Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/24/mps-seize-cache-facebook-internal-papers
90 comments
Exactly. I'm very happy with this turn of events. In repeatedly turning down the British Parliament's request to testify, Zuckerberg displayed a stunning level of arrogance, and brought this upon himself.
Parliament shouldn't be able compel any random company to hand over internal papers just on a whim. The police can't do that. You have to have a reason, and it can't be a fishing expedition as we say in the us. You must have cause to suspect something. In this case, it's unclear what the cause to justify this could be.
Parliament is sovereign. Power flows from it. This means Parliament can do what it wants.
I've been told the uk has an unwritten constitution. But they must have limits, like the us. The us Congress can't make a law overriding the Supreme Court. What about in the uk? My point is countries are "soverign" but they often have legal limits on the leader, parliament etc. Parliament can't say sentence someone to death for making fun of them or something surely. In the us you can still plead the 5th amendment even when supoened by the Congress, for example (avoid self-incremenation).
In theory, no - the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty holds that there are no checks on the power of Parliament, which is absolute.
So if it chooses to have someone's head removed for spurious reasons it does in principle have the power (this would be an Act of Attainder, not used since the 18th Century, I think, and held to be so oppressive it's outlawed specifically in the US Constitution).
In practice, it's quite a lot more nuanced than that. Parliament is constrained by both politics (the public would be outraged by an Act of Attainder), international commitments (our EU membership, in particular, comes with supervening law which would make that a very costly action at a minimum), and historical practice.
The Facebook thing is a good example of these constraints. There's no question that Parliament could vote itself powerful and enforceable subpoena powers. And it has in centuries past. But it's also not used them recently, and done various other bits of legislating (e.g. the human rights act) which aren't compatible with arbitrary action. If the Commons tried to use its inherent power of imprisonment to enforce a subpoena, it might be overturned by a judge issuing a writ of Habeus Corpus on the grounds that the power is obsolete and in breach of the HRA. In principle, Parliament as a whole could pass an Act to prevent this, but it hasn't. So a lot of the checks that are constitutional in the US are conventional and institutional in the UK.
Finally, there are absolutely legal checks on the powers of the executive, which are enforced by the courts much as they would be in the US, though the source of these is basically law rather than constitution.
So if it chooses to have someone's head removed for spurious reasons it does in principle have the power (this would be an Act of Attainder, not used since the 18th Century, I think, and held to be so oppressive it's outlawed specifically in the US Constitution).
In practice, it's quite a lot more nuanced than that. Parliament is constrained by both politics (the public would be outraged by an Act of Attainder), international commitments (our EU membership, in particular, comes with supervening law which would make that a very costly action at a minimum), and historical practice.
The Facebook thing is a good example of these constraints. There's no question that Parliament could vote itself powerful and enforceable subpoena powers. And it has in centuries past. But it's also not used them recently, and done various other bits of legislating (e.g. the human rights act) which aren't compatible with arbitrary action. If the Commons tried to use its inherent power of imprisonment to enforce a subpoena, it might be overturned by a judge issuing a writ of Habeus Corpus on the grounds that the power is obsolete and in breach of the HRA. In principle, Parliament as a whole could pass an Act to prevent this, but it hasn't. So a lot of the checks that are constitutional in the US are conventional and institutional in the UK.
Finally, there are absolutely legal checks on the powers of the executive, which are enforced by the courts much as they would be in the US, though the source of these is basically law rather than constitution.
Interesting, thanks for explaining stuff I didn't know. Is it concerning to people in the UK that the parliament has supreme power? What if an evil tyrant and her party had control of parliament, couldn't she make herself dictator for life? (I don't mean PM May, I mean in general :-)).
Most people don't think about it much. The idea that we have an 'elected dictatorship' in some sense is fairly true. Constraints on the executive are basically five-fold:
1) Parliament is supreme, not the PM. So extreme acts require the consent (in advance) of both the Commons (which has a built-in government majority but does sometimes have its own opinions - see Brexit) and the Lords (which can be unpredictable).
2) Norms are powerful in the Westminster system (sometimes in the form of so-called constitutional conventions) and surprisingly effective at stopping bad behaviour.
3) We've developed fairly strong judicial review, so the courts restrain illegal behaviour by the government. Although the law can be changed, it turns out this still stops a lot of abuses.
4) The evil PM would still have to successfully govern, which requires either the consent of the governed or massive force (at which point they'd need the active support of the military as well, and the military in Britain have stayed out of active politics since the 17th Century - another strong norm).
5) The Queen retains reserve powers, including the right to veto bills (she's theoretically the third 'house' of Parliament). She probably gets to do this exactly once before being deposed, and an attempted auto-coup is one of the more likely outcomes.
It's an odd system, but historically it actually works well. I spent some time interning in the US Congress expecting to find the system much better than ours, but I came away believing that a strong separation of powers in a Presidential system may create more problems than it solves.
1) Parliament is supreme, not the PM. So extreme acts require the consent (in advance) of both the Commons (which has a built-in government majority but does sometimes have its own opinions - see Brexit) and the Lords (which can be unpredictable).
2) Norms are powerful in the Westminster system (sometimes in the form of so-called constitutional conventions) and surprisingly effective at stopping bad behaviour.
3) We've developed fairly strong judicial review, so the courts restrain illegal behaviour by the government. Although the law can be changed, it turns out this still stops a lot of abuses.
4) The evil PM would still have to successfully govern, which requires either the consent of the governed or massive force (at which point they'd need the active support of the military as well, and the military in Britain have stayed out of active politics since the 17th Century - another strong norm).
5) The Queen retains reserve powers, including the right to veto bills (she's theoretically the third 'house' of Parliament). She probably gets to do this exactly once before being deposed, and an attempted auto-coup is one of the more likely outcomes.
It's an odd system, but historically it actually works well. I spent some time interning in the US Congress expecting to find the system much better than ours, but I came away believing that a strong separation of powers in a Presidential system may create more problems than it solves.
> Congress can't make a law overriding the Supreme Court
Indeed they can, the Supreme court merely interprets the law. If congress decides to change the law then the Supreme Court's interpretation is moot.
These days changing the constitution is politically infeasible so it may seem this way - but ultimate power rests with Congress.
Indeed they can, the Supreme court merely interprets the law. If congress decides to change the law then the Supreme Court's interpretation is moot.
These days changing the constitution is politically infeasible so it may seem this way - but ultimate power rests with Congress.
Of course congress could amend the constitution, which I understood, but that takes 2/3rd of the states to support it. They can't make a regular law to overturn the supremes, right?
The only reason they can’t make a “regular” law is because they made a law spelling out the process. Their power is restricted because they passed a law in the past saying it was restricted.
As the only body capable of updating the text of the law they have ultimate power. That they chose to constrain it was an altruistic act of a sovereign body. But only they (and their predecessor the continental congress) had the power to restrict themselves. The courts can only hold them to the text they themselves wrote.
As the only body capable of updating the text of the law they have ultimate power. That they chose to constrain it was an altruistic act of a sovereign body. But only they (and their predecessor the continental congress) had the power to restrict themselves. The courts can only hold them to the text they themselves wrote.
>But they must have limits, like the us.
The limits on the U.S. government exist because we put them in our organic law (the Constitution) which is not solely the prerogative of the federal congress (or any lone state).
Remember this the next time someone questions the fact we're a federal republic in the context of a short-term setback.
The limits on the U.S. government exist because we put them in our organic law (the Constitution) which is not solely the prerogative of the federal congress (or any lone state).
Remember this the next time someone questions the fact we're a federal republic in the context of a short-term setback.
Whether parliament or congress, those who make the laws have the power to do whatever they want; they do not have to have a reason. Police don't make law, they follow law, your comparison is not applicable. Probable cause applies to police, not the law makers.
What I meant was the police can't compel someone to hand over anything arbitrarily, they have limits in democracies. Police interpret the law, and we see in the US it's hard not to interpret things to one's own benefit sometimes.
>You must have cause to suspect something. In this case, it's unclear what the cause to justify this could be.
Anybody who has been following the DCMS Committee's work in the UK knows what the cause is - Facebook has been lying through its teeth to the committee and refusing to cooperate.
Hell, the Committee has had to organise an international super-committee with half a dozen other national legislatures in order to pressure Facebook to testify.
Anybody who has been following the DCMS Committee's work in the UK knows what the cause is - Facebook has been lying through its teeth to the committee and refusing to cooperate.
Hell, the Committee has had to organise an international super-committee with half a dozen other national legislatures in order to pressure Facebook to testify.
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.
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.
Simple answer: You want to do business in any country, you abide by their laws within their jurisdiction. Don't like it? Pull out. Simples.
Don't you think the U.S. would not have done the same (probably would've done much sooner) if a company was repeatedly turning up its nose and thumbing it?
Don't you think the U.S. would not have done the same (probably would've done much sooner) if a company was repeatedly turning up its nose and thumbing it?
> subject to raids by the British police force
This is kind of tautologous; if you're in the UK, suspected of having committed a crime, or certain other infractions (health and safety etc), you can be raided. It's more surprising when the FBI managed to do a raid in New Zealand.
This is kind of tautologous; if you're in the UK, suspected of having committed a crime, or certain other infractions (health and safety etc), you can be raided. It's more surprising when the FBI managed to do a raid in New Zealand.
He should have been issued with an arrest warrant in the same way we issue them for contempt of court.
I don’t think a dangerous precedent has been set. I think foreign tech should be aware right from the start, if you break the law you and your staff will be punished.
It’s the same deal for UK firms working in US. HSBC was quite rightly punished for money laundering in the US.
I don’t think a dangerous precedent has been set. I think foreign tech should be aware right from the start, if you break the law you and your staff will be punished.
It’s the same deal for UK firms working in US. HSBC was quite rightly punished for money laundering in the US.
[deleted]
He isn’t legally required by the laws of a land but it was felt by many that he did, in fact, owe his presence.
Doesn't Facebook have a subsidiary in UK?
It does, even though it's just a wrapper over Facebook Ireland.
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 choose to start operating my business in the USA I would reasonably expect to be subject to US law, and accountable to it.
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 choose to start operating my business in the USA I would reasonably expect to be subject to US law, and accountable to it.
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".
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".
Yet it seems like it sets a less dangerous precedent than heavy handedly seizing a domain via ICANN and closing down poker sites that had no presence at all in the USA. Similar for torrent and streaming sites, or Kim Dotcom. Perhaps the UK should have adopted the heavy handed US approach instead?
Nations, including and often starting with the USA, want internet companies to obey their laws. That shouldn't still surprise.
In the case of less savoury regimes I would prefer that Facebook, Google or whoever would respond ethically and choose to withdraw rather than compromise thousands of people to make a few extra dollars. Better yet I'd prefer that data sharing with such places was legislated against.
Nations, including and often starting with the USA, want internet companies to obey their laws. That shouldn't still surprise.
In the case of less savoury regimes I would prefer that Facebook, Google or whoever would respond ethically and choose to withdraw rather than compromise thousands of people to make a few extra dollars. Better yet I'd prefer that data sharing with such places was legislated against.
It's a huge conceit to suggest that "internet companies" have not got a "real" location.
They are registered companies. They have head offices. They have regional offices. They own entire datacentres. They are traded on stock exchanges. They trade for money with customers in countries all over the world. They are not above the law.
Legally, is Facebook any different than say, 3M or IBM? Both are US corporations with offices, manufacturing and distribution facilities in the UK. They are obviously subject to UK law. The precise location of particular data stored by the company, and servers accessing the data, seems a very odd criterion upon which to argue that the company is not subject to the rule of law. The company exists as a legal entity in the UK, it has offices and employees, and customers. It does have a presence. And it should absolutely be required to obey the law of the land.
(A few years ago, I might have had a slightly different view. But companies like Facebook and Google have taken such gross liberties with the law, and even the fundamental functioning of democracy itself, that I think there's an urgent need for them to be reigned in, harshly. They brought it entirely upon themselves.)
They are registered companies. They have head offices. They have regional offices. They own entire datacentres. They are traded on stock exchanges. They trade for money with customers in countries all over the world. They are not above the law.
Legally, is Facebook any different than say, 3M or IBM? Both are US corporations with offices, manufacturing and distribution facilities in the UK. They are obviously subject to UK law. The precise location of particular data stored by the company, and servers accessing the data, seems a very odd criterion upon which to argue that the company is not subject to the rule of law. The company exists as a legal entity in the UK, it has offices and employees, and customers. It does have a presence. And it should absolutely be required to obey the law of the land.
(A few years ago, I might have had a slightly different view. But companies like Facebook and Google have taken such gross liberties with the law, and even the fundamental functioning of democracy itself, that I think there's an urgent need for them to be reigned in, harshly. They brought it entirely upon themselves.)
By making their products available to users in the country they effect the people of that country. They ARE present.
Eh, you could argue about the making available to access for a long time either way. But there is a much more straight to point argument: they want, and take, money from UK customers (advertisers). If they want to keep doing that, they need to follow UK laws.
It's like how your little website may do things that are not ok in country X and you don't care, but if you want people and businesses from country X to be able to spend money on your website then you need to care.
It's like how your little website may do things that are not ok in country X and you don't care, but if you want people and businesses from country X to be able to spend money on your website then you need to care.
Facebook has offices in London
I don't see how offices change the argument
What is your definition of 'having a local presence'?
He doesn’t owe them his presence, and they don’t owe him the right to operate in their country. If he doesn’t want to deal with the UK government, he could pull out of the country.
[deleted]
If we casually allow that there are "unwritten" rules, then we accept that every government is merely a dictatorship ruled by whichever individuals have the most access to physical power. It would be great if everyone could by explicit on this, and if they are happy with it or not.
I found an article about the ongoing Six4Three case in CA [1]. From the article:
> David Godkin, Six4Three’s lead counsel said: “We believe the public has a right to see the evidence and are confident the evidence clearly demonstrates the truth of our allegations, and much more.”
I have little-to-no legal understanding, but it seems to me that it was in Six4Three's interest to have these documents seized and perhaps released to the public? I see others here talking of how bold of a move this was for Parliament and that it wouldn't have worked if Six4Three simply refused. However, if Six4Three was trying to get the documents released anyways, was this really that bold of a move? Seems to me its more just giving Six4Three an excuse to leak the documents.
1: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/may/24/mark-zuck...
> David Godkin, Six4Three’s lead counsel said: “We believe the public has a right to see the evidence and are confident the evidence clearly demonstrates the truth of our allegations, and much more.”
I have little-to-no legal understanding, but it seems to me that it was in Six4Three's interest to have these documents seized and perhaps released to the public? I see others here talking of how bold of a move this was for Parliament and that it wouldn't have worked if Six4Three simply refused. However, if Six4Three was trying to get the documents released anyways, was this really that bold of a move? Seems to me its more just giving Six4Three an excuse to leak the documents.
1: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/may/24/mark-zuck...
"In another exceptional move, parliament sent a serjeant at arms to his hotel with a final warning and a two-hour deadline to comply with its order. When the software firm founder failed to do so, it’s understood he was escorted to parliament. He was told he risked fines and even imprisonment if he didn’t hand over the documents."
Wow. I've never heard of the British parliament being this assertive before.
Wow. I've never heard of the British parliament being this assertive before.
[deleted]
Many consider these powers to be essentially spent: they have not been exercised to any significant extent in a very long time, and since then various changes (e.g. the need to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights) have put them on very shaky ground. If he had refused to go along with the Serjeant at Arms, I suspect nothing would have happened because parliament is keen to avoid a small constitutional crisis over these powers, and to avoid losing even the power of threatening to actually use them. In particular the power to compel witnesses, documents and so on in a process that is entirely separate from the courts could conceivably breach the right to freedom of expression as protected by the ECHR.
I am surprised that he actually complied with this order, especially as the article says the documents were under a US court order restricting their dissemination/publication, but maybe what happened is the Serjeant at Arms appeared with these scary warnings, his lawyers didn't know quite what to do, so they just did what they were told even if they probably didn't have to.
It will be interesting to see what the US court makes of its order being broken due to the order of a foreign legislature.
-- A source on the status of these powers: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18875266
I am surprised that he actually complied with this order, especially as the article says the documents were under a US court order restricting their dissemination/publication, but maybe what happened is the Serjeant at Arms appeared with these scary warnings, his lawyers didn't know quite what to do, so they just did what they were told even if they probably didn't have to.
It will be interesting to see what the US court makes of its order being broken due to the order of a foreign legislature.
-- A source on the status of these powers: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18875266
Given that his company is suing Facebook, he was possibly quite happy to comply. He doesn't seem to have lost out, and got a historical trip in the bargain.
I suppose a key question is why did he have thes documents with him in London?
If they’re that key there was th3 risk of the computer being stolen, hard drive encryption aside.
If they’re that key there was th3 risk of the computer being stolen, hard drive encryption aside.
For anyone wondering: the serjeant-at-arms is a mostly ceremonial role that keeps order in the common parts of the Parliament. You mainly see them carrying the Royal Mace, the symbol of executive power that is kept in Parliament for obvious symbolic reasons. They litterally enforce the authority of the Sovreign.
https://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/principal/serj...
Sending them in town has no close equivalent in the US, maybe threatening someone to be in Contempt of the Supreme Court.
https://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/principal/serj...
Sending them in town has no close equivalent in the US, maybe threatening someone to be in Contempt of the Supreme Court.
Probably the closest thing in the US would be a Congressional subpoena. In contrast to the UK Parliament's shakier justification, both Congressional rules and the Supreme Court case Wilkinson v. United States have affirmed that committees can subpoena witnesses.
Sending them in town has no close equivalent in the US, maybe threatening someone to be in Contempt of the Supreme Court.
The US House of Representatives and the US Senate also have Sergeants at Arms:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_at_Arms_of_the_United...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_at_Arms_of_the_United...
There have been multiple occasions in recent decades when, in theory, either house of Congress could have resorted to enforcement of a Congressional subpoena by sending its Sergeant at Arms to arrest the non-responsive party. The most recent occurrence was early in Trump's term when several of his high officials refused to appear before Congressional committees which sought to question them; there was talk of whether Congress would provoke a showdown by issuing and enforcing subpoenas. And a court ruling during the George W. Bush administration confirmed Congress could compel members of the executive branch to appear and answer questions:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-bush-idUSN31...
The US House of Representatives and the US Senate also have Sergeants at Arms:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_at_Arms_of_the_United...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_at_Arms_of_the_United...
There have been multiple occasions in recent decades when, in theory, either house of Congress could have resorted to enforcement of a Congressional subpoena by sending its Sergeant at Arms to arrest the non-responsive party. The most recent occurrence was early in Trump's term when several of his high officials refused to appear before Congressional committees which sought to question them; there was talk of whether Congress would provoke a showdown by issuing and enforcing subpoenas. And a court ruling during the George W. Bush administration confirmed Congress could compel members of the executive branch to appear and answer questions:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-bush-idUSN31...
Background on Six4Three's lawsuit against Facebook:
Is Facebook a publisher? In public it says no, but in court it says yes [7/3/2018]
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17462238
Is Facebook a publisher? In public it says no, but in court it says yes [7/3/2018]
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17462238
From a different case a few years ago, a good description of Contempt of Parliament and the power of the Searjent at Arms in such a situation - "Mike Ashley: Could Sports Direct boss be jailed in Big Ben?": https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-35783408
Facebook really aren't afraid of a British man in tights or
willing to reform without regulation. That's why Zuckerberg
hasn't turned up to the Commons, & they are appealing the UK
ICO's important but tiny fine. Time for the EU to move on
them, and I believe that's inevitable.
https://twitter.com/Claude_Moraes/status/1066486777136013317
In June, the Open Markets Institute [0] filed an amicus brief opposing Facebook’s motion to seal records in the case, arguing this matter “greatly implicates the public interest. [1]”
[0] https://openmarketsinstitute.org/articles/six4three-v-facebo...
[1] https://openmarketsinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/...
[0] https://openmarketsinstitute.org/articles/six4three-v-facebo...
[1] https://openmarketsinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/...
One should ask: Was the Six4Three executive lured to the UK on a pretext, specifically with the intent of seizing the FB documents?
Possible, but doesn't seem likely somehow.
What's more interesting is how the committee knew the documents were in the UK. It wouldn't aurprise me if the UK intelligence services tipped the off, with tacit apprival from the government.
What's more interesting is how the committee knew the documents were in the UK. It wouldn't aurprise me if the UK intelligence services tipped the off, with tacit apprival from the government.
They were not in the UK, which makes this a really really bad plan.
The person was in the UK, and they ordered them to produce specifically protected non-UK documents that they don't own, simply have access to.
To give an analogy, imagine taking a random contractor to your company, who is passing through the UK, and forcing them, under pain of jail time, to login to your VPN and produce records that the contractor happens to have access to, but doesn't own, control, do anything with etc.
Now imagine if that contractor was really an officer of a company suing you, and the access was also being forced upon your company and only being allowed on a temporary basis by a court.
The only reason they would ever get away with such a thing is because everyone hates facebook.
Six4three can and should be held liable in a US court for this (though that is unlikely).
The person was in the UK, and they ordered them to produce specifically protected non-UK documents that they don't own, simply have access to.
To give an analogy, imagine taking a random contractor to your company, who is passing through the UK, and forcing them, under pain of jail time, to login to your VPN and produce records that the contractor happens to have access to, but doesn't own, control, do anything with etc.
Now imagine if that contractor was really an officer of a company suing you, and the access was also being forced upon your company and only being allowed on a temporary basis by a court.
The only reason they would ever get away with such a thing is because everyone hates facebook.
Six4three can and should be held liable in a US court for this (though that is unlikely).
Is that (not being allowed to hold copies of the documents from discovery) standard practice in such cases, did I miss a reference in the article or what's the reason to assume that the "documents weren't in the UK"? I'd assume various legal aspects treat the VPN access scenario differently than carrying a copy that gets seized, despite the result being basically the same?
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 ordered him to produce them. If he had them with them, they wouldn't have to order him to do that. They would just escort him to his hotel room and take them :)
3. The story is also wrong about contempt, etc, at least on the set of facts they present.
The correct answer is to say "I am a citizen of the US, i am not the legal holder or custodian of these documents, i would like to speak to my embassy immediately". Let it be fought over in court.
Especially given our president, he would have made a big scene over the UK doing this to a US citizen, minimum.
Six4three LLC is a US company, its founder, ted kramer, is, as far as i can tell from court docs, a us citizen. They are not represented by an UK law firm.
(FWIW: all of this is why i suspect this was secret deal by six4three done to embarrass facebook)
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 ordered him to produce them. If he had them with them, they wouldn't have to order him to do that. They would just escort him to his hotel room and take them :)
3. The story is also wrong about contempt, etc, at least on the set of facts they present.
The correct answer is to say "I am a citizen of the US, i am not the legal holder or custodian of these documents, i would like to speak to my embassy immediately". Let it be fought over in court.
Especially given our president, he would have made a big scene over the UK doing this to a US citizen, minimum.
Six4three LLC is a US company, its founder, ted kramer, is, as far as i can tell from court docs, a us citizen. They are not represented by an UK law firm.
(FWIW: all of this is why i suspect this was secret deal by six4three done to embarrass facebook)
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.
In essence the 643 guy was threatened with UK jail if he didn't produce the documents. And threatened with US jail if he did. Over something that he did not own or had any part in creating. I'm no expert but it seems like a rights violation. He didn't do anything illegal.
Do embassies really step in in this case? If not, what would be the correct process to untangle oneself.
I agree it seems this was a pretty major incident and people are letting their hatred of Zuckerberg blind them to it.
In essence the 643 guy was threatened with UK jail if he didn't produce the documents. And threatened with US jail if he did. Over something that he did not own or had any part in creating. I'm no expert but it seems like a rights violation. He didn't do anything illegal.
Do embassies really step in in this case? If not, what would be the correct process to untangle oneself.
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.
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.
If you are being threatened with legal process in a foreign country, step #1 is always "contact your embassy".
I've always known this to be good advice in a criminal context, but not political ones like this unless to relay that the USG in general should intervene. I have not heard that the guy was detained.
I really don't think an embassy has the juice to go up against UK Parliament, the current US Ambassador to the UK is a old-money Republican fundraiser with a history degree, whose most recent accomplishment is owning the New York Jets NFL team.
Also, do we know that he didn't contact the embassy?
I've always known this to be good advice in a criminal context, but not political ones like this unless to relay that the USG in general should intervene. I have not heard that the guy was detained.
I really don't think an embassy has the juice to go up against UK Parliament, the current US Ambassador to the UK is a old-money Republican fundraiser with a history degree, whose most recent accomplishment is owning the New York Jets NFL team.
Also, do we know that he didn't contact the embassy?
thanks for the detailed answer!
The only reason they would ever get away with such a thing is because everyone hates facebook.
The only reason? Can't it be because FB's behavior was criminal, and/or that FB's behavior has already created an international incident?
Six4three can and should be held liable in a US court for this
Under what principle?
The only reason? Can't it be because FB's behavior was criminal, and/or that FB's behavior has already created an international incident?
Six4three can and should be held liable in a US court for this
Under what principle?
FB's behavior is 100% irrelevant here. If they seized them from FB you may have an argument.
But they didn't.
As for holding them liable, this is a very clear violation of a protective order either way. The correct answer, as I said, is to take it to court, where Facebook, you know, the rightful owner of the documents, can intervene.
If he actually was in possession of the documents, I would definitely push hard for sanctions.
As for holding them liable, this is a very clear violation of a protective order either way. The correct answer, as I said, is to take it to court, where Facebook, you know, the rightful owner of the documents, can intervene.
If he actually was in possession of the documents, I would definitely push hard for sanctions.
I would think that it's germane and worth mentioning if the material on the laptop contained evidence of crimes committed, and also that the guy was subject to UK jurisdiction.
I mean, I see women showing their hair and ankles in public all the time, does that mean I can take a stick to them like mutawwi'a? No, because those laws simply do not reach the US.
If you're only referring to the SixWhatever guy's liabilities within US law, then I suppose we'll see how that plays out.
I mean, I see women showing their hair and ankles in public all the time, does that mean I can take a stick to them like mutawwi'a? No, because those laws simply do not reach the US.
If you're only referring to the SixWhatever guy's liabilities within US law, then I suppose we'll see how that plays out.
If so, at least there wasn't a bone saw involved.
Looks like Six4Three is at fault here. It should have protected the papers to be not accessible by whoever is outside the US.
We will see more of this as national jurisdictions collide with the international internet.
I'm not entirely sure that's the case. The guy is the CEO.
So let's say he can't access it from the UK. The UK guys tell him "give us the documents or you go to jail". Well then he could ask an employee who is currently in the US to unlock them for him, maybe even give them his password. Basically, there is usually a way to get things done if there is a threat of jail pending.
The greater issue is how the UK was allowed to even do something like this to a person who hadn't done anything illegal.
So let's say he can't access it from the UK. The UK guys tell him "give us the documents or you go to jail". Well then he could ask an employee who is currently in the US to unlock them for him, maybe even give them his password. Basically, there is usually a way to get things done if there is a threat of jail pending.
The greater issue is how the UK was allowed to even do something like this to a person who hadn't done anything illegal.
Well, he can tell his employees beforehand to only accept such order if he is in the US. Otherwise the documents should not leave the country. Then he would have to reply that he is unable to provide access to the documents.
Another reply suggested that he should have contacted the US embassy and ask that he is forced to commit a crime in the US by UK. This would have lifted it to a diplomatic level.
From the circumstances it sounds possible that he wanted the documents published and was happy to be forced.
Another reply suggested that he should have contacted the US embassy and ask that he is forced to commit a crime in the US by UK. This would have lifted it to a diplomatic level.
From the circumstances it sounds possible that he wanted the documents published and was happy to be forced.
How can some rando small company manage to get access to FB internal emails over some dinky app, while parliament has to resort to such extreme methods?
One is a court of competent jurisdiction ordering discovery.
The other is not.
As far as i understand (from my British friends): They generally can compel people inside the UK to produce papers, but would not otherwise have jurisdiction to order much here.
Instead, they ordered a person in the UK to produce non-UK protected documents.
So what they did here is pretty extraordinary, and if everyone didn't hate facebook, would likely cause a very serious diplomatic incident.
One of the underlying problems is that they aren't six4three's documents to produce. They are not the owner or custodian of these documents.
They simply have access under a protected set of circumstances by court order.
This is quite literally compelled espionage: "Espionage or spying, is the act of obtaining secret or confidential information without the permission of the holder of the information."
As far as i understand (from my British friends): They generally can compel people inside the UK to produce papers, but would not otherwise have jurisdiction to order much here.
Instead, they ordered a person in the UK to produce non-UK protected documents.
So what they did here is pretty extraordinary, and if everyone didn't hate facebook, would likely cause a very serious diplomatic incident.
One of the underlying problems is that they aren't six4three's documents to produce. They are not the owner or custodian of these documents.
They simply have access under a protected set of circumstances by court order.
This is quite literally compelled espionage: "Espionage or spying, is the act of obtaining secret or confidential information without the permission of the holder of the information."
monies paid, one presumes
Due to their lawsuit with FB in the USA. I imagine those documents were obtained by court order. Pretty bold move by the UK gov. Looking forward to the leakage of said documents.
>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, 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.
Thank you for this distinction, minister vs. backbencher.
> 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 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 British usage, the government is strictly the executive. We don't have formal separation of powers, and the courts and Parliament are very clear they aren't part of the government. You can see this from Parliament's insistence on using 'parliament.uk' rather than .gov.uk, and the judges similarly with judiciary.uk.
Bluntly, Parliament is Parliament. (Her Majesty's) Government overlaps it, but is not the same. The DCMS committee in particular scrutinises government, but isn't part of it. I guess you could describe Parliament as being able to exercise (a few) State powers, but they really aren't a branch of government on the US theory.
Bluntly, Parliament is Parliament. (Her Majesty's) Government overlaps it, but is not the same. The DCMS committee in particular scrutinises government, but isn't part of it. I guess you could describe Parliament as being able to exercise (a few) State powers, but they really aren't a branch of government on the US theory.
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.
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.
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.
Could easily be that Six4three notified the UK ahead of time that Kramer would be in London. Provides a good opportunity to leak the data without being in contempt
I have always thought companies like FB ought to be legally required to erase any and as much stored personal information from their databases as a user requires.
In other words, I ought to be able to specify that I only allow my activity to be stored for one week, anything older than that should be erased from all databases and backups. Same with personal information, controlled and owned by the user, not the service.
In other words, I ought to be able to specify that I only allow my activity to be stored for one week, anything older than that should be erased from all databases and backups. Same with personal information, controlled and owned by the user, not the service.
Isn't this one of the requirements of the gdpr compliance? I want to get to that in the us, but it's going to be like pot laws. Liberal states will do it first, conservatives will try to stop it in the us congress, and it's possible the will of the majority will change.
You can ask them to delete your data, but unless their only legal basis for having it was your consent, they may be able to refuse. [0] They'd have to argue to the regulator that their interest in retaining it should override your interest in deleting it.
You also aren't allowed to dictate how specifically your data is processed, so you can't just boss them around. You only get to choose which data, for which purposes, by whom, and only if the processing requires [1] your consent.
[0] https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/right-to-be-forgotten/
[1] https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/consent/
You also aren't allowed to dictate how specifically your data is processed, so you can't just boss them around. You only get to choose which data, for which purposes, by whom, and only if the processing requires [1] your consent.
[0] https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/right-to-be-forgotten/
[1] https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/consent/
I am also suprised about GDPR because it seems that on facebook side it didn't change anythin. They added few more checkboxes and thats it. European companies had to change a lot (for better in my opinion).
Maybe thats why EU politicians are starting to be harsher about this. They feel powerless.
Maybe thats why EU politicians are starting to be harsher about this. They feel powerless.
Following AMP links makes me sad. Here's the real link:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/24/mps-seize...
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/24/mps-seize...
I didn't realize it was an AMP link until I clicked and saw that it had been blocked. I have a growing hosts block list specifically for AMP hosts. If anyone else wishes to block some AMP hosts, here is the link: https://github.com/lightswitch05/hosts/blob/master/amp-hosts...
I don't use Google anymore, so the list only has 362 at the moment, but I keep adding more as I find them. Pull requests are welcome!
I don't use Google anymore, so the list only has 362 at the moment, but I keep adding more as I find them. Pull requests are welcome!
Switched now.
The irony - it looks like uk did Cambridge Analytica themselves. They took data about one entity, in a very shady way, through a third party.
It serves as a good warning that when doing business in any country you need to abide by the written and unwritten codes of conduct for that country. Two other less pleasant examples are Assange and Khashoggi.