Slashdot Mirror
UK Parliament Seizes Cache of Facebook Internal Papers (theguardian.com)
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."
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
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.'
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.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
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.
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.