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

51–60 of 97 posts

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

#51

Post by tankenmate »

wtfstatists wrote: post #44
kitd wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK, Parliament is sovereign. FB had repeatedly refused to appear before a parliamentary committee to give evidence in the Cambridge Analytica case. Now, I'm not totally certain of the precise legal position, but because of its sovereignty, Parliament can act in a quasi-judicial way, so in effect, FB's actions can be seen as roughly equivalent to refusing a subpoena. FB's refusal authorised Parliament to seize…

You are basically normalizing violent response to a non-violent action. US can do that because FB is US company. UK cannot just because you happen to visit. Please realize that other states are taking notes at this situation. They are waiting for US/UK/etc exec to visit and make the same excuse.

> Please realize that other states are taking notes at this situation. They are waiting for US/UK/etc exec to visit and make the same excuse.

Other states aren't waiting for this at all; least of all the US. In the past when UK based executives of online gambling firms have travelled in transit via the US they have been arrested even before going through customs, in effect in international law it is somewhat akin to piracy, USG sanctioned piracy. This sort of creative use of laws to acquire information and/or people by various governments world wide has been happening for a very very long time.

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

#52

Post by dragonwriter »

wtfstatists wrote: post #44
kitd wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK, Parliament is sovereign. FB had repeatedly refused to appear before a parliamentary committee to give evidence in the Cambridge Analytica case. Now, I'm not totally certain of the precise legal position, but because of its sovereignty, Parliament can act in a quasi-judicial way, so in effect, FB's actions can be seen as roughly equivalent to refusing a subpoena. FB's refusal authorised Parliament to seize…

You are basically normalizing violent response to a non-violent action. US can do that because FB is US company. UK cannot just because you happen to visit. Please realize that other states are taking notes at this situation. They are waiting for US/UK/etc exec to visit and make the same excuse.

> US can do that because FB is US company

The US Congress can and has compelled appearance of non-US parties, and, while it may not have had occasion to resort to this for a non-US person (and hasn't used it's arrest power since 1935, relying instead on executive enforcement bodies and criminal statutes instead of it's recognized contempt and arrest powers), absolutely does have the legal power to send the Sergeants-at-Arms of each House to enforce such compulsory summons with force, to bring either materials or persons before the chamber.

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

#53

Post by kitd »

wtfstatists wrote: post #44
kitd wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK, Parliament is sovereign. FB had repeatedly refused to appear before a parliamentary committee to give evidence in the Cambridge Analytica case. Now, I'm not totally certain of the precise legal position, but because of its sovereignty, Parliament can act in a quasi-judicial way, so in effect, FB's actions can be seen as roughly equivalent to refusing a subpoena. FB's refusal authorised Parliament to seize…

You are basically normalizing violent response to a non-violent action. US can do that because FB is US company. UK cannot just because you happen to visit. Please realize that other states are taking notes at this situation. They are waiting for US/UK/etc exec to visit and make the same excuse.

That's a ridiculous argument.

If I refuse to appear in court, I can be arrested and charged with contempt of court. Is that normalising a "violent response to a nonviolent action"?

Justice would be impotent in such a setup.

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

#54

Post by throwaway2048 »

wtfstatists wrote: post #44
kitd wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK, Parliament is sovereign. FB had repeatedly refused to appear before a parliamentary committee to give evidence in the Cambridge Analytica case. Now, I'm not totally certain of the precise legal position, but because of its sovereignty, Parliament can act in a quasi-judicial way, so in effect, FB's actions can be seen as roughly equivalent to refusing a subpoena. FB's refusal authorised Parliament to seize…

You are basically normalizing violent response to a non-violent action. US can do that because FB is US company. UK cannot just because you happen to visit. Please realize that other states are taking notes at this situation. They are waiting for US/UK/etc exec to visit and make the same excuse.

Violence is how the government enforces law, harmful acts don't necessarily have to have a component of physical violence to be extremely bad for society (white collar fraud, misuse of identity documents to get stuff like loans, counterfeiting of currency, etc).

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

#55

Post by arethuza »

wtfstatists wrote: post #42
renegadesensei wrote: post #14

Must suck to have your sensitive information taken and used without your permission.

Oh I did not realize FB was pointing gun at people.

I doubt the Serjeant-at-Arms has a gun, although apparently the role does include sometimes wearing a sword:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serjeant-at-Arms_of_the_House_...

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

#56

Post by ahartmetz »

wtfstatists wrote: post #44
kitd wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK, Parliament is sovereign. FB had repeatedly refused to appear before a parliamentary committee to give evidence in the Cambridge Analytica case. Now, I'm not totally certain of the precise legal position, but because of its sovereignty, Parliament can act in a quasi-judicial way, so in effect, FB's actions can be seen as roughly equivalent to refusing a subpoena. FB's refusal authorised Parliament to seize…

You are basically normalizing violent response to a non-violent action. US can do that because FB is US company. UK cannot just because you happen to visit. Please realize that other states are taking notes at this situation. They are waiting for US/UK/etc exec to visit and make the same excuse.

Putting somebody in jail for fraud is the same kind of infraction and response - it is normal.

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

#57

Post by dragonwriter »

tankenmate wrote: post #51
wtfstatists wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are basically normalizing violent response to a non-violent action. US can do that because FB is US company. UK cannot just because you happen to visit. Please realize that other states are taking notes at this situation. They are waiting for US/UK/etc exec to visit and make the same excuse.

> Please realize that other states are taking notes at this situation. They are waiting for US/UK/etc exec to visit and make the same excuse. Other states aren't waiting for this at all; least of all the US. In the past when UK based executives of online gambling firms have travelled in transit via the US they have been arrested even before going through customs, in effect in international law it is somewhat akin to…

> In the past when UK based executives of online gambling firms have travelled in transit via the US they have been arrested even before going through customs, in effect in international law it is somewhat akin to piracy

No, arresting people who are not subject to any privilege against arrest in international law, who are on your territory, whether or not they have passed through customs, is not, in international law, in even the slightest way “akin to piracy.”

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

#58

Post by JJMcJ »

arethuza wrote: post #55
wtfstatists wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh I did not realize FB was pointing gun at people.

I doubt the Serjeant-at-Arms has a gun, although apparently the role does include sometimes wearing a sword: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serjeant-at-Arms_of_the_House_...

> While serving the warrant and encouraging a witness to attend parliament "the Serjeant or his appointee may call on the full assistance of the civil authorities, including the police."

From the Wikipedia article.

So the Facebook employee was in fact under compulsion.

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

#59

Post by [deleted] »

wtfstatists wrote: post #44
kitd wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK, Parliament is sovereign. FB had repeatedly refused to appear before a parliamentary committee to give evidence in the Cambridge Analytica case. Now, I'm not totally certain of the precise legal position, but because of its sovereignty, Parliament can act in a quasi-judicial way, so in effect, FB's actions can be seen as roughly equivalent to refusing a subpoena. FB's refusal authorised Parliament to seize…

You are basically normalizing violent response to a non-violent action. US can do that because FB is US company. UK cannot just because you happen to visit. Please realize that other states are taking notes at this situation. They are waiting for US/UK/etc exec to visit and make the same excuse.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN