6 ms·
Sometimes, even amidst the Brexit madness, I love our Parliament. Publishing and seizing documents like this is a move that proves politicians have the spine to
by hkt 8y ago
Sometimes, even amidst the Brexit madness, I love our Parliament. Publishing and seizing documents like this is a move that proves politicians have the spine to look after people's interests. Time to get serious, act on this, and break up Facebook forever.
- spiderPig 8y agoIndeed, kudos to them having the gall to do such a thing. Heavily lobbied congressmen would never do such a thing or even implement something like GDPR here.
- NeedMoreTea 8y agoThis is our committee system working as intended. I wish it still applied to other areas of governance like local government funding, lobbying, MPs in government and so on. Late Edit: I must add to that list admission of ministerial responsibility. The last resignation with honour, rather than for political point scoring, was Lord Carrington resigning as Foreign Secretary in 1982. Since then it's a dead concept.
- hkt 8y agoYeah, it is a joy to behold. I hope it becomes even more powerful than it is already.
- Mahn 8y agoI think this sets an awful precedent and it's astonishing that an action like this would be applauded. But you do you.
- amaccuish 8y agoAnd what precedent is that? The idea that companies aren't above the law? That's a precedent I wish was more enforced. I'm proud of my parliament today (and it's not often I can say that), even if in other parts they're tearing themselves apart.
- Mahn 8y agoWhat laws did Facebook break that warranted seizing and publishing internal documents?
- sangnoir 8y agoParliament is not into enforcing laws - it writes them. Parliamentary sovereignty means it can publish internal documents[1] if they decide it's in the public interest, if not, the MP will be appropriately censured by their peers. 1. In the US, the president (executive) can declassify any classified information, the DOJ or judiciary may publicize (discovered) internal documents for trials/indictments before guilt is established (note: IANAL). In the UK, Parliament is supreme to the executive and judiciary.
- rlucas 8y agoIn the US, Congress enjoys the Speech and Debate privilege, meaning pretty much the same. It's even in our (written, unlike the UK) Constitution.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago> What laws did Facebook break that warranted seizing and publishing internal documents? Parliament is sovereign. Facebook ignored Parliament. That is tantamount to blowing off an American court order. More pointedly, Facebook has broken their agreements on keeping WhatsApp and Facebook data separate. These e-mails further show Onavo and Facebook conspiring to hide their intent around data collection users, which likely breaks British privacy and honest trade law.
- rhizome 8y agoThe law against not screwing your users and not being anti-competitive. The latter is actual law, the former is the kind of thing that leads to street justice.
- hkt 8y agoIt didn't break a law, but it also didn't comply with our sovereign parliament's right to investigate matters of interest to its members. In a manner of speaking in this sense, they are the law.
- hkt 8y agoIt set a pretty awful precedent when Facebook spread misinformation so effectively that my country voted to cripple itself. We are going to have justice: no foreign intervention or dark money will stop us. I rarely feel pride like I did today, because for all their faults it is clear to me that the current crop of Parliamentarians will hunt down those responsible for weaponising disinformation in our politics.
- ryanwaggoner 8y agoSeizing documents for a valid inquiry is one thing. But does that follow that publishing them is OK too? From the outside, it looks like these politicians are frustrated that a foreign CEO ignored their demand to appear before them (because he has no legal obligation to do so), and have decided to retaliate by releasing embarrassing private internal documents obtained during an investigation in the hopes that Facebook will be politically and financially damaged. I get that people hate Facebook, but does that justify any level of bad behavior as long as it harms them?
- zimpenfish 8y ago> I get that people hate Facebook, but does that justify any level of bad behavior as long as it harms them? Personally, given the level of harm Facebook has helped to inflict on the world these last 2-3 years, yeah, I reckon I'm perfectly happy with people inflicting harm on the corporation, probably even to the point of ruination.
- ryanwaggoner 8y agoSeems like a pretty dangerous road to go down, personally. Looking at some of our politicians in the US, I don't really want them to have unfettered power to misuse the law and their elected position to destroy any person or organization who raises their ire. Even if I don't like that person or organization and want to see them destroyed.
- stordoff 8y agoFWIW, the UK Parliament already has unfettered power , so we're already well down that road.
- arethuza 8y agoI believe Parliament has decided to limit its own powers - the Human Rights Act, membership of the EU, devolution of powers to Welsh and Scottish parliaments etc. Of course these can be changed by Parliament... ;-)
- SheinhardtWigCo 8y agoI don't think this move achieved much of anything, other than to encourage business executives to use ephemeral messaging for their confidential internal communications.
- eitland 8y agoWikiLeaks or someone has said that part of their purpose is to make sure the fear of leaks cripples the internal processes of certain organisations. If Facebook were forced to mostly use ephemeral communication that would be somewhat crippling. Also I think there exist regulation as to what kind of documentation must be archived and how (SOX?).