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

61–70 of 97 posts

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

#61

Post by nighthawk1 »

johnnyfaehell wrote: post #7
kevin_b_er wrote: post #2

Facebook played fast and loose with privacy for over a decade. This might have worked in the US where corporate abuse and greed reigns supreme, but not so much in Europe. And Facebook elected to move its corporate nexus to Europe to tax dodge. Were they so deluded to think Europe actually caring about privacy wouldn't one day come back to bite them?

I think the key deluded part of Facebook was thinking just because Mark Zuckerberg isn't in the UK or other nations that want to talk to him that he can just ignore them. This move just goes to show how the laws of another country can affect you without you going to that country.

If there is one thing governments do not like it is being ignored and their power and reach is broad enough to make you comply in various ways.

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

#63

Post by JJMcJ »

kitd wrote: post #24
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…

Contempt of Congress is a real thing in the USA, so refusing a Congressional subpoena can result in enforcement and criminal charges.

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

#64

Post by arethuza »

JJMcJ wrote: post #58
arethuza wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Of course he was under compulsion - but I seriously doubt that anyone involved had a gun on them.

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

#65

Post by snowwrestler »

Jonnax wrote: post #16
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.

It's worth pointing out that the U.S. Congress can also directly subpoena documents and testimony without going through a judge.

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

#66

Post by dragonwriter »

JJMcJ wrote: post #63
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…

Contempt of Congress is a real thing in the USA, so refusing a Congressional subpoena can result in enforcement and criminal charges.

And, while the usual modern method is resort to executive enforcement and criminal charges, Congress has and has used (though not used since 1935) inherent arrest and detention powers which have been confirmed as intrinsic to their Constitutional authority by the Supreme Court.

So while it would be newsworthy for Congress to do this, what the Parliament did here is not something Congress could not legally do to a visiting exec in possession of information sealed by a foreign court.

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

#67

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

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_...

I think they carry a ceremonial mace, heavily ornamented with gold reliefs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serjeant-at-arms#/media/File:M...

I'd definitely not want to be bonked on the head with that. Fortunately, as the article you link to says, they can call the police to do the dirty job. "Fortunately", as in, the combined threat from the mace and the cops should suffice to convince most people.

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

#68

Post by snowwrestler »

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.

The UK is a sovereign nation and absolutely can enforce its laws against anyone within its borders, regardless of citizenship.

The only potential exception is diplomatic immunity, and that is only granted to the few people who are directly employed to represent a foreign nation. (And even then, such immunity is voluntarily granted by the UK government.)

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

#69

Post by dragonwriter »

Veen wrote: post #40
DannyBee wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

> the only reason this could ever be acceptable of because of hate of Facebook It's acceptable because it's perfectly legal in the UK. The world is not America. Other countries have different laws and systems of government.

> It's acceptable because it's perfectly legal in the UK. The world is not America.

While the world is not America, Congress has the legal power to do the exact same thing to a UK executive traveling in the US with information sealed by a UK court.

Each House or Congress has its own Sergeants-at-Arms, with deputies, and the authority to deploy them the same way, and even, IIRC, it's own (long disused) detention facility should it elect to use it's arrewt powers.

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

#70

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

kevin_b_er wrote: post #2

Facebook played fast and loose with privacy for over a decade. This might have worked in the US where corporate abuse and greed reigns supreme, but not so much in Europe. And Facebook elected to move its corporate nexus to Europe to tax dodge. Were they so deluded to think Europe actually caring about privacy wouldn't one day come back to bite them?

>> Facebook played fast and loose with privacy for over a decade. This might have worked in the US where corporate abuse and greed reigns supreme, but not so much in Europe.

Unfortunately, we have plenty of that in Europe, too.

Post reply on HN