You may not like the process but it is completely legal for the MP to compel the third party to turn over this information and then use parliamentary privilege to publish it. If FB has sent Zuck to talk to parliament in the first place this would not have happened. Instead he told them to get lost, and what are you gonna do about it? Well, this is it.
Not sure what you mean about a formal censure. I'm not familiar with any legal mechanism for a state judge to formally object to foreign parliamentary procedure; how would that even work between a republic and a commonwealth?
> You may not like the process but it is completely legal
I don't. Just like I don't like some things FB does that are legal.
> Not sure what you mean about a formal censure
I just meant denouncing the action as part of a written statement during findings or other rulings on discovery here. I didn't mean to imply there is a legal mechanism that I am aware of. I would at least expect a judge requiring a seal of material in similar cases henceforth to say that it cannot be transferred to anyone on English soil (e.g. an assisting legal team or expert witness) for fear of similar occurrence. At the very least, if I was defense counsel I would ask the judge to make such a restriction while clutching this precedent of taking discovery documents then publishing them to the world.
>Six4Three's CEO is possibly on iffy legal grounds taking a bunch of sealed docs overseas unnecessarily and then handing them over, though.
Yeah, this is weird. I've taken confidential documents overseas, but they were either on an encrypted device, or stored securely in our cloud and pulled down over a VPN after I arrived. Not printed out in my luggage. I'd expect to be fired if I did that and a government got access at customs.
Not sure what you mean about a formal censure. I'm not familiar with any legal mechanism for a state judge to formally object to foreign parliamentary procedure; how would that even work between a republic and a commonwealth?