28 ms·
Facebook sues EU antitrust regulator for excessive data requests
- vdfs 6y agoHow the turn table
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago> EU regulators comb through documents looking for about 2,500 search phrases which include “big question”, “shut down” and “not good for us”, said a person familiar with the matter. Is the text of the Commission's requests public? This paragraph seems to be implying that they're demanding every Facebook document containing any of these 2,500 phrases, which does seem pretty dumb if true.
- ggggtez 6y agoThis is how court orders work. See other lawsuits where company emails were obtained. This list of 2500 words is not random. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gm-powerpoint_n_5340385 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gm-powerpoint_n_5340385
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoThanks for filling me in. I wasn't aware this was such a common practice.
- buran77 6y ago> which does seem pretty dumb if true Why is that? The alternative is to ask for everything and keep what's valuable, kind of how companies like Facebook do. What other options do you see?
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoThe alternative is for regulators to issue narrow, targeted requests for the information they need to investigate specific issues. I don't think the government should be able to tell a company "alright, hand over all your documents so we can make sure there's no evidence of wrongdoing in them".
- buran77 6y ago> narrow, targeted requests The investigators should ask exactly for the smoking gun, but they need the smoking gun to know exactly what to ask for. Imagine if when asking for a warrant the Police would have to say "we are looking for a knife on the left side of a shoe box under the defendant's bed". Oh the knife is wrapped in some tax returns and blood work results... bummer. You don't need to go much farther than your average internet search to see that it's nigh impossible to search so narrowly that only the best result comes up from the first try and doesn't contain any irrelevant information. And that's before considering that unlike internet searches companies go through a lot of effort to intentionally poison the well and mix up the now known search words throughout a big volume of irrelevant information to prove their point. This is what this request is about, buying that time. As I already said, you can't not spot the irony when a company insists they need very broad access to your data to monetize it, but complain when regulators need access to their data as part as an official investigation.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoIn my area, that's indeed how police investigations work. They don't have to be quite that specific, but they do have to explain what specific things they're looking for and why they expect to find them. They couldn't say "well, it's possible you committed a murder, so we'll search your house to see if there's any murder evidence in it".
- ggggtez 6y agoLet's not pretend that Facebook isn't accused of a myriad of anti-competitive practices. Not even Facebook is claiming that the EU doesn't have grounds for a search. They are simply saying the search is overbroad.
- jariel 6y ago"> which does seem pretty dumb if true Why is that? " Because governments have no right to ask private groups to hand over arbitrary, speculative bits of information. They can ask for specific things relating to specific matters with a court order, but broad searches for loose search terms is ridiculous and probably unconstitutional.
- oneplane 6y agoYes they do. Maybe you'd like government not to have that power, but the reality is that we elected officials that made this lawful.
- jariel 6y agoNo they absolutely don't and every modern nation has rules against arbitrary search and seizure. In fact, this looks pretty crazy upon first glance, these keyword searches are very arbitrary and broad, it wouldn't hold up in most other scenarios, FB is right to take this to court.
- petre 6y agoIt's not arbitrary search and seizure. It's a legitimate request for FB to produce documents because they're under suspicion of abusing their market position.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- codeulike 6y agoReminds me of: "Facebook Announces Plan To Break Up U.S. Government Before It Becomes Too Powerful" The Onion, of course. https://www.theonion.com/facebook-announces-plan-to-break-up-u-s-government-bef-1844121902 https://www.theonion.com/facebook-announces-plan-to-break-up...
- guerby 6y agoAh The Onion! https://www.theonion.com/facebook-cracking-down-on-misinformation-by-warning-use-1843288534 https://www.theonion.com/facebook-cracking-down-on-misinform... "Facebook Cracking Down On Misinformation By Warning Users Who Share Links From Facebook" https://www.theonion.com/mark-zuckerberg-argues-high-taxes-on-wealthy-could-stif-1839230597 https://www.theonion.com/mark-zuckerberg-argues-high-taxes-o... "Mark Zuckerberg Argues High Taxes On Wealthy Could Stifle Innovation In Human Suffering" :)
- ryandrake 6y agoNot The Onion, but I think sufficiently satirical: https://chaser.com.au/world/social-media-should-not-fact-check-posts-says-child-molester-mark-zuckerberg/ https://chaser.com.au/world/social-media-should-not-fact-che... "“Social media should not fact check posts” says child molester Mark Zuckerberg"
- balladeer 6y agoWhat is it always com.au and not co.au, or just .au in Australia?
- viraptor 6y agohttps://www.auda.org.au/policies/index-of-published-policies/2008/2008-07/ https://www.auda.org.au/policies/index-of-published-policies... > At the time of publication, the open 2LDs are asn.au, com.au, id.au, net.au and org.au.
- Haydos585x2 6y ago
- Simulacra 6y agoThe question to ask is: How many documents does it take to reach the truth? For Facebook, we may have found the answer.
- justinclift 6y ago> "... we would be required to turn over predominantly irrelevant documents ... such as ... personal financial documents, and private information about family members of employees,” Sounds like the kind of documents useful for investigating (at least) fraud, kickbacks, and hiding assets. So, EU antitrust regulator seems to be doing it's job (thus far).
- pmiller2 6y agoThis is the part that troubles me about this: > “The exceptionally broad nature of the Commission’s requests means we would be required to turn over predominantly irrelevant documents that have nothing to do with the Commission’s investigations, including highly sensitive personal information such as employees’ medical information, personal financial documents, and private information about family members of employees,” Facebook associate general counsel Tim Lamb said in a statement. Why does FB even have employee medical information and personal financial records? I can sort of understand how they might inadvertently end up with small snippets of medical information via their HR process (e.g. Sally Software Engineer submits a request for maternity leave), but, other than possibly account numbers for stock accounts and deposit accounts, I'm scratching my head as to what they even mean by "medical information" and "personal financial documents."
- close04 6y ago> we would be required to turn over predominantly irrelevant documents that have nothing to do with the Commission’s investigations No but it's needed so the Commission can offer better personalized services. Or do what the users have to do when they reject overly broad EULAs: take their business elsewhere.
- andy_ppp 6y agoThis is a good point but you’re assuming you can believe a word Facebook’s lawyers say when fending off requests for information.
- Avicebron 6y agoThey don't even have to be lying, it's not a stretch to imagine FB interpreting these requests so broadly that they gave up this information to use it as leverage against the requests.
- buran77 6y agoThey will explicitly include the search parameter in such documents specifically to prove they are irrelevant and that they should not have to comply with future requests. It's an actual tactic used in all such investigations. The investigators obtain some circumstantial evidence for what they should search, request it from the company being investigated, then hope that they get enough of the evidence before that company manages to poison the well and make it look like the investigators are on a witch hunt that's so broad it can only be spiteful. When this happens you can be sure that they're doing their darndest to hide something. From my experience the cases when such investigations are chasing ghosts are rarer then hens' teeth. After seeing the process from both sides I can honestly say that given how chronically deprived of resources (most of all time) almost all investigations are, when they go for something you can bet the farm that it's hidden somewhere in there and they just have time to pull it out before the other side buries it completely. The more damaging the data, the more resources allocated to burying it. P.S. Let's install on every car this emission cheating device that tricks all the tests and brings us more profits, we'll never get caught. Young child support parents mortgage breast lump. Welp, guess the evidence is compromised now, we'll have to look elsewhere.
- reedwolf 6y agoData requests are not our friend.
- joe-collins 6y agoData aggregators even less so.
- wallawe 6y agoOne is voluntary, the other is not.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- andrewnicolalde 6y agoWhy not?
- jriddle567 6y agoThis shows the generation and technically challenged politicians that came up with this nonsense request. Agree on an API that is practical and fair and pay for the data transfer
- cblconfederate 6y agoHow do these things work with work from home? Activity at one's home or anywhere outside the offices is private, even if it's work-related. Could remote employees block such requests on the ground of personal privacy?
- ohmaigad 6y agoWhat are you talking about? Your employer shouldn't have access to your private activities in the first place. Just because you are out of office and you send a company email doesn't make it private.
- kube-system 6y agoActivity on a BYOD device can be subject to the legal discovery process. Always use separate home and work devices.
- piva00 6y agoIt's your work device and can be investigated when pursuing against your employer, activity in your work computer in your home is part of your work and your employer's IP so there's nothing about personal privacy here. Use your own devices for personal use...
- AlexandrB 6y agoWish I could sue Facebook for excessive data requests.
- arpa 6y agoI wish they would request data instead of just taking it!
- rogerdickey 6y agoI didn't RTFA but assuming the requests were excessive, it's great to see Facebook defend themselves. Sad to see how beleaguered this company has become despite (IMO) having good intentions in an impossible situation where you can't make everyone happy.
- piva00 6y agoWhy would you assume that the requests are excessive and that FB is in the right? Given their track record against regulatory bodies it's quite rich to assume that and then derive a whole supporting comment out of it. It's not sad, this is self-inflicted, FB played with fire and that has consequences, it doesn't matter how pretty to the outside their vision and mission statements are. What good intentions are there from FB? They talk the talk but don't walk the walk, and never had.
- dbuder 6y agoPlease explain how in your opinion Facebook has good intentions.
- jimmytidey 6y agoIn terms of Facebook's longer term relationship with the EU, surely this is an own goal?
- snogaraleal 6y agoAfter Veritas, I can’t even imagine the garbage that FB must be hiding.
- jmull3n 6y agoCan I sue facebook for excessive data requests?
- swebs 6y agoSure, you can sue them for anything if you're willing to pay for a lawyer.
- Ericson2314 6y agoIt's funny to see this headline after reading https://www.theonion.com/facebook-announces-plan-to-break-up-u-s-government-bef-1844121902 https://www.theonion.com/facebook-announces-plan-to-break-up... earlier today.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- mola 6y agoThis is nothing more the a PR misdirection to evoke anti government sympathies. EU regulator has no interest in this information, and probably has not directly requested it. The wording says that the search terms $might$ return this information. So the lawyers can always redact it if these turn out, I'm pretty sure the regulator would accept it. Disgusting company.
- xvector 6y agoDisgusting regulator, you mean. I would rather the EU burn to the ground than have the power to gain unfettered access to my private medical records. Privacy is a right and any government that would so blatantly infringe on it doesn’t deserve to be in power. I hope Facebook wins this fight. What irony that Facebook of all companies has to defend itself from a breach of employee privacy. They should delete this information before they are inevitably forced to turn it in because of government overreach.
- bkor 6y agoIt seems you didn't read what you replied to. Suggest to read that comment again.
- fuj 6y agoThat would require reading comprehension and critical thinking skills. Both seem to be missing from the op
- mola 6y agoThank you for proving my point. The regulator has no intention to read your medical records, nor did it ask for them. Facebook misuses the court for sly PR tricks to evoke anti government sympathies and get people on their side. Just as you did. Don't forget, Facebook is the bane for privacy, not the EU.
- ersii 6y ago> Don't forget, Facebook is the bane for privacy, not the EU. To be fair, you can (and are probably) both right.
- jacquesm 6y agoFacebook being concerned about anybody's privacy is a good thing I guess. What they should do instead of suing the EU antitrust regulator (good luck with that) is to comply with the request and leave out or redact those things that they feel would breach employee confidentiality, and enumerate where they've done so with specific reasons as to why a particular item has been left out. What will happen now is (1) they will lose this lawsuit; (2) will have to pay costs and (3) will still have to cough up the data. So I interpret this as a stalling action to buy time to figure out how they can not get to (3) in some way or other. Maybe they'll lose the data somehow. As an employer I don't hold any such data on my employees, and neither should Facebook. They are right that legislators / the antitrust entity has no right to this information, but the best way to achieve that is if they didn't have it in the first place. Facebook employees should wake up and see that it is their rights being violated by Facebook here, the anti-trust entity is not the one that is at fault.
- asdfasdf1212 6y agoFacebook employees should jump off a cliff. The world would be better off.
- onetimemanytime 6y agoJust trying to delay and maybe they'll win, nothing really to lose by suing. FB doesn't care about courts costs
- jacquesm 6y agoYou piss off regulators at your peril. In the end they're all people and being stymied is going to cause some kind of reaction, likely not one to Facebooks' benefit.
- ooobit2 6y ago> They are right that legislators / the antitrust entity has no right to this information, but the best way to achieve that is if they didn't have it in the first place. But they do have a right to it by way of enforcing compliance with existing regulation. That's why Facebook isn't daring to outright refuse the requests. It's hoping by some wishful thinking that a decision will come back restricting the Commission on the basis of rights violations. It's a 50/50 bet that could either ease Facebook's burden on GDPR, or worsen it. Honestly, I hope it worsens it. SV Tech, especially social media companies like Facebook and Twitter, have caused a lot more trouble now than they have created benefit. Back in the days of MySpace, it was a "hip" thing to interact on social media. But as the capability to monetize social media shrunk, and Facebook and Twitter, among others, decided to go public with none of the diversity in their product portfolios that's kept public giants profitable for decades, they turned to pretty nefarious and reckless opportunism to keep investors happy. Facebook has struck deals with South Asian wireless providers that have since come into serious trouble with governments who saw social media be used to aid anti-government agendas. I was co-sponsor on a deal with one of the largest providers, which was desperately trying to get out from under its agreement with Facebook, since it had effectively lost all the money it had earned from the partnership to fines, bans, and regulatory compliance in countries like Burma, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, Singapore, and Malaysia. All of those governments have cracked down severely on social media being used to organize anti-government activity. Facebook is not our friend. It's not here to protect us. It's not interested in serving our best interest. If it was, it wouldn't have entire teams of attention engineers. It wouldn't constrain our ability to receive direct support for issues on the platform to a set list of automated help articles. Facebook wouldn't have allowed political ads at all during an election cycle, because the integrity of the election was already in question over the volume of activity by US candidates and the impulsive nature of social media activity in response. I'm all for turning Facebook upside down and flushing its head in the toilet. It's gotten a little too cool for its own good. It needs to be reminded that its still just another student in the same school of life everyone else has to attend. We can't afford to set aside skepticism because we're enamored with the glow of its success with adoption. I mean, COVID-19 has had an insanely good run at new adoption too.
- prirun 6y agoI don't use Facebook and think it's a waste of time for people who are addicted to it. However, I also don't think it's right that a bunch of gov lackeys in Brussels should be suing and fining US companies that have lots of customers & money. When they sue Google for $500M or whatever, where does this money go? To the supposed "victims", or to the EU gov coffers, to pay for more staffers so they can file more lawsuits?
- lostmyoldone 6y agoIf you want companies to follow rules, history has shown that only steep fines, or jailing executives work. Where the money goes isn't that important, it's a fine, and it's intent is to be big enough that following laws is cheaper. They want to operate on the EU market, they follow EU laws. EU companies don't get to select which US laws to follow when active in the US. That's probably only part of the story though, it might be a little more behind why this happens now. US have worked to extend the reach of their laws outside the country for decades, aggressively. This is part of what's called soft power, which US has historically been quite good at. The current US administration has dropped the ball on soft power so hard its sad. Not only has it opened up for China in parts of the world where they barely got any play before, the emboldening we see in how China tries to assert jurisdiction over people outside China is almost certainly a direct result of these catastrophic failures of foreign policy. Not only Chine, but it's an extremely obvious case.. Anyway, that kind of massive clownery on the geopolitical arena is going to have consequences. The massive power vacuum alone almost certainly enabled, but likely also forced EU's hand enforcing the laws more aggressively, at least to some extent.
- qserasera 6y agoGet ready for some EU pearl clutching about data again
- sapacademy2007 6y agoWonderful post. https://traininginchrompet.com/courses/cloud-computing-training https://traininginchrompet.com/courses/cloud-computing-train... https://traininginchrompet.com/training/software-testing-training/qtp-training https://traininginchrompet.com/training/software-testing-tra... https://traininginchrompet.com/training/software-testing-training/selenium-training https://traininginchrompet.com/training/software-testing-tra... https://traininginchrompet.com/training/cloud-computing-training/aws-training https://traininginchrompet.com/training/cloud-computing-trai... https://traininginchrompet.com/training/cloud-computing-training/microsoft-azure-training https://traininginchrompet.com/training/cloud-computing-trai...
- sapacademy2007 6y agoExcellent Post https://traininginchrompet.com/courses/cloud-computing-training https://traininginchrompet.com/courses/cloud-computing-train... https://traininginchrompet.com/training/software-testing-training/qtp-training https://traininginchrompet.com/training/software-testing-tra... https://traininginchrompet.com/training/software-testing-training/selenium-training https://traininginchrompet.com/training/software-testing-tra... https://traininginchrompet.com/training/cloud-computing-training/aws-training https://traininginchrompet.com/training/cloud-computing-trai... https://traininginchrompet.com/training/cloud-computing-training/microsoft-azure-training https://traininginchrompet.com/training/cloud-computing-trai...
- ashtonkem 6y agoI feel like a lot of companies are about to discover why credibility matters, even if you're in a monopoly position. Sure, FB can claim all these concerns all they want. Why should anyone trust them at their word, at this point?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- kchoudhu 6y agoAwww Facebook is concerned about privacy. Kinda cute, really.
- Bombthecat 6y agoIf this works. In future, i OK just attach sensitive information to illegal documents. (where the attached information is also illegal) And every time a lawyer requests such information : nope, can't do. There might be illegal sensitive information attached to it!