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

21–30 of 97 posts

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

#21

Post by SmellyGeekBoy »

stewartm wrote: post #13
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.

I stopped regularly reading "El Reg" years ago for this very reason. Perhaps I just grew up. It's a real shame they put up this barrier to entry as they've been behind some truly excellent investigative journalism over the years.

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

#22

Post by throwaway2048 »

DannyBee wrote: post #20
johnnyfaehell wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

I doubt anyone is going to get voted out over this, which is ultimately the only standard that has ever applied to the UK parliment's actions.

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

#23

Post by bredren »

It’s interesting to see this accusation about Zuck trying to cover up his “failing” to recognize the transition to smartphones.

I was working at perhaps the biggest iOS shop in the country at this time in Seattle. And I was regularly invited and attended the developer poker / presentation night events at FB’s Seattle office.

At the time facebook had an open position for a mobile czar that continued to go unfilled for a long time. I know because I applied and watched it.

This was when Facebook was refusing to build a native app—insisting the mobile web was a good enough experience.

I was boots on the ground as so many big companies were embracing iOS, so there was no doubt Facebook was willfully ignoring mobile.

Whether that failure required a coverup is a big leap though, so it would be very interesting if these documents included discussions suggesting this was the case.

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

#24

Post by kitd »

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…

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 the evidence they needed while the exec was on UK soil. FB have only themselves to blame.

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

#25

Post by kps »

lixtra wrote: post #3

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

The Register predates the dot-com boom and the consequent near-total capture of the computer industry by stuffy financial types. Its name is a pun.

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

#26

Post by Doctor_Fegg »

DannyBee wrote: post #20
johnnyfaehell wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

Don't travel to the UK or offer your business to UK citizens if you don't like UK laws. It's not that hard.

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

#27

Post by mattnewton »

nicky0 wrote: post #17
CPLX wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That’s the gp’s point I think, the U.K. doesn’t have the the same separation of powers between government branches as the US. With some minor exceptions, Parliament is the whole enchilada.

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

#28

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #4

This involves an interesting difference in the British parliamentary system of absolute parliamentary supremacy compared to the American principle of separation of powers. Basically they can pass a law that does anything, including ones for the start of investigation, the filing of criminal charges, and the seizure of evidence and assets. Facebook was very stupid to make a weak excuse of being tied up with legal proc…

Sending a Sergeant-at-Arms in person is the British diplomatic equivalent of parking tanks on your lawn.

It's almost literally unprecedented, and is a signal that Parliament is very, very angry about this,

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

#29

Post by Ensorceled »

nicky0 wrote: post #17
CPLX wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The UK is a parliamentary democracy, parliament is the government. Even in the US, Congress can compel testimony over matters it has authority to legislate.

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

#30

Post by stewartm »

SmellyGeekBoy wrote: post #21
stewartm wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I stopped regularly reading "El Reg" years ago for this very reason. Perhaps I just grew up. It's a real shame they put up this barrier to entry as they've been behind some truly excellent investigative journalism over the years.

I can understand that. Humour is a matter of taste so I can't imagine they hit the mark 100% of the time for anybody, certainly they don't for me.

However given the weariness derived from seeing the same kind of tech issues/fails/corruption reported ad infinitum, I happily welcome an attempt at a bit of humour to lighten the mood a little.

Post reply on HN