Hacker News Reader

Comment by trepanne | Hacker News Reader

It is news to me that websites can so easily be coerced to fork over user data by private citizens prosecuting fairly petty civil actions. Is this about par for the course in European jurisprudence, or a high water mark for right to due process in the digital age?

The first order effects seem pretty benign, even salutary - but I’m not sure the court really thought through all the implications here.

Is the Dutch legal system inviting themselves to become a party to every single he said/she said drama on Facebook?

What will Facebook need to do to extricate themselves from such an odious entanglement?

View on HN

Slander and libel are criminal offences in the Netherlands. If a crime had been committed against someone, they should have the means to seek justice.

Normally, you wouldn't need Facebook to disclose any names because Facebook isn't anonymous 99% of the time. There are plenty of anonymous and pseudonymous forums that would be at risk and yes they too have to follow warrants should the court decide against them.

If Facebook wants to stay out of such cases, they should either leave the jurisdictions where such warrants are possible (so planet earth, probably) or they should enforce non-anonymous posts so plaintiffs can sue each other without involving a court warrant first.

> If Facebook wants to stay out of such cases, they should either leave the jurisdictions where such warrants are possible (so planet earth, probably) or they should enforce non-anonymous posts so plaintiffs can sue each other without involving a court warrant first.

How do you propose they leave?

Why is the responsibility on Meta to make sure users in a jurisdiction don’t sign up for their service? Surely some of this responsibility could fall on the user.

Leaving probably means not having offices there, not selling ads there, not recruiting users there, and not hosting anywhere near dutch jurisdiction,

But they can't play it both ways.

They have an office in Amsterdamm, they control a large part of the ad market in the Netherlands, and probably host there or nearby on EU soil.

They can't seriously expect to not be subject to dutch law.

I don't like the idea of extraterritorial jurisdiction. For example, if Iran wants to prosecute the operator of a website hosted in Amsterdam for featuring images of women without hijabs, no other country should cooperate with them.

That's not what's happening here. Facebook has a Dutch subdivision (Facebook Netherlands B.v.) and an office in Amsterdam. They're absolutely subject to Dutch law. They could leave, but the EU means that they'd be subject to this kind of order from a Dutch court unless they left the EU entirely, which would make it harder for EU companies to pay them for advertising, hurting their profits.

>That's not what's happening here. Facebook has a Dutch subdivision (Facebook Netherlands B.v.) and an office in Amsterdam. They're absolutely subject to Dutch law. They could leave, but the EU means that they'd be subject to this kind of order from a Dutch court unless they left the EU entirely, which would make it harder for EU companies to pay them for advertising, hurting their profits.

I agree that they are subject to the laws of the countries they operate in. I do not agree that a company should own all of the responsibility in making sure no Dutch citizens access their services. The idea that the internet would be different depending on where I access seems anti-internet.

When your business model relies on user data to generate profits, you have to collect it and that makes it discoverable.

> The idea that the internet would be different depending on where I access seems anti-internet.

That's GDPR for you, though.

Extraterritorial jurisdiction is becoming increasingly common. If a person commits a crime in a foreign jurisdiction they are convicted, and then when they return to their homeland they are once again convicted for committing a crime abroad.

I know the UK and USA definitely do these prosecutions regularly, even though both countries would throw a hissy fit if Iran started prosecuting every tourist who visits and was known to not wear a headcovering outside Iran.

The summary actually goes into this, the Dutch branch isn't actually involved in this case but Meta didn't object to the reasoning provided by the plaintiff that Dutch law should apply to them.

I'm pretty sure the Dutch subsidiary exists just to avoid taxes, the Irish branch is the main company most EU citizens interact with.

fairly petty civil actions

If you're the person having their reputation smeared by anonymous cowards it maybe doesn't seem so "petty" as you dismiss.

This seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do; have the person slandering somebody anonymously brought into the light where there is a level playing field in which they can present their case.

I'm not sure it's creditable that enough credence is being given to these anonymous claims in a private group to be impacting this person's life. Seems more akin to a slapp.

How many careers and lives were ruined by the anonymous "Shitty Men in Media" list?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/ugly-battle-over-shtty-media-m...

Some cases were probably well desreved, but anonymity allows easy score settling and revenge.

There's no recourse against an anonymous accusation, there's no way to defend yourself, and there's no way to prove you are innocent.

> so easily be coerced

It's a court order!

>Is the Dutch legal system inviting themselves to become a party to every single he said/she said drama on Facebook?

Legal action is very expensive. While vexatious litigants exist, the total volume of legal proceedings being commenced is not particularly large.

So, access to the court system is limited to those with the income to defend themselves. Is this a good thing? Or, is there a fund setup for people who need to sue/defend against a suit for defamation?

> news to me that websites can so easily be coerced to fork over user data

I like how websites are special. Like no-one ever says "I am shocked that a hotel provided information to the police about a guest wanted for murder"

This court ruling seems entirely reasonable. If a trillion dollar corporation is profiting from someone spreading malicious lies about you, it seems logical that the victim has some legal recourse against both entities.

It would be just as reasonable if it was a smaller money-losing corporation.

Why is this surprising? If someone accuses of you a crime anonymously, you need to know their identity to sue them for damages. Otherwise, anonymity becomes a license to libel.

> fairly petty civil actions

Just because this would be a civil matter in your jurisdiction does not mean it is a civil matter under Dutch law where this lawsuit is from.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com