
Facebook refuses to disclose “chuck Chequers” Brexit advertiser to UK parliament - rbanffy
https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/06/facebook-refuses-to-disclose-chuck-chequers-brexit-advertiser-to-uk-parliament/
======
dahdum
From the article, Facebook already disclosed this information to the
government via the Information Commissioner's Office who is free to share with
parliament.

From their refusal letter: "You will appreciate that it would be inappropriate
to provide personal data of our users to any third party absent a lawful basis
for such disclosure."

I think this makes sense, today it's about this advertiser, but if they set
this precedent, what is stopping them from requesting information on their
competitors in their next election?

~~~
dmix
> what is stopping them from requesting information on their competitors in
> their next election?

Plus equally important is it chilling the political speech of their opponents
out of fear of state retribution.

~~~
benj111
What state retribution do you envisage?

Democracy would be in a worse place if there was no accountability.

I'm as staunch a defender of free speech as anyone, but at least take
ownership of the things you are freely saying.

~~~
jayess
In this day and age of ruined lives and careers over a tweet, the need for
anonymous speech is greater than it has been in a long time.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
There is also something to be said for separation of concerns.

If the CEO of Ford was gay or pro-choice, should she be deterred from
supporting such causes because many of the people who buy Ford trucks have
contrary opinions?

And being forced to support marginalized causes in public rather than in
private will de fact out you as a member of that class. Which means less
support for marginalized people, by the full measure of what they could get in
private but not in public.

Moreover, what is knowing the source of money supposed to get you? If you see
some "climate change is a hoax" rhetoric, you don't need a paper trail to know
who is behind it, and the answer in any case is to disprove it rather than ad
hom the funding source.

~~~
pjc50
> And being forced to support marginalized causes in public rather than in
> private will de fact out you as a member of that class.

Not at all necessarily - this is what allyship is all about.

> ad hom the funding source

Some funding sources may be illegal, and I would hope that tracing advertising
to foreign intelligence agencies would do something to discredit it.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> Not at all necessarily - this is what allyship is all about.

That doesn't really work. It means that you have to disguise support for your
cause by spending most of your resources to support several other causes which
may themselves already have more support than yours.

Moreover, "mix your money into a pool of money from other people that then
goes where you want it without anyone being able to tell who sent what where"
is basically how money laundering works. If that is allowed then you might as
well abandon the pretense of tracing the money to begin with, because the "bad
guys" will just do the same thing.

> Some funding sources may be illegal, and I would hope that tracing
> advertising to foreign intelligence agencies would do something to discredit
> it.

That is still basically an ad hominem attack. If the Russians get hold of
Clinton's emails and release them, the fact that it was the Russians releasing
them doesn't do much to disprove that she wrote them.

Moreover, if the funding source is a foreign intelligence agency, it's not as
if they're going to file a disclosure statement saying "Funding Source: KGB"
instead of using the name of a cutout. You have to prove it was them using
some other means than what they disclosed, which makes the disclosure
requirement pretty useless at catching the bad guys while still imposing real
costs on people who are not doing anything wrong.

------
pjc50
Important background:
[https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_fil...](https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/166225/fs-
imprints-npc.pdf)

All "election material" in the UK is required to carry an imprint saying who
published it. Either the unknown advertiser here or Facebook themselves are
probably breaking the law, although up until now this has not been well-
enforced on websites.

This law exists to prevent British politics being flooded by unaccountable
lies, and this seems to have broken down quite badly just now. In fact, I
don't think there _was_ more than a tiny amount of political Facebook
advertising carried out by third parties prior to 2010 elections.

~~~
eftpotrm
That only strictly applies during the regulated period of a campaign. As there
isn't presently a relevant election ongoing and there isn't a candidate or
referendum vote that it is directly promoting, they don't technically have to
have an imprint.

Now, that's not remotely to say that imprint law isn't flouted during
campaigns, I've absolutely seen literature going out that looked very like
(though couldn't be proved as) party-distributed literature trying to
influence an election but which didn't contain an imprint. But, this isn't a
breach of that particular law.

------
DyslexicAtheist
if there is anybody out there working at facebook who has access to the info
and can pass it on over tor, then I'm all ears. I'd be happy to put this out
into the public for you. My ricochet id is in my profile.

Edit: The best person to send this to is actually Carole Cadwalladr. But she
has unfortunately no set-up that wouldn't eventually get you in hot water.

~~~
ameister14
All they need to do is get a warrant/subpoena or the British equivalent. Why
would Facebook agree to give out user info voluntarily?

~~~
hadrien01
Hasn't the British parliament that kind of power already? From what I
understood, they got documents from the Six4Three/Facebook lawsuit by telling
someone they would be in contempt of parliament.

~~~
ameister14
The Parliament does have that power, yes. I don't know if the committee does
and has used it, though - hence the exec saying:

"in the event that Facebook receives a request for personal data from an
entity which can legally require such information, Facebook will provide
information in line with normal procedures. "

------
bencollier49
"It is now a matter for ICO (acting in accordance with its statutory duties)
to determine what they will do with the data provided to them,” Allan adds"

Are Facebook trying to taunt the ICO into breaking the GDPR provision for
legal basis?

------
squozzer
I think we're past the point where differences in political opinion can be
aired without fear of violent retaliation.

~~~
pjc50
The UK had a live-fire civil war until the late 90s. Violence has long been
marginalised, but it's always there on the edge and as a possibility (police
or demonstrators) at every demo.

~~~
mprovost
An MP (Jo Cox) was murdered (I don't think it's too strong to say
assassinated) during the Brexit campaign.

~~~
gadders
...by someone with a mental illness.

~~~
pjc50
The court ruled that he was sane at the time of the murder, and it was
extremely pre-meditated. And incited by all the far right material he had been
reading.

------
Nextgrid
No-bullshit link: [https://outline.com/ZEdxXN](https://outline.com/ZEdxXN)

------
malvosenior
_" Facebook has refused to provide the British parliament with the names of
individuals behind a shadowy network backing an extreme ‘no deal’ Brexit
outcome over a government-negotiated compromise."_

Good? Why on earth should governments be allowed to pressure companies to
disclose who is advertising on their platform? It's not like this company is
breaking into people's houses and forcing them to do things at gun point,
they're just running ads. Honestly, if an ad can convince people that your
position is bunk, maybe it's not that great of a position to begin with.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
You don't want a company to abide by the law of the lands in which it
operates? Political advertising is regulated in many countries.

So why would you draw a distinction with breaking into a house? The only
difference is they have not chosen to break that law, _yet._

Not liking the law is an entirely different matter.

~~~
ameister14
They are abiding with the law, though. They have been asked for information
and replied that they don't just give out information because people ask -
essentially they said 'come back with a warrant.' That's perfectly reasonable.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
It would be if the select committee system were an organ of the police. They
are not, and warrants are not required.

~~~
ameister14
Ok, so the select committee system questions have compulsory answers?

In the US, the committee would have to subpoena in order to legally force the
answer. Is that not the case here?

~~~
topynate
The Constitutional Society wrote an 86-page paper in 2012 attempting to show
that any such powers are extinct, and that primary legislation is necessary to
restore them: [https://www.consoc.org.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2012/06/Select-...](https://www.consoc.org.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2012/06/Select-Committees-and-Coercive-Powers-Clarity-or-
Confusion.pdf)

But late last year, a select committee exercised these powers anyway:
[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/24/mps-
seize...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/24/mps-seize-cache-
facebook-internal-papers)

~~~
pmyteh
The question is one of enforcement. Parliament can certainly order the
production of documents, and send the Serjeant-at-Arms to threaten
consequences if the documents aren't provided. That was enough in November to
get the documents coughed up (one suspects that the target in that case had no
particular incentive to test the limits of constitutional authority, given it
wasn't his secrets he was being coerced over - a good excuse for handing them
over would seem to be enough).

What's not abundantly clear is if Parliament can actually still carry through
its threat of imprisonment for contempt, if the recipient of the order decides
to face down the Serjeant. It's possible that the courts would swiftly issue a
writ of Habeas Corpus on the basis that contempt of Parliament is defunct.

It's also possible that the European Court of Human Rights would consider
legislative proceedings for contempt to be a breach of the Convention, but as
actions of Parliament are outside the reach of the Human Rights Act (which
makes the Convention directly applicable in the UK) they have no way of
enforcing the decision even if they made it - and it would take months at
least to get to the front of the queue.

