UK Parliament Seizes Cache of Facebook Internal Papers (theguardian.com) 225
Long-time Slashdot reader infolation writes: The UK Parliament has used its legal powers to seize internal Facebook documents in an extraordinary attempt to hold the US social media giant to account after chief executive Mark Zuckerberg repeatedly refused to answer MPs' questions. The documents are alleged to contain revelations on data and privacy controls that led to Cambridge Analytica scandal. Damian Collins, the chair of the culture, media and sport select committee, invoked a rare parliamentary mechanism to compel the founder of a US software company, Six4Three, to hand over the documents during a business trip to London.
Sunday Facebook's head of public policy told Parliament their actions were "entirely without merit," adding that they believed the move was "more about attacking our company than it is about a credible legal claim."
Sunday Facebook's head of public policy told Parliament their actions were "entirely without merit," adding that they believed the move was "more about attacking our company than it is about a credible legal claim."
Per the Daily Mail... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, it's the Daily Mail...
But still, looks like Fuckerberg might be caught in a bald-faced lie.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6426219/Parliament-seizes-Facebook-internal-papers-Mark-Zuckerbergs-refusal-answer-questions.html [dailymail.co.uk]
The secret cache is believed to include emails between Mark Zuckerberg and other executives that shows the firm knew about flaws in its privacy policy and allowed them to be actively exploited.
MPs discovered the documents were in the possession of an American software executive visiting London on a business trip and sent an official from the House of Commons to his hotel to retrieve them.
He was given two hours to hand them over to an appointee of Kamal El-Hajji, the House of Common's serjeant-at-arms, who is responsible for the security of the parliamentary estate.
However the executive refused, and was then hauled to Parliament and warned he could face imprisonment if he did not comply.
Damian Collins, chairman of the Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) Committee, told the BBC: 'We felt this [information] was highly relevant to the inquiry... and therefore we sent an order to Mr [Ted] Kramer through the serjeant at arms asking that these documents be supplied to us. Ultimately, that order was complied with.'
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46334810
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/24/mps-seize-cache-facebook-internal-papers
and the rest, with the Guardian leading the story
Re: (Score:1)
However the executive refused, and was then hauled to Parliament and warned he could face imprisonment if he did not comply.
Ok, this is getting good :)
Next up: Google.
Re:Per the Daily Mail... (Score:5, Informative)
One of the things that help the Daily Mail earn the bottom-of-the-barrel reputation they have is the way they steal anything that could pass for "real" journalism from other publications.
The article you posted, for example, is cribbed entirely from the BBC and Guardian.
https://www.bbc.com/news/busin... [bbc.com]
https://www.theguardian.com/te... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that news publishers often use the same agencies like Reuters and PA?
It's the Guardian and the BBC (Score:3)
I don't know where this "it's from the Daily Mail" nonsense came from. The links are to the Guardian and CNet. The quotes are from the BBC.
Look, if a bad newspaper rips something off a good news source, that doesn't make it false. It means you should check a good news source.
Re: (Score:2)
You're mistaking a newspaper (The Guardian) with a gutter rag (The Daily Mail)
Oh please. The primary difference between them is that the Daily Mail is honest about its biases and doesn't give a shit. The Guardian is just as biased but pretends otherwise.
The Daily Mail likes a good rant about immigrants, the Guardian likes a good rant about men. It's still fucking prejudice and bigotry.
Not an attack, an investigation. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sunday Facebook's head of public policy told Parliament their actions were "entirely without merit," adding that they believed the move was "more about attacking our company than it is about a credible legal claim."
This isn't about making a legal claim, at least not yet and it's certainly isn't an attack. This is an investigation into Facebook's dealings with a corporation who is paid to undermine democracy. I don't blame the UK Parliament for unusual conduct in doing this considering the bullshit Facebook has pulled already with the EU. Facebook is telling everyone to trust them and when everything goes to shit they claim it's all fixed now when it's clearly not.
Facebook only cares about Facebook and they are terrified that it's users will figure that out.
Re:Not an attack, an investigation. (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't blame the UK Parliament for unusual conduct in doing this considering the bullshit Facebook has pulled already with the EU. Facebook is telling everyone to trust them and when everything goes to shit they claim it's all fixed now when it's clearly not.
This is compounded by Zuckerberg assigning a powerless peon to tell the lies in his place and flipping off the committee's request for personal testimony. It's hard to see how this doesn't escalate. Zuckerberg seems to think that the nations in which Facebook does business have no power over foreign corporations. He is likely to be disabused of that fiction. He may be correct in thinking that the UK parliament has no legal power to compel the testimony of a foreign national outside UK territory, but there are other ways.
Re:Not an attack, an investigation. (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed by refusing to testify in front of the UK parliament Zuckerberg has put himself in contempt of parliament. He has better never set foot on UK sovereign territory ever again. There was some talk of a multinational investigation lead by the UK parliament a bit ago, that included at least Canada. So the list of counties he had better not visit could be growing a lot shorter. Better not infringe their airspace in his private jet either.
Perhaps that's not an issue for him. Perhaps he is fine on spending the rest of his without setting foot outside the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Well the 27th November session oy the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee was also attended by by parliamentarians from Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, France, Ireland, Latvia, and Singapore. That's some nine countries and 447 million people that Zuckerberg just thumbed his nose at. Not in my view very sensible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"This isn't about making a legal claim, at least not yet and it's certainly isn't an attack."
It's an attack on DUE PROCESS. They can steal stuff from Facebook without even charging anyone with a crime? That's theft in my book.
Re: Despotic actions of a desperate regime (Score:1)
Ivan sure sounds scared.
Re:Despotic actions of a desperate regime (Score:5, Insightful)
Robbing a business traveler under color of law is exactly why we've come to permanently mistrust you and your media allies.
Nobody was robbed, golubushka.
"Under color [sic] of law". This is a national legislature we're talking about—they ARE the law, idiota.
The media didn't do this. A nation's legislature grew weary of a foreign company's stonewalling (not to mention no small amount of arrogance on the part of its CEO), and went round it using the powers given it by the laws of said nation, zanudyen. If said foreign company doesn't like the country's laws and governmental institutions, it's free to take its business elsewhere, cupcake. (Sorry, I don't have a good translation for that off the top of my head other than "chashka torta" which I suspect doesn't have the desired effect.)
Just like the US House of Representatives is soon going to start exercising its investigative powers on the nest of criminals and traitors who've ensconced themselves in Washington.
You've got... about 6 weeks left. Enjoy your little party while it lasts, nyeuch.
Re: (Score:2)
that's why it's robbery
Except that it's not robbery.
Did the guy even lose anything, or did he leave the country with everything he entered with?
If he did hand over and leave behind specific items, they weren't stolen. They were seized. It's a different term because it has different meaning.
When a legally authorised body asks nicely for something, gets told to fuck off and instead uses their legal powers to take it, that's not robbery. That's called due process. The businessman had access to the courts and could easily have asked
Re: Despotic actions of a desperate regime (Score:4, Insightful)
You could extend your argument to any law enforcement agency, and this would really expose the fallacy of your argument. This wasnâ(TM)t just any law enforcement agency though, but Parliament itself, and Parliament is supreme. The comments in the article about the San Mateo court are utterly farcical and hypocritical. The fact of the matter is that FB and CA have lied to Parliament, obstructed justice and if I were Mark Z. Iâ(TM)d now be careful about things like which Caribbean Island to holiday on.
Re: (Score:2)
Parliament is "sovereign" not supreme. It is a subtle but very important difference.
Re: (Score:2)
I do wonder if the guy might now be in legal trouble when he gets back to the US. Taking sealed documents to another country where you might be forced to disclose them is so unwise it could be seen as reckless.
Re: (Score:2)
That's an interesting thought. It had crossed my mind that maybe he was induced to do this in some way...
Bring on the whinging (Score:5, Informative)
Every time a non-US government takes action against a predatory nominally US-based firm, dozens of "patriots" come out of the woodwork to decry how unfairly the foreigners are treating the nice US tech companies.
I don't know if these people are actually so deluded that they think Facebook holds any allegiance towards the USA (a company in which they pay virtually no tax, nor have any meaningful investment), if they are shills paid by FB, or if they are just bots meant to sow discord within the Western. But brace yourselves; here they come...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Bring on the whinging (Score:4)
This means they are effectively only taxing 14% of their business.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook has an operating profit margin of 47% so you'd expect them to pay tax in the UK at around 19% of 47% of UK revenues.
£1.27bn in revenue would thus equate to around £113m in tax. The global 47% may not apply exactly in the UK so you'd expect some variation from that.
Facebook paid £7.4m in tax.
That's a fuck of a lot of variation. I don't give a fuck what they report to the SEC, they're clearly not paying a fair share of their tax burden in the UK. Which is the point
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Bring on the whinging (Score:4, Informative)
Have you scrolled up a bit and read the comments suggesting bombing the UK over this?
Re: Bring on the whinging (Score:3)
That one solitary comment was posted by an Anonymous Coward who appears to be either fourteen years old, or more likely another hired troll.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't believe in taxation. Period. I can only imagine the sheer horror that must be on your face right now.
It's more a look of kindly bemusement and eye-rolling. Such self-certaintly, such a waste of typing......empty words that are supported by ignorance. Ah, to be young again.
Privacy? (Score:1)
So Facebook only believes in its own privacy to cover things up, but not the privacy of its users?
Got it.
Normally I'd be against this (Score:2)
But it's Facebook so what the hell burn em all.
Zuck flips the bird at the world (Score:2)
Let's see how that works out.
hold the US social media giant to account (Score:1)
For what?
Preferences defaulted to Seizure of Documents Yes (Score:5, Funny)
Simple explanation: Facebook set their preferences to Seizure of Documents = No but when there was a change of Parliament that setting was defaulted back to Seizure of Documents = Yes to improve customer delight in the Visiting UK Experience.
I wonder if it's intentional (Score:4, Interesting)
The founder of an outside company had the documents because of discovery in a lawsuit he filed against Facebook. A California court said he wasn't allowed to share them. Is it a coincidence he brought them to the UK (where Parliament could force them over) and became known that they were in his possession?
His lawsuit seems to be that he lost $250k because of the Cambridge Analytica security holes, so he's probably upset about that.
Re: (Score:2)
His lawsuit is because his company made a Facebook app called "Pinkini", which scanned your friends' photos for pictures of them in bikinis. Facebook banned it for a TOS violation so he moved on to phase 2 of his business plan.
1. Create creepy app, get banned
2. Sue
3. ???
4. Hand confidential Facebook documents to Parliament
Re: (Score:2)
Can confirm, just had Malaysian coffee in Singapore and it was fucking fantastic.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm... you do know that the Brits don't just allegedly have nukes like North Korea but actually do, yes?
Re: (Score:1)
Umm... you do know that the Brits don't just allegedly have nukes like North Korea but actually do, yes?
And submarines with nuclear ballistic missiles [wikipedia.org]. Sinking the island won't get you around that problem.
Re: (Score:2)
That isn't how islands work. Or heat. Or water.
But lets say you flew a B-2 and landed near in the UK near the coast. Go for a dive. Keep diving. Go all the way to the bottom of the Atlantic. Whenever you get to what you think the bottom is, you'll find that the bottom of the island already meets the bottom of the Atlantic.
What are you going to threaten next, to knock Jersey all the way to France?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's exceptionally derpy.
You can simply look at who did what and tell if their diplomatic corps was involved or not.
And it was done by the UK Parliament. So not even a part of the government that would have the sort of foreign ties that would allow for things getting checked in advance.
States that are allies don't ask each other before sneezing, instead they work out how these things are supposed to happen in advance, and then when things happen, they get done by whichever side the place where stuff is ha
Re: (Score:3)
US laws, rights, etc all finish at the US boarder.
I believe you meant "border".
But regardless, ask Julian Assange about those territorial limits to US law, never mind that what he and Wikileaks has done is essentially the same thing Daniel Ellsberg and the NYT did when they published the "Pentagon Papers".
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Did Daniel Ellsberg commit various sexual assaults and then jump bail to avoid answering those charges? No? Then it's essentially a completely different thing. But you knew that, you disingenuous hack.
Re:Six4Three should be held liable for releasing i (Score:5, Insightful)
Treading the alleged rape as credible at this point involves as much willful stupidity as expecting Saddam's WMD's to surface any day now.....any day now. From being cleared to leave the country by the prosecutor who heard the women's request for an STD test, to Sweden refusing to promise they wont hand Assange over to the United States, to refusing to interview Assange remotely as they've done in dozens of other cases since he sought asylum, it just goes on and on.
So pull your head out of John Brennan's ass already - you disingenuous hack.
Re: (Score:1)
I didn't write rape, I wrote "sexual assault." There's a reason for that.
And authorities only allow you to travel when they've absolutely cleared you from charges. Oh, wait... they do that all the time when people are still under investigation too.
Re: (Score:3)
Pedantic distinction without a difference.
Not if you believe there's merit to the allegations and you're dealing with a foreign national that has made it clear he's about to leave the country. Then they release you from custody but keep your passport.
Re: (Score:2)
No. They don't. Not even remotely close. Assange is accused of inserting his penis into a sleeping woman without consent. Which is considered rape in all countries involved plus the "hang Assange high" set.
It's utterly commonplace including examples right here in the United States. More willful stupidity isn't helping your case - arguing that the allegations are so serious that they are worth an INTERPOL war
Re: (Score:2)
You're literally cited no sources. "They've interviewed dozens of suspects. Just take my word for it." Not going to happen.
Loser.
Re: (Score:3)
And none of the smarmy shitweasels in the mainstream press that have been shitting all over Assange seem to have any awareness of the precedent about to be set. Outfits like NYTimes, WaPo and the Guardian in particular were all happy to take classified information from Wikileaks and
Re: Six4Three should be held liable for releasing (Score:1)
What part of refusing to comply with a subpoena from a sovereign government while in their country is "kidnapping"?
Re:Fingers crossed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Fingers crossed (Score:2)
Republican = Democrat = Financialist Bootlicker
Re:Leave FB Alone And BriskIt Already (Score:5, Insightful)
Says the astroturf troll.
I want them to gut Facebook like a fish, expose every crime and underhanded tactic the company has ever engaged in and fine them until it bankrupts the company.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I want them to gut Facebook like a fish, expose every crime and underhanded tactic the company has ever engaged in and fine them until it bankrupts the company.
I thought that, given Facebook is a legitimate threat to democracy (see USA, 2016) and that the cunt in charge of Facebook doesn't want to show up to answer the governments questions unless coerced, the government should have blocked Facebook from the country until the cunt showed up to be interrogated.
Yeah sure there's the VPN option for those who know how, but the average user would be bitching about losing their Facebook access because they don't know how to set up a VPN while Fuckerberg would be losing
Re: (Score:2)
expose every crime and underhanded tactic the company has ever engaged in and fine them until it bankrupts the company.
So just what common place would you expect this information to all end up where people could easily see it -- Facebook?
Re: Leave FB Alone And BriskIt Already (Score:1, Insightful)
I actually laughed reading that, some people are just insane. May, famously of "Foreigners Go Home" advertising campaign, upholding sharia law? Meanwhile Trump sucking Saudi cock, a real bastion of sharia law, gets a free pass.
Re: (Score:2)
FB should block all log-ins from the UK and 'ghost' every UK FB page. If they remain intransigant, give them 30 days and then delete all UK FB pages, photos, company pages, videos, messages, etc etc.
Next, have MS remotely disable/encrypt all copies of Windows in the UK.
And nothing of any value would be lost.
Re: (Score:2)
What if it turns out to have happened in London, England, not London, Ohio?
I'm pretty sure they don't have that stuff there, and that considering what we had to do to enact those rules here, you should really know that before quoting it.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh look, someone else who is missing the point :D
Ok, as I seem to be in the minority of people who actually understood the grand parent posters point, let me take a moment to explain it.
They understand that this happened in the UK and not the US. Thats fundamental to their post.
They then suggest that the American Revolutionary War (1765-1783 - otherwise known as The War of Independence, in which the American colonies won their independence from the British crown) was justified precisely because of this act
Re: (Score:1)
They were not fighting for the right to disobey English law in England they fought for their own right to live under their own laws.
So that is why, it matters a great deal if it happens in London, Ohio, or London, England.
The obvious fact is that you should not travel to the UK with documents, or access to documents. Post-Brexit, it is simply not a friendly place to do business for anybody but the English, Scottish, and Welsh.
And if you visit Ireland, I'd stay away from the border region.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, except that what happened here is basically the equivalent of a Senate committee or congressional hearing issuing a warrant for the disclosure of a document or information and someone enforcing that warrant.
Perfectly legal, perfectly within the powers of both bodies, just different names for the processes and people involved.
Nothing to get all het up about, nothing wrong happened here, there was no overstep of authority, no abuse of power or position etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, they started out fighting to secure their rights as Englishmen. The independence part came a little later.
Re: (Score:1)
Thats nice.
But guess what, the US constitution is only valid in the USA.
The USA only makes up 4% of the worlds population, the other 96% don't care what you think your rights are, and many live in countries that are MORE free than the USA.
The USA does not run the world , nor control other governments.
If a US citizen enters another country, you are subject to their laws, NOT the US laws.
Re: (Score:2)
How is this any different than a subpoena from a Judge, with the threat of contempt of court if you refuse to comply?
Re:This justifies the Revolutionary War (Score:5, Informative)
Point of order:
The post you replied to was making a point about why the American Revolution was needed - because it supposedly prevents acts like this.
The problem with the grandparents point however is that this act can very easily fall within the bounds of the constitutional quote they highlight - the serjeant-at-arms was issued an order of seizure by a parliamentary committee, naming the class of documents or information and the individual required to disclose those items. It is, to all intent and purpose, a warrant issued by a proper authority under the UK parliamentary system, just as an equivalent order issued by a House or Senate committee would be.
Re: (Score:1)
The post you replied to was making a point about why the American Revolution was needed
Let me get this clear, you hope that Facebook subscribers will rise up in revolution against the nations?
Re: (Score:3)
The post you replied to was making a point about why the American Revolution was needed
Let me get this clear, you hope that Facebook subscribers will rise up in revolution against the nations?
Oh, I see that one Facebook employee with mod points did rise up.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook subscribers will rise up
As long as that doesn't literally mean climbing the stairs out of their mother's basement.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care who you are, that's funny, point being that I don't care who you are and, collaterally, that's funny, I don't care who you are.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, I'm just pointing out that CaptainDork was living up to their name and missing the point - which you also seem to be doing.
Please do say if you want the thread explained to you in simple terms.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you need it explained to you in simple terms, what a point of order [wikipedia.org] is?
Re: (Score:2)
Awww look at you, trying to recover from your embarrassment - I was using it to mock the person I was responding to, rather than using it in the same way they were (whatever way they intended).
But I guess you missed that as well. Missing a lot today, aren't you?
Re: (Score:2)
You are self-mocking.
Re: (Score:2)
If you insist.
Re: (Score:2)
He would make a good bird.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying, the Legislature can issue its own Search Warrant? Could you elaborate, which Article of the Constitution gives them this power?
Re: This justifies the Revolutionary War (Score:2)
You realize this happened in the United Kingdom, where they don't have a written Constitution - right?
Re: (Score:2)
The advantage with a written one is that at least you know what's being ignored.
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely the point of order I made in the OP. Mod-wise, it diidn't go well.
Re: (Score:2)
Americans don't do well with UK trivia. By, "et al" they think you are going for, "And you, Al?" wherein they refer to Al Gore because Leslie Gore (no relation) is his daughter of the revolution, being an American, I'm not sure if we're talking about yours or ours.
Re: (Score:2)
Point of order.
You're fuller of shit than a Christmas turkey.
Re: (Score:2)
Point of grammar.
You're the fullerester of shit than anyone else is more fullerest of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're gonna spend at my place, it's cash only. No crypto, OK?
Re: (Score:2)
Found the person who got his JD from DeVry.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
How ignorant are you?
Ignorant enough to think that that bolded shit from the U.S. Constitution doesn't apply in the UK?
Re: (Score:2)
Also, the UK is cracking down (successfully? we'll see) on privacy and monopolies.
The US is not tackling those issues on any front.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck you.
... strawman of your own design.
You'd be OK if I did business with, Strawman Designs, Inc.?
Bad behaviour on the part of the UK did not cause those words. The UK is where those words came from .
Re: (Score:2)
Probable cause isn't the correct legal standard here because that is an element of criminal law. Annoyingly, the new reports don't say anything more than "rarely used power", but what exactly is that power? Something about select committees [parliament.uk] and contempt, I think.
Re:Entirely with merit (Score:4, Insightful)
The UK didn't break any UK laws.
If you don't like their laws, don't travel to their country.
Re: Entirely with merit (Score:1)
It sounds like you are from the USA. Are you aware of your secret courts that issue secret warrants to spy on citizens and foreigners alike? Or your secret courts that issue secret arrest warrants? Or your prosecution system that routinely and on a massive scale railroads innocents into plea bargains?
Re: (Score:3)
The "computer definition" is a simple and obvious application of the "common definition" to computers.
And you are simply and obviously an idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
The British public is entitled to a little rage, now that they've figured out that their Brexit vote was based on the lies of CA, which you'll note has conveniently disbanded in hopes of evading exposure and responsibility...
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because they weren't sold a bill of goods by people pushing for the EU in the first place, or told any lies by Remain. /inserteyerollemoji
Re: (Score:2)
If you're willfully obtuse, sure you can see it that way.
Re:Dangerous move by UK Parliament (Score:5, Interesting)
Nope the UK has a constitution, it is just not written down in a single document like other countries. That does not mean it does not exist. Perhaps you should speak to someone who knows what they are talking about (my source is my brother who used to teach constitutional law at the University of Law in the UK).
The UK parliamentary committee acted entirely within in the UK constitution. Under the UK constitution it is entitled to seize the documents it did, and the Sargent at Arms it is entitled to hold anyone refusing to comply till such time as they do. The UK courts have ruled in the past (a long time ago now but that is irrelevant) that they are constitutionally entitled to do what they did.
It does not usually go this far because most sensible people back down in advance because they realize they are on a hiding to nothing. I would point to Mike Ashley and Philip Green who both recently backed down about refusal to appear before Parliamentary select committees to illustrate my point.
Consequently it is a very rarely exercised power, but just because they don't need to exercise it often does not make the exercise of the power wrong in anyway.
Oh and finally neither courts or parliament are stealing documents that they force to be produced. You are only stealing when you are acting without the law and they where acting within the law.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh and finally neither courts or parliament are stealing documents that they force to be produced. You are only stealing when you are acting without the law and they where acting within the law.
There are only repercussions and convictions for stealing when you are acting without the law. It's still depriving someone of their property against their will. It's still theft. It's just legal.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes you're right. We should just let American companies do what the fuck they like in our country, whilst paying next to no tax to our Exchequer.
The fight between the US and UK was already in full swing before this even started. This is just the next move in a series of dozens of not hundreds already played. It's gonna be tough for the US to say "you shouldn't do stuff like that", when it does it all the bloody time. You know some companies expressly forbid carrying documents and/or data on hard drives when
Nonsense (Score:2)
These documents were in the UK, they were seized in the UK using legal powers, these documents are relevant to the ongoing Parliamentary investigation into Facebook breach of Data Protection regulation in the Cambridge Analytics scandal. Facebook have had the opportunity to testify before this Parliamentary committee, to have their 'day in court' and have repeated snubbed Parliament. Contempt of Parliament is a very serious charge, more so than their original data breach. They thought they could ignore t