Facebook spooked after MPs seize documents for privacy breach probe

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/11/26/facebook_dcms_document_cache_seized/

by LinuxBender • 8 years ago

97 91 8 years ago

theregister.co.uk

kevin_b_er2• 8 years ago

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?

johnnyfaehell4• 8 years ago

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.

nighthawk12• 8 years ago

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.

antidesitter• 8 years ago

Europe is just as prone to corporate abuse and greed. See the new Copyright Directive pushed at the behest of European publishers.

wowzap• 8 years ago

Seriously. Does anybody think GDPR is more than just virtue signaling so they can fine companies?

auslander• 8 years ago

Facebook played fast and loose with privacy for over a decade.

It is their only business model, what else they can do?

YeGoblynQueenne2• 8 years ago

> 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.

Unfortunately, we have plenty of that in Europe, too.

rmc• 8 years ago

Combined with becoming a massively popular and influencial media company. Facebook can swing elections. So people who get elected are gonna get suspicious.

lixtra• 8 years ago

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

richardwhiuk• 8 years ago

Standard practice for the register I'm afraid.

stewartm2• 8 years ago

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.

SmellyGeekBoy2• 8 years ago

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.

yarrel• 8 years ago

Reading the original article that The Register is recycling is good advice generally.

meddlepal2• 8 years ago

Zuckerborg

It's the new M$ / Micro$oft.

Childish and appealing to a small minority.

brandonmenc• 8 years ago

Just about every millennial chuckles at "Zuck is robot," whereas "M$" was always only ever a Slashdot-ism.

reaperducer4• 8 years ago

Childish

Maybe. It depends on your taste. If it's not your taste, don't read it.

and appealing to a small minority.

My guess is that The Register knows its audience better than you do. If that audience is a minority of the population, it's their decision to target it, not yours.

kps• 8 years ago

The Register predates the dot-com boom and the consequent near-total capture of the computer industry by stuffy financial types. Its name is a pun.

LiterallyDoge• 8 years ago

My taste, I'll have you know, is the right taste.

throwaway20484• 8 years ago

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

TheOtherHobbes• 8 years ago

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,

CaptainZapp• 8 years ago

What I thought is ironic as hell is Zuckerberg's (or the company's lawyers) attitude that England anyway has no jurisdiction and they can't be compelled to produce him, or even answer questions in an honest way.

Fast forward: A California court has zero jurisdiction over the English parliament.

About the funniest is the following statement by a Facebook spokesperson:

“The materials obtained by the DCMS committee are subject to a protective order of the San Mateo Superior Court restricting their disclosure. We have asked the DCMS committee to refrain from reviewing them and to return them to counsel or to Facebook. We have no further comment.”

I dare say that the fucks that Mr. Collins gives on the order of the San Mateo Superior Court can be counted with zero hands.

Yeah, Mark; Karma really is a bitch.

londons_explore• 8 years ago

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'.

johnnyfaehell4• 8 years ago

Isn't all the information held within the US, therefore, a UK judge wouldn't be able to grant access?

Also, one minute you're talking about the law and order approach then you're complaining that they used the law as it exists.

The lesson of the day, don't go playing funny buggers with governments.

DannyBee5• 8 years ago

The UK can still compel them, by compelling Facebook's relevant country director.

The method used here (physically detaining a non Facebook actor who is not a UK citizen who had access to the docs under a protective order and threatening them until they caved) is so far beyond unacceptable it's hard to fathom.

As I said in the other thread, the only reason this could ever be acceptable of because of hate of Facebook, seen quite well I'm this thread.

(As I also said in the other thread it is also hard to believe it was anything other than a deliberate deal between the UK land and sixfourthree)

CPLX• 8 years ago

They don't have to ask a judge, they're not private citizens, they're the legislature.

They are the government, and they have the right to documents and information.

What criteria, exactly, are you using to distinguish between "laws" and "sneaky laws"?

nicky08• 8 years ago

It was parliament (or at least a parliamentary committee), not the government, that did this though wasn't it?

throwaway20484• 8 years ago

It is not a sneaky measure, its well within the purview of Parliament in the British system. They asked Facebook to present documents and evidence, and Facebook refused. It is a terrible idea to refuse to present evidence before a body that has what amounts to unlimited power under British law, especially when public opinion of you is low, and falling.

kevin_b_er2• 8 years ago

The concept is called Parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament in this case is supreme over the judiciary. Its how the UK has operated for a long time.

Jonnax• 8 years ago

The UK is not the United States.

snowwrestler2• 8 years ago

It's worth pointing out that the U.S. Congress can also directly subpoena documents and testimony without going through a judge.

SmellyGeekBoy2• 8 years ago

We have plenty of laws from centuries ago that are still relevant and useful today. What exactly is "sneaky" about using them?

kitd2• 8 years ago

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.

wtfstatists2• 8 years ago

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.

JJMcJ2• 8 years ago

Contempt of Congress is a real thing in the USA, so refusing a Congressional subpoena can result in enforcement and criminal charges.

dragonwriter8• 8 years ago

If you have a suspicion that a company is breaking the law, you ask a judge for permission to inspect them.

Uh, no. The only person the UK Parliament asks for permission for anything is the monarch, and that's almost entirely a formality.

And, absent a US-style Constitution, what is there to ask a court about? Whether the action sought by Parliament comports with the law, which is the expressed will of Parliament?

reaperducer4• 8 years ago

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

That's tourist thinking.

If you want to play in their country, you abide by their rules.

renegadesensei• 8 years ago

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

wtfstatists2• 8 years ago

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

kevlawrence• 8 years ago

No guns. Just lies and selling people out.

arethuza2• 8 years ago

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_...

nighthawk12• 8 years ago

Zing!

bredren2• 8 years ago

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.

reaperducer4• 8 years ago

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.

bredren2• 8 years ago

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

cellis• 8 years ago

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.

Eridrus2• 8 years ago

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?

dragonwriter8• 8 years ago

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.

anpago• 8 years ago

The UK is part of five eyes, if Facebook think they gather data..

Eridrus2• 8 years ago

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

Facebook spooked after MPs seize documents for privacy breach probe

Related Stories