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

91–97 of 97 posts

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

#91

Post by nicky0 »

Ensorceled wrote: post #29
nicky0 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, parliament is not the govenmnent. At least, in the UK when we say Government, we refer to the executive body (prime minister, cabinet etc.). In the US when you say government, you mean the whole thing. So your wanting to correct me stems from your using the US meaning of the word and me meaning the British one.

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

#92

Post by Veen »

nicky0 wrote: post #88
Veen wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are making a distinction that doesn't really exist in the UK. Parliament is the legislative body. The executive are members of Parliament. Until fairly recently, one of the houses of parliament was the highest court in the UK too. In systems with Parliamentary Sovereignty, Parliament is the highest body in the nation: it "outranks" the executive and the judiciary, at least in theory. The UK now has a Supreme Cour…

In the UK there definitely is a distinction between the terms parliament and government. Parliament refers to the entire body of the houses of commons and lords. Gorverment refers to the executive (prime minister, cabinet & other ministers) which is can include people who are not members of parliament.

Yes, if you define "government" as "executive", then parliament isn't the government. Pettifogging about definitions isn't helpful when the point of the comment was to emphasize that the distinction is less clear in the UK than the US. Besides which your definition excludes the entire civil service, which is part of the government. It also excludes the Queen, who is, technically, the executive, even if not in practice.

Also, if you define the executive as the PM, cabinet, and other ministers, then they are all members of parliament even when they aren't Members of Parliament (MPs). The ones who aren't members of the House of Commons (MPs) are members of the House of Lords, which is part of Parliament. There are rare cases of people not in either house being brought into the Cabinet, but that hasn't happened since the First World War, I believe.

Edit: Upon reflection, this whole conversation revolves around whether we say "government" or "Government". We're both right. I'm describing the "government". You're describing the "Government".

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

#93

Post by nicky0 »

Veen wrote: post #92
nicky0 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK there definitely is a distinction between the terms parliament and government. Parliament refers to the entire body of the houses of commons and lords. Gorverment refers to the executive (prime minister, cabinet & other ministers) which is can include people who are not members of parliament.

Yes, if you define "government" as "executive", then parliament isn't the government. Pettifogging about definitions isn't helpful when the point of the comment was to emphasize that the distinction is less clear in the UK than the US. Besides which your definition excludes the entire civil service, which is part of the government. It also excludes the Queen, who is, technically, the executive, even if not in practic…

Yes fair enough. I was using the term government as it is understood in the UK.

I'm not "pettifogging" and your G/g distinction is not accurate. It is common in Britain to use small g. For example this news article which also an example of the proper usage, and clear distinction between, the terms parliament and government.

> [Phillip Hammond] said if the government loses the vote in parliament on 11 December, it would be in “uncharted political territory”. More than half of backbench Tory MPs who are not on the government payroll have committed to voting down the deal.

> Hammond said cabinet ministers would examine the reasons why MPs had voted against the deal and then try to forge consensus. “We will then have to sit down as a cabinet and a government and decide where to go on the basis of the vote, what we’ve seen in the vote and who has voted in which way because clearly we live in a democracy, parliament is sovereign,” he said." [1]

1: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/28/chancellor-...

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

#94

Post by nicky0 »

eiaoa wrote: post #48
mattnewton wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. An example of this is that, until recently, their "supreme court" was a committee in one of the houses of parliament: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_of_Appeal_in_Ordinary

Exactly, and my point was that "government", in UK, means the current executive and means something different from "parliament".

It seems the facebook seizure was not ordered by Theresa May's government, but instead by parliament itself exerting its powers directly.

It's an unusual move and that is what makes this particularly interesting.

I'm not sure why so many people have replied to me trying to insist that government and parliament mean the same thing. They do not.

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

#95

Post by DannyBee »

johnnyfaehell wrote: post #84
DannyBee wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on what? (Let's please go beyond the hacker news slapback and cite a real source) It's not actually legal in the UK, and even the person who did it admits it is "uncharted territory". The parliament's own publications state what I told you. A simple google about what the UK parliament has the power to compel will give you these results. They can summon people and papers in the jurisdiction of the UK. So it woul…

> They can summon people and papers in the jurisdiction of the UK. He was in the jurisdiction of the UK? Being in the jurisdiction is literally a land matter, being in the UK means you're in their jurisdiction. It's not like you can ignore UK laws because you're American. So your own statement says it was legal. They can compel people to give them evidence. That is what they've done. I did this google search. It just…

"Basically, Facebook being non-compliant thinking "We're US based and we keep those documents in the US and don't give UK folk access, there is nothing you can do." And they've responded."

Again, they did not compel facebook.

What facebook did or not do is irrelevant since they didn't order facebook to do anything.

That would, again, have been perfectly legal.

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

#96

Post by DannyBee »

Veen wrote: post #85
DannyBee wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on what? (Let's please go beyond the hacker news slapback and cite a real source) It's not actually legal in the UK, and even the person who did it admits it is "uncharted territory". The parliament's own publications state what I told you. A simple google about what the UK parliament has the power to compel will give you these results. They can summon people and papers in the jurisdiction of the UK. So it woul…

This is just nonsense, and surprising nonsense from a lawyer. Under UK law, parliament and select committees have the power to “send for people, papers, and records.” And they have the power to enforce their decision to send for a person. They rarely do this because people rarely refuse to appear before committees when invited. But it is within their legal power. This person was in the UK, subject to UK laws, and wha…

Except it's not. If you find someone else's nonsense surprising, maybe you should consider whether it's really nonsense. (I also checked with a few colleagues in the UK)

The last case this really came to bear was around rupert murdoch, and the conclusion was "they could not actually compel him".

I do not believe you read the publications or articles you are citing, so here's a shorter one for you:

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/contempt-witn...

"If he does disregard the summons, the committee will have the option of making a report to the House arguing that he has committed ‘a contempt’"

Note that unlike what you say (the committee cannot enforce it itself), the committee's power is actually limited to making a report and asking the broader body to find them in contempt.

"What is more, if any committee were to report to the House that it believed a contempt had been committed, and the House agreed, it remains unclear what sanctions it would have at its disposal. Historically, those found guilty of contempts could be fined or imprisoned, but those sanctions have not been used by the Commons since 1666 and 1880 respectively. For all sorts of practical, legal and constitutional reasons, it is highly doubtful that the modern House would seriously consider this."

Also note: It's almost certain they didn't release the documents to the public because they didn't feel their legal position was very good.

They would definitely be immune from any repercussions from the publication itself due to privilege, so the only reason not to publish is to avoid legal embarrassment over how they acquired them in the first place.

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

#97

Post by nicky0 »

Veen wrote: post #92
nicky0 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK there definitely is a distinction between the terms parliament and government. Parliament refers to the entire body of the houses of commons and lords. Gorverment refers to the executive (prime minister, cabinet & other ministers) which is can include people who are not members of parliament.

Yes, if you define "government" as "executive", then parliament isn't the government. Pettifogging about definitions isn't helpful when the point of the comment was to emphasize that the distinction is less clear in the UK than the US. Besides which your definition excludes the entire civil service, which is part of the government. It also excludes the Queen, who is, technically, the executive, even if not in practic…

Another quote, from Tony Blair, I saw today.... felt is should go here:

"For the first time in my political memory, parliament is operating like a shadow government. It has taken effective charge of the process surrounding Brexit through the Grieve amendment, ensuring that all options can be voted upon. It has asserted itself with a vigour and clarity of purpose frankly missing from the actual government. It is articulating the different outcomes with a blatant disregard for the government mantra that it is this deal or no deal.

I am heartily thankful that parliament is doing so. There is as much leadership on the back benches as on the front. At a moment of supreme importance for the nation, with so much at stake and such bitter divisions in the population, they’re doing what I always hoped they would do: behave like leaders, recognising that at this time, party whips can’t matter more than genuine appreciation of where the national interest lies."

Post reply on HN