6 ms·

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

rhizome 8y ago
If so, at least there wasn't a bone saw involved.
andyjohnson0 8y ago
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 8y ago
  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 8y ago
    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 8y ago
      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)
      - detaro 8y ago
        thanks for the detailed answer!
      - bobloblaw2 8y ago
        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.
        8y ago
  - rhizome 8y ago
    The only reason they would ever get away with such a thing is because everyone hates facebook. The only reason? Can't it be because FB's behavior was criminal, and/or that FB's behavior has already created an international incident? Six4three can and should be held liable in a US court for this Under what principle?
    - DannyBee 8y ago
      FB's behavior is 100% irrelevant here. If they seized them from FB you may have an argument. But they didn't. As for holding them liable, this is a very clear violation of a protective order either way. The correct answer, as I said, is to take it to court, where Facebook, you know, the rightful owner of the documents, can intervene. If he actually was in possession of the documents, I would definitely push hard for sanctions.
      - rhizome 8y ago
        I would think that it's germane and worth mentioning if the material on the laptop contained evidence of crimes committed, and also that the guy was subject to UK jurisdiction. I mean, I see women showing their hair and ankles in public all the time, does that mean I can take a stick to them like mutawwi'a? No, because those laws simply do not reach the US. If you're only referring to the SixWhatever guy's liabilities within US law, then I suppose we'll see how that plays out.

rhizome 8y ago

If so, at least there wasn't a bone saw involved.

andyjohnson0 8y ago

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 8y ago
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 8y ago
  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 8y ago
    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)
    - detaro 8y ago
      thanks for the detailed answer!
    - bobloblaw2 8y ago
      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.
      - 8y ago
- rhizome 8y ago
  The only reason they would ever get away with such a thing is because everyone hates facebook. The only reason? Can't it be because FB's behavior was criminal, and/or that FB's behavior has already created an international incident? Six4three can and should be held liable in a US court for this Under what principle?
  - DannyBee 8y ago
    FB's behavior is 100% irrelevant here. If they seized them from FB you may have an argument. But they didn't. As for holding them liable, this is a very clear violation of a protective order either way. The correct answer, as I said, is to take it to court, where Facebook, you know, the rightful owner of the documents, can intervene. If he actually was in possession of the documents, I would definitely push hard for sanctions.
    - rhizome 8y ago
      I would think that it's germane and worth mentioning if the material on the laptop contained evidence of crimes committed, and also that the guy was subject to UK jurisdiction. I mean, I see women showing their hair and ankles in public all the time, does that mean I can take a stick to them like mutawwi'a? No, because those laws simply do not reach the US. If you're only referring to the SixWhatever guy's liabilities within US law, then I suppose we'll see how that plays out.