[ad_1]
Facebook Founder Mark Zuckerberg may still regret not underestimating a UK parliamentary committee that investigated the destabilizing effect of online misinformation for democracy for much of the year – and of which it was reiterated the repeated requests.
In the latest important change announced in yesterday's Observer, the committee used Parliament's powers to seize a cache of documents related to a US lawsuit in order to continue its attempt to hold Facebook accountable for the misuse of lawsuits. user data.
The monitoring of Facebook – or rather its absence – with regard to user data has been a major concern of the committee, as its investigation into misinformation and misuse of data has developed. and expanded this year, with increased reach and visibility from Cambridge Analytica history broke out in a global scandal in April.
The internal documents currently in the Committee's possession would contain important revelations of the decisions made by Facebook's senior management with respect to data and confidentiality controls, including confidential emails between senior management and correspondence with Zuckerberg. -even.
This has been an essential investigative track for parliamentarians. And just as frustrating: Committee members blame Facebook for being deliberately misleading and hiding essential details from it.
The seized files relate to a US lawsuit prior to traditional advertising around the misuse of Facebook's data by the policy. This complaint was filed in 2015 by an American start-up called Six4Three, after Facebook had removed developer access to friend data. (As previously reported, Facebook was already aware of the risks associated with the permissions data for its apps as early as 2011 – but it did not completely close its friends' data API until May 2015.)
The main complaint is an allegation that Facebook would have encouraged developers to create apps for its platform by implying that they would get in return long-term access to user data. So, by cutting later access to the data, Facebook claimed to actually defraud the developers.
Since the filing of the complaint, the plaintiffs have seized the Cambridge Analytica saga to try to strengthen their cause.
And in a motion filed in May, Six4Three's lawyers claimed that the evidence they had discovered showed that "the Cambridge Analytica scandal was not the result of mere negligence on the part from Facebook, but rather the direct consequence of the malicious and fraudulent scheme Zuckerberg devised in 2012 to cover its inability to anticipate the world's transition to smartphones. "
The startup has used legal powers to obtain the cache of documents, which remain under seal by order of a California court. But the UK Parliament used its own powers to seize the records of the founder of Six4Three during a business trip to London, while it was subject to British law, the government said. obliging them to return it to him.
According to the Observer, the Parliament sent a Sergeant-at-Arms to the Founder's Hotel, warning him and the two-hour deadline to comply with his decision.
"When the founder of the software company failed to do so, it was understood, he was escorted to Parliament. He was told that he was risking fines and even imprisonment if he did not hand over the documents, "he adds, apparently revealing Facebook's loss of control over some additional data ( although this is his this time).
In his comments to the paper yesterday, DCMS committee chair Damian Collins said: "We are in unknown territory. It's an unprecedented move, but it's an unprecedented situation. We have not been able to get answers from Facebook and we think that the documents contain extremely interesting information for the public. "
Collins then tweeted the observer's report on the seizure, teasing "more next week" – probably a reference to the large-scale hearing of the parliamentary commission scheduled for Nov. 27.
But it could also be that the committee intends to reveal and / or use information blocked in the documents, because it asks questions to Facebook's vice president of political solutions …
That being said, the documents are subject to the order of the seal of the California Superior Court. Therefore, as the observer observes, it can not be shared or made public without the risk of being found in contempt of court.
A spokesman for Facebook said the same thing to the newspaper: "The documents obtained by the DCMS committee are subject to a protection order of the Superior Court of San Mateo limiting their disclosure. We asked the DCMS committee to refrain from reviewing them and referring them to a board or Facebook. We do not have any other comments. "
Facebook spokesman added that the "Six4Three claims have no merit", saying, "We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously".
Well, the irony of Facebook asking that its data remain confidential should also be lost to anyone …
Another irony: In July, the Guardian announced that, as part of Facebook's defense against Six4Three, the company had claimed in court that it was a publisher and that it was seeking to ensure that its "editorial decisions" on data access are protected by the United States. amendment.
What is – to say the least – a contradiction, given the fact that Facebook has long publicly described its activities as a mere distribution platform, never a media company.
So, expect a lot of artifice at next week's public hearing as parliamentarians again question Facebook about its various contradictory claims.
It is also possible that the committee will receive an e-mail distribution list by the same time, stating who on Facebook was aware of the Cambridge Analytica violation as soon as possible.
This list was obtained by the UK Data Monitoring Service, during its own investigation into the saga of misuse of data. And earlier this month, Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham confirmed that the list was provided by the ICO and that it would be forwarded to the committee.
The responsibility network seems to be moving closer to managing Facebook.
Even if Facebook continues to deny international parliaments any confrontation with its founder and CEO (the European Parliament remains the only exception).
Last week, the company even refused Zuckerberg a video call to answer the committee's questions. She proposed to her Vice President, Political Solutions, Richard Allan, to go to what is now a large committee made up of representatives of seven international parliaments.
The big audience of the committee will take place on Tuesday morning in London, at the British time. It will be followed by a press conference during which parliamentarians representing Facebook users from around the world will sign a set of "International Principles of Internet Law". statement on future action ".
So, it's also "watching this space" when it comes to the international regulation of social media.
As stated above, Allan is only the last substitute of Zuckerberg. In April, the DCMS committee spent almost five hours extracting responses from Facebook's chief technology officer, Mike Schroepfer.
"You do your best but the money does not stop with you, does not it? Where does the responsibility stop? "Then asked him a member of the committee.
"It stops with Mark," replied Schroepfer.
But Zuckerberg will certainly not be stopped on Tuesday.
Source link
