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.
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?
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.
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.
Of course these can be changed by Parliament... ;-)
That said, the UK has a very weak conceptualisation of separation of powers, thanks to parliamentary supremacy.
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-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.
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.
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 It's almost unheard of for some evidence not to be published at all, though it has happened. 1980s I think was the last case.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.
If this is just part of the normal investigative procedure rather than a gross abuse of authority, then so be it.
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?).
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.
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.
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.