
Facebook spooked after MPs seize documents for privacy breach probe - LinuxBender
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/11/26/facebook_dcms_document_cache_seized/
======
kevin_b_er
Facebook played fast and loose with privacy for over a decade. This might have
worked in the US where corporate abuse and greed reigns supreme, but not so
much in Europe. And Facebook elected to move its corporate nexus to Europe to
tax dodge.

Were they so deluded to think Europe actually caring about privacy wouldn't
one day come back to bite them?

~~~
johnnyfaehell
I think the key deluded part of Facebook was thinking just because Mark
Zuckerberg isn't in the UK or other nations that want to talk to him that he
can just ignore them. This move just goes to show how the laws of another
country can affect you without you going to that country.

~~~
nighthawk1
If there is one thing governments do not like it is being ignored and their
power and reach is broad enough to make you comply in various ways.

------
bredren
It’s interesting to see this accusation about Zuck trying to cover up his
“failing” to recognize the transition to smartphones.

I was working at perhaps the biggest iOS shop in the country at this time in
Seattle. And I was regularly invited and attended the developer poker /
presentation night events at FB’s Seattle office.

At the time facebook had an open position for a mobile czar that continued to
go unfilled for a long time. I know because I applied and watched it.

This was when Facebook was refusing to build a native app—insisting the mobile
web was a good enough experience.

I was boots on the ground as so many big companies were embracing iOS, so
there was no doubt Facebook was willfully ignoring mobile.

Whether that failure required a coverup is a big leap though, so it would be
very interesting if these documents included discussions suggesting this was
the case.

~~~
reaperducer
IIRC, the whole transition of Facebook from web app to iOS app was a complete
fiasco, from a user perspective.

It was at least a year, perhaps more before the app was usable. It would take
_minutes_ for a single page to load in the app. People hated it with the
intensity of a thousand suns.

I think you dodged a bullet not getting on board that train wreck.

My guess is that Facebook only decided to go mobile-first when it realized
that a phone is a much better personal data slurping device than a stationary
desktop computer.

~~~
bredren
I also remember how bad the mobile app was, it was very poorly rated in the
app store. It would lose auth even i think. The people at the firm I worked on
couldn't believe how poorly it was built when big companies including Apple
were making major progress on apps with very small teams.

>I think you dodged a bullet not getting on board that train wreck.

Maybe you're right. I did end up heading to the valley and applying to YC and
eventually getting a couple companies funded, but hard to know. I am not fond
of Facebook the product or its business these days but back then I thought it
was cool and built apps on it very early.

> My guess is that Facebook only decided to go mobile-first when it realized
> that a phone is a much better personal data slurping device than a
> stationary desktop computer.

You may be right, but I think they also realized that mobile ads converted. I
can't remember but someone could probably write a book about Facebook's move
to Mobile on its own.

Speaking of mobile privacy, I also remember that we were all aware of how
messed up permissions on iOS were--in that you could read full contact list
data silently. Not long after we had Path-Gate:
[http://technologyfront.com/journalism/2012/02/17.html](http://technologyfront.com/journalism/2012/02/17.html)

------
Eridrus
Am I the only one, or does it sound like someone tipped them off? How would
one know that this guy had these documents, and be keeping a close enough eye
on his travel?

~~~
dragonwriter
> How would one know that this guy had these documents

They'd know he had access to them from public information about his job and
the relevant court proceeding.

Given the threat to use similar process on Zuck should he travel to the UK, I
would assume that the Parliamentary committee involved has a way to get that
kind of travel info about people of interest from the government, who, after
all, works for and is answerable to the Parliament.

~~~
Eridrus
Oh, do you have a link to this threat to Zuck? Had not heard about that.

~~~
dragonwriter
It's in the call-out box in the source article for this thread.

------
lixtra
> ... process during its court case against the _Zuckerborg_ , in which it is
> alleging Facebook defrauded ... Seriously? What happened to journalism?

~~~
stewartm
You either need to read a lot more of The Reg, or none at all. The Reg is
written with a certain brand of humour that is appreciated by a fair chunk of
its tech readership.

If you want a humour free version of the article, checkout the link to The
Guardian article cited. Brace yourself for lots of speling mistakes however.

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
I stopped regularly reading "El Reg" years ago for this very reason. Perhaps I
just grew up. It's a real shame they put up this barrier to entry as they've
been behind some truly excellent investigative journalism over the years.

~~~
stewartm
I can understand that. Humour is a matter of taste so I can't imagine they hit
the mark 100% of the time for anybody, certainly they don't for me.

However given the weariness derived from seeing the same kind of tech
issues/fails/corruption reported ad infinitum, I happily welcome an attempt at
a bit of humour to lighten the mood a little.

------
throwaway2048
This involves an interesting difference in the British parliamentary system of
absolute parliamentary supremacy compared to the American principle of
separation of powers. Basically they can pass a law that does anything,
including ones for the start of investigation, the filing of criminal charges,
and the seizure of evidence and assets. Facebook was very stupid to make a
weak excuse of being tied up with legal process in an American court as the
reason they refused to cooperate, because in the end the UK parliament can
compel anything they want.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty)

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
Sending a Sergeant-at-Arms in person is the British diplomatic equivalent of
parking tanks on your lawn.

It's almost literally unprecedented, and is a signal that Parliament is very,
very angry about this,

------
renegadesensei
Must suck to have your sensitive information taken and used without your
permission.

~~~
wtfstatists
Oh I did not realize FB was pointing gun at people.

~~~
arethuza
I doubt the Serjeant-at-Arms has a gun, although apparently the role does
include sometimes wearing a sword:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serjeant-at-
Arms_of_the_House_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serjeant-at-
Arms_of_the_House_of_Commons_\(United_Kingdom\))

~~~
JJMcJ
> While serving the warrant and encouraging a witness to attend parliament
> "the Serjeant or his appointee may call on the full assistance of the civil
> authorities, including the police."

From the Wikipedia article.

So the Facebook employee was in fact under compulsion.

~~~
arethuza
Of course he was under compulsion - but I seriously doubt that anyone involved
had a gun on them.

------
cellis
Does anyone else flat out refuse to read The Register articles? I feel like
I’m being gaslighted or slow trolled every time I do.

------
londons_explore
No government should have to resort to 'sneaky' measures like this.

If you have a suspicion that a company is breaking the law, you ask a judge
for permission to inspect them. If permission is granted, you show up at the
main office and do your investigation.

If a judge won't grant you permission do do that inspection, you drop the case
entirely. None of this 'we used sneaky laws from centuries ago to take
documents from a third party'.

~~~
kitd
In the UK, Parliament is sovereign. FB had repeatedly refused to appear before
a parliamentary committee to give evidence in the Cambridge Analytica case.

Now, I'm not totally certain of the precise legal position, but because of its
sovereignty, Parliament can act in a quasi-judicial way, so in effect, FB's
actions can be seen as roughly equivalent to refusing a subpoena.

FB's refusal authorised Parliament to seize the evidence they needed while the
exec was on UK soil. FB have only themselves to blame.

~~~
wtfstatists
You are basically normalizing violent response to a non-violent action. US can
do that because FB is US company. UK cannot just because you happen to visit.

Please realize that other states are taking notes at this situation. They are
waiting for US/UK/etc exec to visit and make the same excuse.

~~~
tankenmate
> Please realize that other states are taking notes at this situation. They
> are waiting for US/UK/etc exec to visit and make the same excuse.

Other states aren't waiting for this at all; least of all the US. In the past
when UK based executives of online gambling firms have travelled in transit
via the US they have been arrested even before going through customs, in
effect in international law it is somewhat akin to piracy, USG sanctioned
piracy. This sort of creative use of laws to acquire information and/or people
by various governments world wide has been happening for a very very long
time.

~~~
dragonwriter
> In the past when UK based executives of online gambling firms have travelled
> in transit via the US they have been arrested even before going through
> customs, in effect in international law it is somewhat akin to piracy

No, arresting people who are not subject to any privilege against arrest in
international law, who are on your territory, whether or not they have passed
through customs, is not, in international law, in even the slightest way “akin
to piracy.”

