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

51–60 of 91 posts

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#51

Post by NeedMoreTea »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #40
M2Ys4U wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Pretty bold move by the UK gov. This wasn't the UK government , though, but Parliament through its Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee. Parliament doesn't allow government ministers to be members of parliamentary committees, only backbenchers, as Committees are one of the main ways that Parliament holds the government to account.

> This wasn't the UK government In American usage, "the government" is the totality of the body which exercises sovereign authority. All MPs, minister or backbencher, are part of the government, because Parliament is a government body. Similarly, any official action by any part of Parliament is an action of the British government.

In the UK context the government is a body of Parliament, not the other way around.

A committee is not of government as it will include MPs from all sides, and seeks non-partisan balance no matter which party is currently in government. The Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee currently has 5 members from each of the main parties and one from the LibDems.

Committees can, at times, be quite strident in their criticism of government.

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#52

Post by candiodari »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #33
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.

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 just hand over all data they have to their secret service (not even limited to UK citizens).

You know, to "protect the children".

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#53

Post by DannyBee »

bobloblaw2 wrote: post #28
DannyBee wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. You would not be allowed to take such documents on a random business trip to the UK. You are required to protect and treat them as confidential. If you were going to expose them to legal counsel in the UK for some reason, you would have had to seek the court's permission, etc. 2. The reason to assume is it because the story essentially implies it. They didn't stop the guy and confiscate the stuff he had, they orde…

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 illegal (IE they are not supposed to be detaining you)

or

2. You are about to be accused of something so serious they think it's worth creating an incident over.

or

3. You are in a banana republic :)

Outside of #3, it's valuable to understand where you stand anyway.

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#54

Post by thaumasiotes »

tobylane wrote: post #50
thaumasiotes wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This wasn't the UK government In American usage, "the government" is the totality of the body which exercises sovereign authority. All MPs, minister or backbencher, are part of the government, because Parliament is a government body. Similarly, any official action by any part of Parliament is an action of the British government.

I believe it's normal to use the language of the context/subject, that a brand new Congressman is part of the US government but the chairman of a Parliament select committee isn't. Other times that chairmain could be considered part of the government, such as when he follows the whip on a vote.

It's normal for everyone to use their own language. We refer to the Chinese government, not the Chinese zhengfu. And the same criteria that let us know that the Chinese "全国人大" is part of a "government", despite the Chinese preferring not to use that word, also let us know that the British "Parliament" is part of a "government", despite the British preferring not to use that word.

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#55

Post by galvin »

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…

Facebook has offices in London

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#56

Post by JetSpiegel »

mtgx wrote: post #43
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.

Doesn't Facebook have a subsidiary in UK?

It does, even though it's just a wrapper over Facebook Ireland.

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#57

Post by candiodari »

galvin wrote: post #55
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…

Facebook has offices in London

I don't see how offices change the argument

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#58

Post by anoncake »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #54
tobylane wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe it's normal to use the language of the context/subject, that a brand new Congressman is part of the US government but the chairman of a Parliament select committee isn't. Other times that chairmain could be considered part of the government, such as when he follows the whip on a vote.

It's normal for everyone to use their own language. We refer to the Chinese government, not the Chinese zhengfu. And the same criteria that let us know that the Chinese "全国人大" is part of a "government", despite the Chinese preferring not to use that word, also let us know that the British "Parliament" is part of a "government", despite the British preferring not to use that word.

> It's normal for everyone to use their own language.

Das wage ich zu bezweifeln.

Re: Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers

#59

Post by tobylane »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #54
tobylane wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe it's normal to use the language of the context/subject, that a brand new Congressman is part of the US government but the chairman of a Parliament select committee isn't. Other times that chairmain could be considered part of the government, such as when he follows the whip on a vote.

It's normal for everyone to use their own language. We refer to the Chinese government, not the Chinese zhengfu. And the same criteria that let us know that the Chinese "全国人大" is part of a "government", despite the Chinese preferring not to use that word, also let us know that the British "Parliament" is part of a "government", despite the British preferring not to use that word.

Different meaning of language. If you're American, is May the prime minister or the president of the UK?
Post reply on HN