Zuckerberg Refuses UK Parliament Summons Over Facebook Data Misuse, Agrees To Testify Before Congress (techcrunch.com) 167
PolygamousRanchKid shares a report from TechCrunch: So much for "We are accountable"; Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg has declined a summons from a UK parliamentary committee that's investigating how social media data is being used, and -- as recent revelations suggest misused -- for political ad targeting. The DCMS committee wrote to Zuckerberg on March 20 -- following newspaper reports based on interviews with a former employee of UK political consultancy, Cambridge Analytica, who revealed the company obtained Facebook data on 50 million users -- calling for him to give oral evidence. Facebook's policy staff, Simon Milner, previously told the committee the consultancy did not have Facebook data. In a statement a Facebook spokesperson said it will be offering its CTO or chief product officer to answer questions. Today, CNN reports that Mark Zuckerberg has decided to testify before Congress within a matter of weeks, and Facebook is currently planning the strategy for his testimony. "The Facebook sources believe Zuckerberg's willingness to testify will also put pressure on Google CEO Sundar Pichai and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to do the same," reports CNN. "Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley has officially invited all three CEOs to a hearing on data privacy on April 10. That means Washington, not London, will be the stage for the trial of big tech."
Weeks? (Score:2)
Re:Weeks? (Score:5, Funny)
I guess he needs to bone up on his company security policy and business model.
Well, he can't exactly bring the Russians with him to explain how things work.
Re: (Score:2)
congress is old fashioned and leery of bitcoin, it takes time to gather bribes in cash.
I don't blame the little weasel (Score:3, Informative)
The UK is a frightening police state where they imprison people over pet videos.
Re:I don't blame the little weasel (Score:4, Insightful)
The UK is a frightening police state where they imprison people over pet videos.
This. Exactly this. If I were Zuck, I'd stay the hell out of the U.K. as well. FB is an American company, and if every single parliament in the world starts to summon American CEOs, it simply doesn't work.
Moreover, free speech does not have the same protections in the U.K. as it does in the U.S.
Cuts both Ways (Score:5, Insightful)
If I were Zuck, I'd stay the hell out of the U.K. as well. FB is an American company, and if every single parliament in the world starts to summon American CEOs, it simply doesn't work.
That's fine so long as those American companies "stay the hell out" of other countries too. However, if you are going to do business in those countries and especially if you are potentially involved in a massive violation of their online privacy laws then expect to get summoned by their governments, if not their courts.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's why they usually spin off daughter companies to handle operations overseas. Want to summon representative of Facebook in UK? Sure. Summon whoever is the head of Dublin headquarters.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Dublin isn't in the UK either.
Re: (Score:3)
No, but it's in EU, which is in the same economic zone. The entire point of the single market is that you need only one representative to cover it all, because it's a single market.
Re: (Score:2)
Until the March 2019, 2019 Brexit date, the UK is still part of the EU http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-pol... [bbc.com] EU privacy laws/regulations are much tougher than US. I could easily see charges being laid in the UK over the Cambridge Analytica fiasco. If I were Mark Zuckerberg, I'd avoid setting foot anywhere in the EU. For that matter, I'd probably stay inside the US until things blow over.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot hold a citizen of another nation with no allegiance to your government in contempt of requests or demands of that government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine if 20 countries decided to summon him. Or 100.
It's not even a demand of any sort. Just a request.
It would be silly for him to go to the UK. I think the fact that he sent anyone, was a nice gesture.
NOTE: I hate facebook, but let's be real here.
Re: (Score:2)
don't do the crime, if you can't do the time.
Re:Cuts both Ways (Score:5, Insightful)
It would show he was serious about dealing with this issue.
No going tells us that he is just waiting for the news cycle to move on and blow over. Facebook won't change, it's not sorry, it doesn't even think it did anything wrong. The only problem is that they got caught.
In fact, he probably views it as free advertising. Look how great this data is, look what you can do with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine if 20 countries decided to summon him. Or 100.
That's just the point though - I would have to imagine that because it has not actually happened! If it did and his response was "sorry but I have been summoned by 100 other countries so I cannot appear" I would fully expect that parliament would have some sympathy in the same way that a judge is unlikely to penalize a witness from failing to follow a subpoena because they have been subpoenaed to appear in another court for a different case.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
However, if you are going to do business in those countries and especially if you are potentially involved in a massive violation of their online privacy laws then expect to get summoned by their governments, if not their courts.
If I operate an American registered website on an American hosted server paid for by an American registered corporate entity, and some user in some shithole country like the U.K. registers and providers their personal data, that foreign court has exactly 0 jurisdiction.
If that American registered corporate entity opens up a foreign subsidiary which sells ads on the American based website, that foreign court still has exactly 0 jurisdiction when it comes to the operations of that platform. That foreign cou
Re: (Score:3)
not entirely accurate. I ran across similar jurisdictional issues a decade ago dealing with servers for online gambling sites. The Attorney General in many states had absolute control of whether their residents could participate in the online gambling sites, regardless of where the servers are located, or where the company was incorporated. If the website allowed a user of lets say Oklahoma, to use their credit card, registered to an Oklahoma address, as payments for online gambling, they would find themsel
Re: (Score:2)
I ran across similar jurisdictional issues a decade ago dealing with servers for online gambling sites. The Attorney General in many states had absolute control of whether their residents could participate in the online gambling sites, regardless of where the servers are located, or where the company was incorporated.
This is a very different story. You are talking about different jurisdiction with the same country. I'm talking about different jurisdictions in different countries.
If you have an arrest warrant in California, you will be arrested during a traffic stop in Florida.
If you have an arrest warrant in Florida, you will not be arrested during a traffic stop in the U.K. (well, unless it is an Interpol warrant).
The same Attorney General, will have virtually no jurisdiction to take down a gambling server in an
Re: (Score:2)
It was a foreign corporation doing it to American citizens via an American corporation, in what seems a very criminal fashion. At the least the UK has to go through the motion, especially as it seems that same corporations played with Brexit, using the services of that American corporation. Now the real problem is that whole Russiagate yarn, which has set a legal precedent, it has gone through court yet, so not really set, but it is pretty close ie it is illegal to be a paid Troll, pretending to be someone
Re: (Score:2)
If I operate an American registered website on an American hosted server paid for by an American registered corporate entity, and some user in some shithole country like the U.K. registers and providers their personal data, that foreign court has exactly 0 jurisdiction.
What a refreshing perspective from an American. Have you tried sharing this perspective with your own government which is currently trying to argue that Microsoft should be forced to turn over personal data its subsidiary holds in the EU in violation of EU law? Indeed if it were the case that UK users were using an entirely US-based service provided by a US-based company then you would have a point but that is absolutely not the case.
Facebook has data centres all over the world, not just the US, it deli
Re: (Score:2)
What a refreshing perspective from an American.
I'm not an American. I'm European.
Indeed if it were the case that UK users were using an entirely US-based service provided by a US-based company then you would have a point
Good, we agree on that.
Facebook has data centres all over the world, not just the US,
Correct, but irrelevant. The only reason to have data centers all over the world is to speed things up for the end user. It only takes one business decision and a few days to move all that data to the U.S. The only effect will be that the latency will increase, and with that the user experience will slightly decrease.
it deliberately targets it services to people in the UK and signs UK-based advertizing contracts to allow UK companies to gain access to UK-based users. It derives a significant amount of its revenue from UK-based operations
Agreed.
and hence, since it is conducting business there it should clearly be subject to UK laws in the same way that a UK-based business conducting business in the US would be subject to US-based laws.
How does Facebook get its revenue? It gets revenue through the sales of ads. Those ads are bought by UK advertisers, who are resp
Re:Cuts both Ways (Score:5, Interesting)
If I were Zuck, I'd stay the hell out of the U.K. as well. FB is an American company, and if every single parliament in the world starts to summon American CEOs, it simply doesn't work.
Except the most significant leaks in question occurred in the UK with a UK company and resulting in clear manipulation of the most significant UK referendum of the century not to mention the last US election... I'd not be surprised if the US government forced Zuckerburg to go to the UK since the whole affair is deeply tied to both countries.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook will not willingly let go of that ~$2.5B advertising revenue it takes in the UK.
In an somewhat analogous case, Valve claimed that they are not "doing business" in Australia and therefore did not have to offer refunds in compliance with the Australian Consumer Law. They sell games to Australian consumers from their US website Steam in US dollars. They lost that case and they recently lost their appeal. They are now seeking to appeal to the High Court of Australia [kotaku.com.au].
Re: (Score:1)
Nothing much to say but +1
Re:I don't blame the little weasel (Score:4, Insightful)
Kind of like how America extradites CEOs of non-American companies to the US to face 'justice' in the American court system?
Be very careful with that glass house you're throwing rocks from.
Re: I don't blame the little weasel (Score:3)
We're mostly all against that.
Next!!
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Nobody has been imprisoned in the UK over a pet video. Please stop spreading this particular fake news meme.
(In the first place, it's Scotland - completely different legal system. In the second place, he hasn't been imprisoned.)
Re: (Score:3)
erm. Scotland is in the UK, so its legal system is indeed a UK legal system.
Unless you're suggesting that the legal system of England and Wales is also the UK one? That'll upset our Celtic friends.
Re: (Score:3)
If the UK courts really wants to talk to him they can always seize whatever assets he has in the UK as a collateral and block all his businesses there until he decides to show up.
Seize it based on what? What legal basis exists for the U.K. government to rob, under threat of fire arms, a U.S. persons personal assets?
This is exactly what I'm talking about. This is why the civilized world dislikes the U.K. police state.
The US have been the frontrunner in trying to censor speech such as "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0".
See, just this comment shows how much of an idiot you are. "The US" did nothing to censor this. No U.S. court made any legal determinations as to the legality. It was the RIAA/MPAA that was trying to issue DMCA requests to take these down. In fact, would it come to a l
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I don't blame the little weasel (Score:2)
UK and Germany. Look at the Pokemon el-Catalonia.
Re: (Score:2)
He can stay at the Ecuadorian embassy.
Re: (Score:2)
No, he's referring to this stupidity:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/... [heraldscotland.com]
Business as usual (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How is this different from pretty much all other groups of government bureaucrats world wide?
Certainly the USA has more than it's share of idiots who think they are the smartest folks in the room because they won an election or two. I'm sure the fine people of the UK have the same issue.
Re: (Score:2)
unfortunately we have WAY MORE than our fair share. We still have idiots that think by winning a slim majority in the House they have a snowballs chance in hell of removing a sitting president. They obviously have not bothered to read the constitution after they won an election. Or at the very least, read the articles of impeachment to learn how the process works. You have an easier time overcoming a fillabuster than a conviction in an impeachment trial, and look how much stalemate-shit fillabusters caused,
His prerogative (Score:1)
...or worse (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
I thought we were an autonomous collective?
Re: (Score:2)
You're fooling yourself. We're livin' in a dictatorship, a self-perpetuating autocracy, in which the working class--
Re: ...or worse (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You do realise that the term "unwritten constitution" with regard to the UK refers specifically to the fact that there is no single document, right? Not that we don't have *any* constitution limiting the powers of Parliament and the sitting government.
We do have a constitution, its just one that is formed from many Acts of Parliament, judicial rulings and other sources - and many of its principles date back to the Magna Carta...
Re: (Score:2)
All of which can and has been ignored by parliament. That is the difference between limited government via constitution and what the UK has.
You only have the rights your betters let you have.
Care to cite anything specific or is this just mere handwavey "your wrong because it doesn't work and my government is better"
Re: ...or worse (Score:2)
That is arguably the stupidest thing I've heard on the internet today.
#FakeNews
Re: (Score:3)
The government can't do precisely what it likes, since there's a lot of laws on the books already and it would have to specifically repeal those that clash.
Sorry but you clearly do not have any idea how parliament works. If two laws clash then the one passed the latest automatically has precedence. There is literally no limit to parliament's power. They can pass any law they like and, provided it passes both houses and get royal assent it becomes the law. Even if that law violates previously entered treaties and agreements it is still the law and there is literally no means to prevent it because of a well-established principle that no parliament may bind anot [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry but you clearly do not have any idea how parliament works. If two laws clash then the one passed the latest automatically has precedence.
We're a precedence based legal system over here, so that depends very much how the judges interpret the scope of the law. To say that what you have written is s gross simplification is something of an understatement.
There is literally no limit to parliament's power.
There's "literally" no limit to any government's power. There isn't a system on the planet which preven
Re: (Score:2)
the UK and other parliamentary governments are only bound by custom and a general desire to behave well
Well, that and civil unrest.
Bring back the poll tax I say, council tax penalises people that want to live alone.
Facebook was built on dishonesty. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The Zuck is complying where he has to , but more importantly why should he accommodate the non-binding asks of foreign governments?
Re:Facebook was built on dishonesty. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Except one is HIS government and the other is NOT.
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe the next time he incorporates in another country to avoid paying USA tax dollars he should remember that he forgot to PAY for those protections.
Re: (Score:2)
He's the CEO of a US based company that does business in the UK. It is quite different than being summoned by the US government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not if Facebook wants to do business in that country.
That depends. This was a request to attend. It has no legal weight. There's no reason for a foreign CEO to attend either. The UK has very little political capital around the world right now. Let's see how embargoing a foreign company because their CEO didn't want to come in for a non-legally binding chat goes shall we?
Re: (Score:2)
I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit.
its the only way to be sure.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Facebook was built on dishonesty. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
You dont refuse a 'request' from Parliament.
Right now the government has far bigger problems in the UK. From the horrible clusterfuck that is Brexit, to constant internal bickering, to outing someone as gay just because they disagreed with them for political reasons, the UK parliament itself is in too much of a disarray to do anything meaningful right now.
Political capital? I will wager this will all be forgotten within a month or two.
Re: (Score:3)
They don't. It would be an order if Zuckerberg was a UK citizen living in the UK but as a foreign national in another country the request becomes merely a request.
Optional for him to attend, and highly anticipated that he would choose not to.
They can't impose measures against his company either, without referring to an existing authorised body (ICO maybe?) or passing new legislation.
Re: (Score:2)
Drugs are helluva drug.
American Companies (Score:2)
They are American companies; why would they choose London over Washington D.C.? In theory, I'm assuming DC has more leverage anyway since anything London can do can probably ignored?
Re:American Companies (Score:5, Interesting)
not entirely. Google kow-tows to China all the time. Remember google, the anti-censorship company from about 8yrs ago? Slowly but surely they let China boss them around and no longer allow chinese IP addresses to discover information the PRC has declared 'subversive'. Facebook doesn't have to appear, but then again the UK could simply ban all FB Access and impose sanctions on FB assets if they try to subvert the embargo. As far as FB being an american company, I honestly dont know about this. Too many times I learn that, what I assumed as an American company, paid Zero tax dollars in the USA because they incorporated all their crap into Ireland (General Electric, Amazon, etc).
Re: (Score:2)
Sensible people have wanted the UN to take over the Internet, because countries mess it up all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Is this a self-appointed task or God-given?
Re: (Score:1)
It's all fuckin theater anyways. The Zuck is just going through the motions out of sake of political formalities. Fuck-ALL is going to happen to him. His sock is "to big to fail" and will be treated like BitCoin; purely speculative. He will jizz all over the world, and be REWARDED for it. Because, what exactly, are YOU going to do about it? He's right, you're all a bunch of fucking idiots. The difference being, he's at least being honest about spitting in your face.
Now lick it off!
Re: (Score:3)
Well, annoying Britain means a likely complaint to the data protection people in Europe, which means a potential billion dollar fine from the EU or a permanent ban across the entire continent. The EU takes data protection seriously (unlike America) but won't generally take action unless a nation state complains. Until Britain leaves, it's a nation state the EU would take seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
Until Britain leaves, it's a nation state the EU would take seriously.
Even then - G8 member, UN security council permanent member, one of the leads of NATO, head of the Commonwealth and currently demonstrating its diplomatic power through the response to a nerve agent attack.
Suckerberg? (Score:1)
The big tech trial... (Score:2)
Yeah, because the best country to set the stage for data privacy should be the one country it actually enabled hiding the fact it in the first place. And you're surprised Russia, China or even Germany or the UK have issues with data stored in the US. Did anybody say IRIS?
Re: (Score:2)
well, so much for ignoring that Preview feature...
A wrench in his presidential aspirations (Score:1)
No wonder he decided this:
- US Congress: Dance around Russian bullshit and let it blow over
- UK Parliament: Talk about privacy, a very hostile subject for FB
Well, he's still young. People forget quickly.
Not "Big Tech" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Do you know of a financially successful social networking site (similar to Facebook) that isn't supported by selling user data to advertisers?
Nope, Facebook bought them all and closed them down.
Re: (Score:2)
Rupert Murdoch did purchase Myspace which is still available.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There are *some* benefits in allowing people to easily communicate with each other, share their vacation pictures, discuss shared hobbies & interests, etc.
There are, but we have yet to realize what the actual cost is. There's a ton of data on many people that's been leaked out, and can and likely will be used against their own interest.
captcha: CRIMES
"We are accountable", *I* am not personally though (Score:2)
You know, it's a corporation thing... The shareholders made me do it.
Re:"We are accountable", *I* am not personally tho (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, it's a corporation thing... The shareholders made me do it.
Since Zuck owns enough Facebook Class B shares** to give himself 60% of the voting rights in FB, I'm not sure that is the best argument for him to make...
**Facebook Class B shares have 10x the voting rights of Class A shares...
sound and fury signifying nothing (Score:2)
You may hate the weasel but all he has done is what Facebook has stated they would do, sell your information for profit.
Until you change the laws around that, nothing will change.
Re:sound and fury signifying nothing (Score:4, Informative)
Photo op for politicians. No laws were broken, at least no one has cited one law that was broken. .
https://www.gov.uk/data-protec... [www.gov.uk]
The UK Data Protection Act. 1998.
That's the law that was broken.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering the bru-ha-ha that MS and Google have been getting over email storage... I'm hoping Facebook gets raked over the coals throughout Europe.
Facebook can be useful for connecting with long-lost friends and family (those of us that care to, anyway). However the pros definitely DO NOT outweigh the cons of all the targeted advertising, minute details of a person's life being sold to whatever data mining - or identity theft - group. FB doesn't care *who* has the data, just that they were paid for it - a
Re: (Score:3)
Data Protection Act, both the British and European versions.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither of which apply in the USA where Facebook is based
Both of which however apply in the UK, where British users of Facebook are based, where Facebook does business, and where Facebook's data has been reported to be used illegally to influence electoral outcomes.
what's happening is that UK citizens are choosing to log on to an American company's web site rather than an American company forcing its way into the UK and onto the computers of citizens of the UK
I don't have a Facebook account and have never given them my details. Facebook nonetheless has at least one of my email addresses, my telephone number and other information about me. Until May, when GDPR kicks in and I invite them to delete everything or start paying me several thousand pounds a month.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook has servers in Europe. So does Microsoft. So do a lot of companies. That data is subject to the DPA. Being an American company is irrelevant, we had this out with the US tax people wanting Microsoft's data. Do try and keep up.
good for him (Score:2)
Zuckerberg is a cartoonish villain. But he's an American. Let him testify to Congress. Good for him.
But yeah, time for some antitrust action on FB & duh Goog.
The Gospel According to Q (Score:2)
>>599607
Q
are we going to have more freedom of speech on "private" public speech services or not?
please answer this question
>>599614
100%
Regulated.
Some platforms will collapse under their own weight of illegal activities.
Q
March 9th, 2018, 6:20 EST
Enjoy The Tax Audit, Mr Zuckerberg... (Score:2)
If Zuckerberg thinks he can thumb his nose at the UK government and get away with it, he might be in for a very rude awakening. Governments like the UK seem to "turn a blind eye" to multinational companies that off-shore profits, as long as they do so when employing a reasonable number of UK nationals on UK soil - i.e. to provide a reasonable amount of local employment in return.
But that's
So What (Score:2)
The UK police state wants it cake and eats it too? Why the hell should he? Are they going to shut down FB over it? And really, why do you need the CEO to testify...he likely doesn't have all of the technical details.
I don't like this situation any more than anyone in the UK, but I'm not feeling very generous toward them allowing a UK citizen a free pass on hacking into American systems with no consequences. Sure, don't send them, but what's to stop other UK citizens from doing the same now?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
'whatabout-ism' is not a rebuttal.
Also as I understand the Democrats ASKED people to share data. You know like they HAD permission.
Cambridge Analytica, not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
Protect yoself before the Zuch wrecks yoself with APK HOSTs File Engine!
Have no facebook hosts file but was still getting through, had to add .facebook.com (dot first).
Re: (Score:2)
That's a very long rant to merely suggest that the UK parliament can not compel Zuckerberg and that he's within his rights to decline their polite request.
Which is entirely the case.
The UK offers very few protections - they recently imprisoned a young American woman when she stepped onto their soil because she was going there to interview some anti-Muslim European and they decided that made her a public danger
She was detained, not imprisoned. To be fair the distinction may feel technical when your freedom is curtailed, but it's an important one.
no hint of where this rule goes when Muslim Jihadists arrive in London and hop onto a soap box in the park to loudly proclaim their intentions to kill or convert all to Islam
Tell that to the many people in UK prisons for providing support to terrorist groups and organisations.