up at the main office and do your investigation. If a judge won't grant you permission do do that inspection, you drop the case entirely. None of this 'we used sneaky laws from centuries ago to take documents…

They don't have to ask a judge, they're not private citizens, they're the legislature. They are the government, and they have the right to documents and information. What criteria, exactly, are you using to distinguish between "laws" and "sneaky laws"?

[deleted]

Re: Facebook spooked after MPs seize documents for privacy breach probe

#19

Post by SmellyGeekBoy »

londons_explore wrote: post #6

No government should have to resort to 'sneaky' measures like this. If you have a suspicion that a company is breaking the law, you ask a judge for permission to inspect them. If permission is granted, you show up at the main office and do your investigation. If a judge won't grant you permission do do that inspection, you drop the case entirely. None of this 'we used sneaky laws from centuries ago to take documents…

We have plenty of laws from centuries ago that are still relevant and useful today. What exactly is "sneaky" about using them?

Re: Facebook spooked after MPs seize documents for privacy breach probe

#20

Post by DannyBee »

johnnyfaehell wrote: post #8
londons_explore wrote: post #6

No government should have to resort to 'sneaky' measures like this. If you have a suspicion that a company is breaking the law, you ask a judge for permission to inspect them. If permission is granted, you show up at the main office and do your investigation. If a judge won't grant you permission do do that inspection, you drop the case entirely. None of this 'we used sneaky laws from centuries ago to take documents…

Isn't all the information held within the US, therefore, a UK judge wouldn't be able to grant access? Also, one minute you're talking about the law and order approach then you're complaining that they used the law as it exists. The lesson of the day, don't go playing funny buggers with governments.

The UK can still compel them, by compelling Facebook's relevant country director.

The method used here (physically detaining a non Facebook actor who is not a UK citizen who had access to the docs under a protective order and threatening them until they caved) is so far beyond unacceptable it's hard to fathom.

As I said in the other thread, the only reason this could ever be acceptable of because of hate of Facebook, seen quite well I'm this thread.

(As I also said in the other thread it is also hard to believe it was anything other than a deliberate deal between the UK land and sixfourthree)

Post reply on HN