
Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers - pjc50
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/24/mps-seize-cache-facebook-internal-papers
======
lancewiggs
This is Sovereign power in action, being the power that each country has to
escalate when people or companies do not behave according to their norms. We
generally don’t see it a lot but when it happens results can be severe.

It serves as a good warning that when doing business in any country you need
to abide by the written and unwritten codes of conduct for that country. Two
other less pleasant examples are Assange and Khashoggi.

~~~
enraged_camel
Exactly. I'm very happy with this turn of events. In repeatedly turning down
the British Parliament's request to testify, Zuckerberg displayed a stunning
level of arrogance, and brought this upon himself.

~~~
sys_64738
I thought he was quite right to turn them down. He doesn’t owe a foreign
government his presence to answer to them unless he’s got a warrant for his
arrest.

I could imagine that there are implications for tech companies now operating
in the UK if they’re subject to raids by the British police force. It sets a
dangerous precedent.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Why does it set a dangerous precedent?

Facebook in the UK is wholly subject to the decisions of Facebook in the US.
He may not be a British subject, but his business operates in the UK. All
business in the UK should be subject to UK law and regulation and the officers
accountable. It should not matter if the law is old or the company has a head
office elsewhere. Same for companies operating in other countries.

If I choose to start operating my business in the USA I would reasonably
expect to be subject to US law, and accountable to it.

~~~
candiodari
It sets the dangerous precedents of foreign governments imposing rules on
internet companies that have no "real" local presence.

And before you ask what's wrong with that, let's not forget that Saudi Arabia,
China, and I'm sure 5 other countries have forced
Facebook/Google/Microsoft/... to hand over data and then used it to execute
gays and dissidents. Even in the UK case, it's pushing hard for these
companies to just hand over all data they have to their secret service (not
even limited to UK citizens).

You know, to "protect the children".

~~~
izacus
By making their products available to users in the country they effect the
people of that country. They ARE present.

~~~
nolok
Eh, you could argue about the making available to access for a long time
either way. But there is a much more straight to point argument: they want,
and take, money from UK customers (advertisers). If they want to keep doing
that, they need to follow UK laws.

It's like how your little website may do things that are not ok in country X
and you don't care, but if you want people and businesses from country X to be
able to spend money on your website then you need to care.

------
lightswitch05
I found an article about the ongoing Six4Three case in CA [1]. From the
article:

> David Godkin, Six4Three’s lead counsel said: “We believe the public has a
> right to see the evidence and are confident the evidence clearly
> demonstrates the truth of our allegations, and much more.”

I have little-to-no legal understanding, but it seems to me that it was in
Six4Three's interest to have these documents seized and perhaps released to
the public? I see others here talking of how bold of a move this was for
Parliament and that it wouldn't have worked if Six4Three simply refused.
However, if Six4Three was trying to get the documents released anyways, was
this really that bold of a move? Seems to me its more just giving Six4Three an
excuse to leak the documents.

1: [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/may/24/mark-
zuck...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/may/24/mark-zuckerberg-
set-up-fraudulent-scheme-weaponise-data-facebook-court-case-alleges)

------
andyjohnson0
_" In another exceptional move, parliament sent a serjeant at arms to his
hotel with a final warning and a two-hour deadline to comply with its order.
When the software firm founder failed to do so, it’s understood he was
escorted to parliament. He was told he risked fines and even imprisonment if
he didn’t hand over the documents."_

Wow. I've never heard of the British parliament being this assertive before.

~~~
CrawfordJF
Many consider these powers to be essentially spent: they have not been
exercised to any significant extent in a very long time, and since then
various changes (e.g. the need to comply with the European Convention on Human
Rights) have put them on very shaky ground. If he had refused to go along with
the Serjeant at Arms, I suspect nothing would have happened because parliament
is keen to avoid a small constitutional crisis over these powers, and to avoid
losing even the power of threatening to actually use them. In particular the
power to compel witnesses, documents and so on in a process that is entirely
separate from the courts could conceivably breach the right to freedom of
expression as protected by the ECHR.

I am surprised that he actually complied with this order, especially as the
article says the documents were under a US court order _restricting_ their
dissemination/publication, but maybe what happened is the Serjeant at Arms
appeared with these scary warnings, his lawyers didn't know quite what to do,
so they just did what they were told even if they probably didn't have to.

It will be interesting to see what the US court makes of its order being
broken due to the order of a foreign legislature.

\-- A source on the status of these powers: [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-
politics-18875266](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18875266)

~~~
jsmith99
Given that his company is suing Facebook, he was possibly quite happy to
comply. He doesn't seem to have lost out, and got a historical trip in the
bargain.

------
greenyoda
Background on Six4Three's lawsuit against Facebook:

 _Is Facebook a publisher? In public it says no, but in court it says yes_
[7/3/2018]

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17462238](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17462238)

------
IcyApril
From a different case a few years ago, a good description of Contempt of
Parliament and the power of the Searjent at Arms in such a situation - "Mike
Ashley: Could Sports Direct boss be jailed in Big Ben?":
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-
derbyshire-35783408](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-
derbyshire-35783408)

------
sambeau

      Facebook really aren't afraid of a British man in tights or
      willing to reform without regulation. That's why Zuckerberg
      hasn't turned up to the Commons, & they are appealing the UK
      ICO's important but tiny fine. Time for the EU to move on
      them, and I believe that's inevitable.
    

—Claude Moraes MEP (the chair of the EU committee that is leading
investigation into Facebook and Cambridge Analytica) ‏

[https://twitter.com/Claude_Moraes/status/1066486777136013317](https://twitter.com/Claude_Moraes/status/1066486777136013317)

------
zxv
In June, the Open Markets Institute [0] filed an amicus brief opposing
Facebook’s motion to seal records in the case, arguing this matter “greatly
implicates the public interest. [1]”

[0] [https://openmarketsinstitute.org/articles/six4three-v-
facebo...](https://openmarketsinstitute.org/articles/six4three-v-facebook-et-
al-omi-amicus-brief)

[1] [https://openmarketsinstitute.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/06/...](https://openmarketsinstitute.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/06/06.05-OMI-Amicus-Brief-Opposing-FB-Motion-to-
Seal-.pdf)

------
networkimprov
One should ask: Was the Six4Three executive lured to the UK on a pretext,
specifically with the intent of seizing the FB documents?

~~~
andyjohnson0
Possible, but doesn't seem likely somehow.

What's more interesting is how the committee knew the documents were in the
UK. It wouldn't aurprise me if the UK intelligence services tipped the off,
with tacit apprival from the government.

~~~
DannyBee
They were not in the UK, which makes this a really really bad plan.

The person was in the UK, and they ordered them to produce specifically
protected non-UK documents that they don't own, simply have access to.

To give an analogy, imagine taking a random contractor to your company, who is
passing through the UK, and forcing them, under pain of jail time, to login to
your VPN and produce records that the contractor happens to have access to,
but doesn't own, control, do anything with etc.

Now imagine if that contractor was really an officer of a company suing you,
and the access was also being forced upon your company and only being allowed
on a temporary basis by a court.

The only reason they would ever get away with such a thing is because everyone
hates facebook.

Six4three can and should be held liable in a US court for this (though that is
unlikely).

~~~
detaro
Is that (not being allowed to hold copies of the documents from discovery)
standard practice in such cases, did I miss a reference in the article or
what's the reason to assume that the "documents weren't in the UK"? I'd assume
various legal aspects treat the VPN access scenario differently than carrying
a copy that gets seized, despite the result being basically the same?

~~~
DannyBee
1\. You would not be allowed to take such documents on a random business trip
to the UK. You are required to protect and treat them as confidential. If you
were going to expose them to legal counsel in the UK for some reason, you
would have had to seek the court's permission, etc.

2\. The reason to assume is it because the story essentially implies it.

They didn't stop the guy and confiscate the stuff he had, they ordered him to
produce them. If he had them with them, they wouldn't have to order him to do
that. They would just escort him to his hotel room and take them :)

3\. The story is also wrong about contempt, etc, at least on the set of facts
they present.

The correct answer is to say "I am a citizen of the US, i am not the legal
holder or custodian of these documents, i would like to speak to my embassy
immediately". Let it be fought over in court.

Especially given our president, he would have made a big scene over the UK
doing this to a US citizen, minimum.

Six4three LLC is a US company, its founder, ted kramer, is, as far as i can
tell from court docs, a us citizen. They are not represented by an UK law
firm.

(FWIW: all of this is why i suspect this was secret deal by six4three done to
embarrass facebook)

~~~
bobloblaw2
I was also thinking the same thing about the "secret deal" thing since 643 had
previously fought Facebook in court and there might be some bad blood there.
But the guy is a US citizen so it'd be very risky to intentionally pull a
stunt like that when a US court ordered him to keep the documents sealed.

I agree it seems this was a pretty major incident and people are letting their
hatred of Zuckerberg blind them to it.

In essence the 643 guy was threatened with UK jail if he didn't produce the
documents. And threatened with US jail if he did. Over something that he did
not own or had any part in creating. I'm no expert but it seems like a rights
violation. He didn't do anything illegal.

Do embassies really step in in this case? If not, what would be the correct
process to untangle oneself.

~~~
DannyBee
Yeah. If you are being threatened with legal process in a foreign country,
step #1 is always "contact your embassy". This is actually one of the main
reasons they exist.

If they let you, your embassy should be helping (at the very least, understand
your rights/options, etc. They generally will not provide legal advice but can
give you an overview)

If they don't let you, then either: 1\. What is happening is very very illegal
(IE they are not supposed to be detaining you)

or

2\. You are about to be accused of something so serious they think it's worth
creating an incident over.

or

3\. You are in a banana republic :)

Outside of #3, it's valuable to understand where you stand anyway.

~~~
rhizome
_If you are being threatened with legal process in a foreign country, step #1
is always "contact your embassy"._

I've always known this to be good advice in a criminal context, but not
political ones like this unless to relay that the USG in general should
intervene. I have not heard that the guy was detained.

I really don't think an embassy has the juice to go up against UK Parliament,
the current US Ambassador to the UK is a old-money Republican fundraiser with
a history degree, whose most recent accomplishment is owning the New York Jets
NFL team.

Also, do we know that he _didn 't_ contact the embassy?

~~~
DannyBee
He was in fact detained by the sergeant in arms, according to the articles
I've read.

The rest I agree with, but the goal would be to give Facebook a chance to
intervene

~~~
rhizome
Would it qualify as a detainment under both US and UK law, or possibly only
US?

------
lixtra
Looks like Six4Three is at fault here. It should have protected the papers to
be not accessible by whoever is outside the US. We will see more of this as
national jurisdictions collide with the international internet.

~~~
bobloblaw2
I'm not entirely sure that's the case. The guy is the CEO.

So let's say he can't access it from the UK. The UK guys tell him "give us the
documents or you go to jail". Well then he could ask an employee who is
currently in the US to unlock them for him, maybe even give them his password.
Basically, there is usually a way to get things done if there is a threat of
jail pending.

The greater issue is how the UK was allowed to even do something like this to
a person who hadn't done anything illegal.

~~~
lixtra
Well, he can tell his employees beforehand to only accept such order if he is
in the US. Otherwise the documents should not leave the country. Then he would
have to reply that he is unable to provide access to the documents.

Another reply suggested that he should have contacted the US embassy and ask
that he is forced to commit a crime in the US by UK. This would have lifted it
to a diplomatic level.

From the circumstances it sounds possible that he wanted the documents
published and was happy to be forced.

------
kslo3
How can some rando small company manage to get access to FB internal emails
over some dinky app, while parliament has to resort to such extreme methods?

~~~
nighthawk1
Due to their lawsuit with FB in the USA. I imagine those documents were
obtained by court order. Pretty bold move by the UK gov. Looking forward to
the leakage of said documents.

~~~
M2Ys4U
>Pretty bold move by the UK gov.

This wasn't the UK _government_ , though, but Parliament through its Commons
Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

Parliament doesn't allow government ministers to be members of parliamentary
committees, only backbenchers, as Committees are one of the main ways that
Parliament holds the government to account.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> This wasn't the UK _government_

In American usage, "the government" is the totality of the body which
exercises sovereign authority. All MPs, minister or backbencher, are part of
the government, because Parliament is a government body. Similarly, any
official action by any part of Parliament is an action of the British
government.

~~~
tobylane
I believe it's normal to use the language of the context/subject, that a brand
new Congressman is part of the US government but the chairman of a Parliament
select committee isn't. Other times that chairmain could be considered part of
the government, such as when he follows the whip on a vote.

~~~
thaumasiotes
It's normal for everyone to use their own language. We refer to the Chinese
government, not the Chinese zhengfu. And the same criteria that let us know
that the Chinese "全国人大" is part of a "government", despite the Chinese
preferring not to use that word, also let us know that the British
"Parliament" is part of a "government", despite the British preferring not to
use that word.

~~~
tobylane
Different meaning of language. If you're American, is May the prime minister
or the president of the UK?

------
Cestor
Could easily be that Six4three notified the UK ahead of time that Kramer would
be in London. Provides a good opportunity to leak the data without being in
contempt

------
robomartin
I have always thought companies like FB ought to be legally required to erase
any and as much stored personal information from their databases as a user
requires.

In other words, I ought to be able to specify that I only allow my activity to
be stored for one week, anything older than that should be erased from all
databases and backups. Same with personal information, controlled and owned by
the user, not the service.

~~~
Latteland
Isn't this one of the requirements of the gdpr compliance? I want to get to
that in the us, but it's going to be like pot laws. Liberal states will do it
first, conservatives will try to stop it in the us congress, and it's possible
the will of the majority will change.

~~~
bulatb
You can ask them to delete your data, but unless their only legal basis for
having it was your consent, they may be able to refuse. [0] They'd have to
argue to the regulator that their interest in retaining it should override
your interest in deleting it.

You also aren't allowed to dictate how specifically your data is processed, so
you can't just boss them around. You only get to choose which data, for which
purposes, by whom, and only if the processing requires [1] your consent.

[0] [https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/right-to-be-forgotten/](https://gdpr-
info.eu/issues/right-to-be-forgotten/)

[1] [https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/consent/](https://gdpr-
info.eu/issues/consent/)

------
mr_custard
Following AMP links makes me sad. Here's the real link:

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/24/mps-
seize...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/24/mps-seize-cache-
facebook-internal-papers)

~~~
lightswitch05
I didn't realize it was an AMP link until I clicked and saw that it had been
blocked. I have a growing hosts block list specifically for AMP hosts. If
anyone else wishes to block some AMP hosts, here is the link:
[https://github.com/lightswitch05/hosts/blob/master/amp-
hosts...](https://github.com/lightswitch05/hosts/blob/master/amp-hosts-
extended.txt)

I don't use Google anymore, so the list only has 362 at the moment, but I keep
adding more as I find them. Pull requests are welcome!

------
justapassenger
The irony - it looks like uk did Cambridge Analytica themselves. They took
data about one entity, in a very shady way, through a third party.

