
Facebook sues EU antitrust regulator for excessive data requests - ckastner
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-facebook-antitrust/facebook-sues-eu-antitrust-regulator-for-excessive-data-requests-idUSKCN24S2BN
======
pmiller2
This is the part that troubles me about this:

> “The exceptionally broad nature of the Commission’s requests means we would
> be required to turn over predominantly irrelevant documents that have
> nothing to do with the Commission’s investigations, including highly
> sensitive personal information such as employees’ medical information,
> personal financial documents, and private information about family members
> of employees,” Facebook associate general counsel Tim Lamb said in a
> statement.

Why does FB even _have_ employee medical information and personal financial
records? I can sort of understand how they might inadvertently end up with
small snippets of medical information via their HR process ( _e.g._ Sally
Software Engineer submits a request for maternity leave), but, other than
possibly account numbers for stock accounts and deposit accounts, I'm
scratching my head as to what they even _mean_ by "medical information" and
"personal financial documents."

~~~
pwdisswordfish2
"Why does FB even have employee medical information and personal finanacial
records?"

You are assuming that they have this information. However their argument is
that the search terms "could" retrieve such documents. There is nothing here
that confirms they possess these purportedly irrelevant documents that would
be produced given the current search terms.

Usually lawyers will redact personal, sensitive information before releasing
the documents. In the US, some courts make this an obligation. Also, usually
there are some search operators to limit the results of the search to usage of
the terms only in certain contexts, e.g., like the ones used in Lexis and
Westlaw.

It is a new level of irony, hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance to see an
unregulated, privacy-destroying tech company whose core business requires
ingesting personal information from hundreds of millions of people at an
unprecedented scale try to argue that EU regulators, who are probably limited
by statute in what they are authorised to do with the information they
receive, should not have access to information for the purposes of
investigating Facebook's activities.

~~~
op03
It's not a new level.

Cognitive dissonance is an essential requirement to work in Wall St, the MIL
complex, Exxon, big tobacco, the gambling industry etc etc. They all have
their own stories about how it's okay to exploit weakness in people.

They all reach a stage where to survive they cannot break with their stories.
Cognitive dissonance is par for the course.

Facebook by adding the Like button to the Internet is basically giving out
free dopamine in exchange for attention that they exchange for $$$. It's a
modern legal unregulated drug peddling empire.

And all empires collapse because of their cognitive dissonance.

~~~
kryogen1c
> Cognitive dissonance is an essential requirement to work in

oh, boo. this is a sophomoric examination that does not do justice to the
subject being critiqued.

cognitive dissonance has become a buzzword and its incorrect usage is
exemplified here. those people aren't struggling with a value conflict, they
just have different values than you do.

the path to togetherness, thoughtfull discussion, and mind-changing lies with
honest recognition and good-faith debate, not name-calling.

~~~
zaro
> cognitive dissonance has become a buzzword and its incorrect usage is
> exemplified here. those people aren't struggling with a value conflict, they
> just have different values than you do

But maybe, just maybe, their values are incompatible with the values that
build up a society. And here is where the cognitive dissonance starts.

> the path to togetherness, thoughtfull discussion, and mind-changing lies
> with honest recognition and good-faith debate, not name-calling.

That only works when all sides want this. I think it's pretty onbivous that
any large corporation, doesn't want this kind of discussion. It mean admitting
them doing a lot of cr*p in the name of profit.

~~~
yuliyp
Cognitive dissonance is a single person holding two contradictory views at
once. A person holding views that contradict yours is not cognitive
dissonance. "The values that build up a society" are not a universal truth.

~~~
fogetti
That's actually incorrect. Cognitive dissonance means that someone's behavior,
attitude or thoughts, beliefs are inconsistent. Or in other words someone
participates in an action that goes against his beliefs, ideas, values. Which
is exactly what the grandparent post refers to:

> _They all have their own stories about how it 's okay to exploit weakness in
> people._

This is definitely inconsistent and in contrast with almost all the above
mentioned entities' mission statement and their corporate values.

------
codeulike
Reminds me of:

"Facebook Announces Plan To Break Up U.S. Government Before It Becomes Too
Powerful"

The Onion, of course. [https://www.theonion.com/facebook-announces-plan-to-
break-up...](https://www.theonion.com/facebook-announces-plan-to-break-up-u-s-
government-bef-1844121902)

~~~
udue73uru
I kind of see it but it still seems like a stretch since lots of companies
take legal action against governments for a variety of reasons. At face value
the company is airing a legitimate concern/grievance and they're using the
EU's own courts to explore the legitimacy of that grievance so it's not like
they're subverting the rule of law somehow.

~~~
buran77
The problem is that whatever you'd search for, that term could and eventually
would, by any means necessary, be found in "employees’ health information,
performance evaluation and even job applications to the company". Then again
you can't not see the irony of the situation where FB is complaining that
someone is requesting too much data from them.

> Facebook is also seeking interim measures at the Luxembourg-based General
> Court, Europe’s second-highest, to halt such data requests until judges rule

Having participated in such investigations I can tell you one thing for sure,
whatever the final outcome of their initiative FB can only win from the
respite this would provide. Evidence gets old and data retention policies just
happen to kick in, evidence gets lost, evidence gets moved to another
jurisdiction, etc.

I am taking the uncharitable interpretation because it's the most realistic.

~~~
ggggtez
I'm inclined to take the realistic approach: It's in their best interest to
fight any anti-trust investigation, regardless on whether their denial is
legitimate or not. A successful anti-trust suit could cost FB billions of
dollars, which is well worth some overtime for a few lawyers to delay-delay-
delay.

It's their lawyer's role to make every step of the legal process as painfully
slow as possible.

------
jacquesm
Facebook being concerned about anybody's privacy is a good thing I guess.

What they should do instead of suing the EU antitrust regulator (good luck
with that) is to comply with the request and leave out or redact those things
that they feel would breach employee confidentiality, and enumerate where
they've done so with specific reasons as to why a particular item has been
left out.

What will happen now is (1) they will lose this lawsuit; (2) will have to pay
costs and (3) will still have to cough up the data. So I interpret this as a
stalling action to buy time to figure out how they can not get to (3) in some
way or other. Maybe they'll lose the data somehow.

As an employer I don't hold any such data on my employees, and neither should
Facebook. They are right that legislators / the antitrust entity has no right
to this information, but the best way to achieve that is if they didn't have
it in the first place.

Facebook employees should wake up and see that it is _their_ rights being
violated by Facebook here, the anti-trust entity is not the one that is at
fault.

~~~
onetimemanytime
Just trying to delay and _maybe_ they'll win, nothing really to lose by suing.
FB doesn't care about courts costs

~~~
jacquesm
You piss off regulators at your peril. In the end they're all people and being
stymied is going to cause some kind of reaction, likely not one to Facebooks'
benefit.

------
justinclift
> "... we would be required to turn over predominantly irrelevant documents
> ... such as ... personal financial documents, and private information about
> family members of employees,”

Sounds like the kind of documents useful for investigating (at least) fraud,
kickbacks, and hiding assets.

So, EU antitrust regulator seems to be doing it's job (thus far).

------
mola
This is nothing more the a PR misdirection to evoke anti government
sympathies. EU regulator has no interest in this information, and probably has
not directly requested it. The wording says that the search terms $might$
return this information. So the lawyers can always redact it if these turn
out, I'm pretty sure the regulator would accept it.

Disgusting company.

------
jmull3n
Can I sue facebook for excessive data requests?

~~~
swebs
Sure, you can sue them for anything if you're willing to pay for a lawyer.

------
AlexandrB
Wish I could sue Facebook for excessive data requests.

~~~
arpa
I wish they would request data instead of just taking it!

------
ashtonkem
I feel like a lot of companies are about to discover why credibility matters,
even if you're in a monopoly position.

Sure, FB can claim all these concerns all they want. Why should anyone trust
them at their word, at this point?

------
jimmytidey
In terms of Facebook's longer term relationship with the EU, surely this is an
own goal?

------
Ericson2314
It's funny to see this headline after reading
[https://www.theonion.com/facebook-announces-plan-to-break-
up...](https://www.theonion.com/facebook-announces-plan-to-break-up-u-s-
government-bef-1844121902) earlier today.

------
Bombthecat
If this works. In future, i OK just attach sensitive information to illegal
documents. (where the attached information is also illegal)

And every time a lawyer requests such information : nope, can't do. There
might be illegal sensitive information attached to it!

------
cblconfederate
How do these things work with work from home? Activity at one's home or
anywhere outside the offices is private, even if it's work-related. Could
remote employees block such requests on the ground of personal privacy?

~~~
ohmaigad
What are you talking about? Your employer shouldn't have access to your
private activities in the first place. Just because you are out of office and
you send a company email doesn't make it private.

------
reedwolf
Data requests are not our friend.

~~~
joe-collins
Data aggregators even less so.

~~~
wallawe
One is voluntary, the other is not.

------
rogerdickey
I didn't RTFA but assuming the requests were excessive, it's great to see
Facebook defend themselves. Sad to see how beleaguered this company has become
despite (IMO) having good intentions in an impossible situation where you
can't make everyone happy.

~~~
piva00
Why would you assume that the requests are excessive and that FB is in the
right? Given their track record against regulatory bodies it's quite rich to
assume that and then derive a whole supporting comment out of it.

It's not sad, this is self-inflicted, FB played with fire and that has
consequences, it doesn't matter how pretty to the outside their vision and
mission statements are. What good intentions are there from FB? They talk the
talk but don't walk the walk, and never had.

------
qserasera
Get ready for some EU pearl clutching about data again

------
kchoudhu
Awww Facebook is concerned about privacy. Kinda cute, really.

------
vdfs
How the turn table

------
Simulacra
The question to ask is: How many documents does it take to reach the truth?
For Facebook, we may have found the answer.

------
snogaraleal
After Veritas, I can’t even imagine the garbage that FB must be hiding.

------
SpicyLemonZest
> EU regulators comb through documents looking for about 2,500 search phrases
> which include “big question”, “shut down” and “not good for us”, said a
> person familiar with the matter.

Is the text of the Commission's requests public? This paragraph seems to be
implying that they're demanding every Facebook document containing any of
these 2,500 phrases, which does seem pretty dumb if true.

~~~
buran77
> which does seem pretty dumb if true

Why is that? The alternative is to ask for _everything_ and keep what's
valuable, kind of how companies like Facebook do. What other options do you
see?

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
The alternative is for regulators to issue narrow, targeted requests for the
information they need to investigate specific issues. I don't think the
government should be able to tell a company "alright, hand over all your
documents so we can make sure there's no evidence of wrongdoing in them".

~~~
buran77
> narrow, targeted requests

The investigators should ask exactly for the smoking gun, but they need the
smoking gun to know exactly what to ask for. Imagine if when asking for a
warrant the Police would have to say "we are looking for a knife on the left
side of a shoe box under the defendant's bed". Oh the knife is wrapped in some
tax returns and blood work results... bummer.

You don't need to go much farther than your average internet search to see
that it's nigh impossible to search so narrowly that only the best result
comes up from the first try and doesn't contain any irrelevant information.
And that's before considering that unlike internet searches companies go
through _a lot_ of effort to intentionally poison the well and mix up the now
known search words throughout a big volume of irrelevant information to prove
their point. This is what this request is about, buying that time.

As I already said, you can't not spot the irony when a company insists they
need very broad access to _your_ data to monetize it, but complain when
_regulators_ need access to their data as part as an official investigation.

~~~
jariel
? The irony is the other way around. FB is free, users provide information, FB
doesn't sell it or share it, they use it to place ads. The EU government is
concerned about 'privacy' while asking a private, foreign company to hand over
arbitrary private data.

Imagine the police pulling you over and asking you to show any emails which
included the terms 'deal' or 'partying' or 'the green stuff'.

The investigators are probably barking up the wrong tree.

~~~
piva00
You are one of those that falls for the semantic trick of "we don't sell your
data" [0].

A private foreign company isn't more powerful than the EU, there is no irony
that a regulatory and investigative body wants private information concerning
an investigation from a company operating under its jurisdiction. And a
company that has a track record of strong-arming regulations and governments.

[0] [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/12/opinion/facebook-data-
pri...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/12/opinion/facebook-data-privacy-
advertising.html)

~~~
jariel
I'm not 'falling' for anything.

I'm aware of how my data is being used by Facebook, and am generally
unconcerned by it, as are most people.

Conversely, it would seem you're falling for the completely false claim made
in the NY Times that somehow, placing ads on FB is somehow tantamount to
'buying customer data'. The article is making a bizarrely stupid claim.

"I am shocked that anyone continues to believe this claim. Each time you click
on a Facebook ad, Facebook sells data on you to that advertiser. This is such
a basic property of online targeted advertising that it would be impossible to
avoid, even if Facebook somehow wanted to."

It's basically lying to suggest that someone placing ads on a network is
remotely similar to, for example, Facebook literally selling user data
directly to advertisers or anyone else.

You, I, everyone, we see the ads on Facebook, the means by which those ads are
purchased is available for anyone to see and it's really not that big a deal.
It's mostly demographics, location, and some degree of interest that usually
isn't correct in the first place.

"A private foreign company isn't more powerful than the EU"

The EU and FB are bound by law, and it seems clear the EU is breaking it by
making broad search and seizure during some kind of investigative discovery,
and the EU courts will have to rule on it.

------
jriddle567
This shows the generation and technically challenged politicians that came up
with this nonsense request. Agree on an API that is practical and fair and pay
for the data transfer

------
prirun
I don't use Facebook and think it's a waste of time for people who are
addicted to it. However, I also don't think it's right that a bunch of gov
lackeys in Brussels should be suing and fining US companies that have lots of
customers & money. When they sue Google for $500M or whatever, where does this
money go? To the supposed "victims", or to the EU gov coffers, to pay for more
staffers so they can file more lawsuits?

~~~
lostmyoldone
If you want companies to follow rules, history has shown that only steep
fines, or jailing executives work. Where the money goes isn't that important,
it's a fine, and it's intent is to be big enough that following laws is
cheaper.

They want to operate on the EU market, they follow EU laws. EU companies don't
get to select which US laws to follow when active in the US.

That's probably only part of the story though, it might be a little more
behind why this happens _now_.

US have worked to extend the reach of their laws outside the country for
decades, aggressively. This is part of what's called soft power, which US has
historically been quite good at. The current US administration has dropped the
ball on soft power so hard its sad. Not only has it opened up for China in
parts of the world where they barely got any play before, the emboldening we
see in how China tries to assert jurisdiction over people outside China is
almost certainly a direct result of these catastrophic failures of foreign
policy. Not only Chine, but it's an extremely obvious case..

Anyway, that kind of _massive clownery_ on the geopolitical arena is going to
have consequences. The massive power vacuum alone almost certainly enabled,
but likely also forced EU's hand enforcing the laws more aggressively, at
least to some extent.

