5 ms·

Seizing 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

Seizing 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 ago
  Seems 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 ago
    FWIW, the UK Parliament already has unfettered power , so we're already well down that road.
    - arethuza 8y ago
      I 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... ;-)
gnode 8y ago
I think this is probably something that needed to happen, for the furtherance of justice. What seems wrong to me is that politicians are essentially carrying out summary justice on particular people / a particular corporation, rather than fact finding to make informed decisions on legislation. If there's an argument that this publishing is necessary for an informed democracy, then I think that should be considered by a court. That said, the UK has a very weak conceptualisation of separation of powers, thanks to parliamentary supremacy.
rhizome 8y ago
It's getting hilarious to see people more offended by FB's information being exfiltrated than the exfiltration of everybody's data that FB aided and promoted. Ah, but those are just your fellow people, not the money man.
- ryanwaggoner 8y ago
  The potential problem I have here is abuse of power by government. I’d be pretty upset if Congress subpoenaed user data from Facebook and then selectively published embarrassing info on their political enemies. Even if I hated those people.
  - rhizome 8y ago
    I’d be pretty upset if Congress subpoenaed user data from Facebook and then selectively published embarrassing info on their political enemies. Even if I hated those people. I think it's more like this, which if you've been paying attention has been going on for a long time. If you want to bet that the US hasn't snatched data they want when they know someone is in the country even temporarily, I'll take that bet. https://www.zdnet.com/article/warrantless-phone-laptop-searches-at-the-us-border-hit-record-levels/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/warrantless-phone-laptop-searc... Among people who have a problem with the Six4Three situation, I feel like the issue is really just that we found out about it. The powers are already there, waiting to be used.
    - ryanwaggoner 8y ago
      The government is invading our privacy with surveillance and border searches, agreed. No defense or denial of that here. But I don’t see stories where some congressperson is then publishing some of the fruits of that surveillance or searches just to embarrass political rivals. That would be especially beyond the pale.
      - rhizome 8y ago
        Does everything have to be done by the American version of something before it's legitimate?
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
All Parliamentary committees publish online, whether evidence is written or oral. You can ask for an exception for part of your evidence, if you fully explain why, which the committee considers. The usual reasons for discretion apply. It's almost unheard of for some evidence not to be published at all, though it has happened. 1980s I think was the last case. No idea what dusty precedent or procedures apply when someone refuses to attend or documents are seized. That doesn't happen much. Maybe no one asked. Maybe this is the redacted for sensitivity version as we have no idea the amount seized in the first place. I think we'd have to wait for the report to know.
- ryanwaggoner 8y ago
  Excellent, thank you for an actual response that isn’t “haha, screw Facebook, who cares!” If this is just part of the normal investigative procedure rather than a gross abuse of authority, then so be it.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
pornel 8y ago
By doing business in the UK, Facebook has agreed to UK's Privacy Policy.

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 ago
Seems 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 ago
  FWIW, the UK Parliament already has unfettered power , so we're already well down that road.
  - arethuza 8y ago
    I 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... ;-)

gnode 8y ago

I think this is probably something that needed to happen, for the furtherance of justice. What seems wrong to me is that politicians are essentially carrying out summary justice on particular people / a particular corporation, rather than fact finding to make informed decisions on legislation. If there's an argument that this publishing is necessary for an informed democracy, then I think that should be considered by a court. That said, the UK has a very weak conceptualisation of separation of powers, thanks to parliamentary supremacy.

rhizome 8y ago

It's getting hilarious to see people more offended by FB's information being exfiltrated than the exfiltration of everybody's data that FB aided and promoted. Ah, but those are just your fellow people, not the money man.

ryanwaggoner 8y ago
The potential problem I have here is abuse of power by government. I’d be pretty upset if Congress subpoenaed user data from Facebook and then selectively published embarrassing info on their political enemies. Even if I hated those people.
- rhizome 8y ago
  I’d be pretty upset if Congress subpoenaed user data from Facebook and then selectively published embarrassing info on their political enemies. Even if I hated those people. I think it's more like this, which if you've been paying attention has been going on for a long time. If you want to bet that the US hasn't snatched data they want when they know someone is in the country even temporarily, I'll take that bet. https://www.zdnet.com/article/warrantless-phone-laptop-searches-at-the-us-border-hit-record-levels/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/warrantless-phone-laptop-searc... Among people who have a problem with the Six4Three situation, I feel like the issue is really just that we found out about it. The powers are already there, waiting to be used.
  - ryanwaggoner 8y ago
    The government is invading our privacy with surveillance and border searches, agreed. No defense or denial of that here. But I don’t see stories where some congressperson is then publishing some of the fruits of that surveillance or searches just to embarrass political rivals. That would be especially beyond the pale.
    - rhizome 8y ago
      Does everything have to be done by the American version of something before it's legitimate?

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

All Parliamentary committees publish online, whether evidence is written or oral. You can ask for an exception for part of your evidence, if you fully explain why, which the committee considers. The usual reasons for discretion apply. It's almost unheard of for some evidence not to be published at all, though it has happened. 1980s I think was the last case. No idea what dusty precedent or procedures apply when someone refuses to attend or documents are seized. That doesn't happen much. Maybe no one asked. Maybe this is the redacted for sensitivity version as we have no idea the amount seized in the first place. I think we'd have to wait for the report to know.

ryanwaggoner 8y ago
Excellent, thank you for an actual response that isn’t “haha, screw Facebook, who cares!” If this is just part of the normal investigative procedure rather than a gross abuse of authority, then so be it.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

pornel 8y ago

By doing business in the UK, Facebook has agreed to UK's Privacy Policy.