UK Officials Will Summon Mark Zuckerberg To Testify if He Won't Do So Voluntarily (cnbc.com) 145
UK officials said Tuesday they will summon Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to testify before Parliament the next time he's in British territory if he does not volunteer to do so. From a report: It would be the first governmental summons for Zuckerberg in the fallout of the Cambridge Analytica data leak and widespread concerns around user privacy. "It's worth noting that, while Mr. Zuckerberg does not normally come under the jurisdiction of the UK Parliament, he will do so the next time he enters the country," Damian Collins, a member of the UK Parliament, wrote in a letter published Tuesday. "There are over 40 million Facebook users in the UK and they deserve to hear accurate answers from the company he created and whether it is able to keep their users' data safe," Collins wrote.
Summon? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Summon? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's true that he can easily evade this if he wants to, although it is kinda embarrassing to be effectively barred from visiting a country because you don't want to answer questions about the scandals you presided over.
Considering how well he came off from the US hearings I think he might come. Our MPs are pretty tame really.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Our MPs are pretty tame really.
I can just imagine his team briefing him.
If one human shouts 'here here', ingest 1.1 ounces of liquid from provided receptacle.
If the entire room starts to 'harrumph', ingest 3.6 ounces of liquid from provided receptacle.
Re:Summon? (Score:5, Interesting)
Considering how well he came off from the US hearings I think he might come. Our MPs are pretty tame really.
On the other hand, he hasn't already donated to the majority of them so they might be somewhat less tame.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, he hasn't already donated to the majority of them so they might be somewhat less tame.
If they're not any better-versed in technological issues, it won't matter. He'll spend the whole time explaining simple concepts to them and they won't get to ask any good questions.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think *he* understands?
Re: (Score:2)
Not being allowed to do business in the UK would be a bit of a downer for Zuckerberg.
Except that Facebook or any of its subsidiaries are not directly owned by Mark Z anymore.
Why would he even consider entering that Police State where people are locked up for "offensive" tweets? He'd be smart to ignore that small island that's no longer even EU anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
The UK is in the EU until March 29 2019. At that point, all EU law becomes UK law, and the slow (decades to centuries long) process of legislative disentanglement starts.
That of course assumes that the government doesn't either (1) fragment internally or (2) lose a confidence vote and the subsequent general election in the intervening 11 months. Actually, I'd better check the mid-day news - the fragmentation may have happened at thi
Re: (Score:3)
It's true that he can easily evade this if he wants to, although it is kinda embarrassing to be effectively barred from visiting a country because you don't want to answer questions about the scandals you presided over.
I think it's a little more than just embarrassing. The optics of him NOT going are pretty dismal - especially given Facebook's implicit reliance on the 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear' meme. If he has nothing to hide, why shouldn't he just go and face the British parliament?
Besides, if things start to get rough, he can always call out the British government on its own extensive surveillance network and its own privacy-busting legislation.
Re: (Score:2)
Yvette Cooper bloody well isn't.
Just ask Amber Rudd.
Re: (Score:2)
Rudd was fucked over by being made May's shield. Anyone who hitches themselves to her mast eventually lives to regret it.
Re: (Score:2)
That may (sorry) well be true. Let's hope so - might knock some of the smugness out of Humpty Dumpty.
Re: (Score:2)
He's just waiting for her to fail.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you mean "fall"? As in a great one?
Re: (Score:2)
It's true that he can easily evade this if he wants to, although it is kinda embarrassing to be effectively barred from visiting a country because you don't want to answer questions about the scandals you presided over.
Easily is not what I'd call it. He'd never be able to travel to the EU or Commonwealth nations, even accidentally setting foot in Malaysia will have the coppers up his backside (and the police walk around KLIA with submachine guns, I still think it's quite funny seeing a Muslim Malay woman in uniform with a headscarf and MP5). Plus the UK can begin extradition proceedings against him in the United States, even if Zuckerberg wins (with what excuse, he's not being charged, just asked to attend Parliament, wal
Re: (Score:2)
They should have kept the north american colonies back then....
Re:Summon? (Score:4, Funny)
I thought they just wave their wand and say "Accio Zuckerberg"
Demon lord, not so simple. (Score:3)
Zuckerberg is a demon lord, so nothing that simple will work.
It has to be a full summoning circle, with protection circles for the summoner, acolyte minor, and familiar.
The full incant goes something like:
Here have I scribed the true URLs of power,
Forward and backward anagrammatized,
The abbreviated names of holy CEOs,
Figures of every adjunct to the internet,
And characters of signs and evening stars,
By which the spirits are enforced to rise.
And do the utmost magic can perform.
You also need something to appea
Re:Summon? (Score:4, Funny)
So... like they draw a pentagram, hold hands and say his name three times while looking in the mirror? Does that work?
Don't be ridiculous! You draw a magic circle (using salt) around your smartphone then poke Mark Zuckerberg on Facebook three times while chanting, "Friend me, Zuck." ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Or, the UK blocks FB and FB loses tens of millions of subscribers overnight. I mean, sure that's small in the scheme of FB, but it's still a lot of money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
APK APK APK.
Maybe doesn't work for Zuck, but you can summon other demons that way.
Turn-about is fair play, right? (Score:1)
He should just claim he has Asperger's and can't travel to England
Re: Turn-about is fair play, right? (Score:2)
Gulag FTW!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is the parliamentary equivalent of "We've tried being polite and you refused, so we're not asking anymore".
If someone asks you to attend something, and you decline, and they immediately make some vague threat, then they were never really asking in the first place. This is just them dropping the pretense that it was ever voluntary.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes.
It seems to me that US people (I only say the US because that's where I live, I don't know if it's as common elsewhere) seem to think Brits are nice people, and you can get away with shit around them. Brits are *not* especially nice. Brits are *polite*, there is a huge difference. The velvet glove conceals an iron fist, and it's generally easier to be polite back than to piss them off overmuch.
I imagine his questioning will be somewhat more ... in depth ... than it would have been previously. There is n
Re: (Score:2)
How about "x millions fine a day 'til he comes"?
Just block facebook in the uk (Score:1)
When does it end? (Score:3, Interesting)
Does Australia, Canada, New Zealand, France, Germany, The Netherlands, and Sweden each get a turn summoning a CEO for questions?
It's a big unrealistic to expect someone to visit every country in a timely manner. If they wish to speak with company representatives available in their respective region that's certainly reasonable and I'm sure can be arranged promptly.
Re: (Score:1)
The short answer is yes. Those are the breaks when you're the CEO of a multinational corporation that has been playing fast and loose with citizens data in multiple countries.
I'm sure you can list all the other countries that have summoned him that he has to visit first that are preventing him from attending parliament in the UK, right? What's that? They haven't?
Re: (Score:3)
What's that? They haven't?
Perhaps the commonwealth countries know how to queue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
In times of BREXIT, it will be a bit difficult for an UK institution to call a foreign CEO in front of an EU/european institution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:When does it end? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a big [sic] unrealistic
Zuckerberg et al. don't hesitate to play tax games among all these foreign countries. Zuckerberg et al. demand a borderless world from which to cherry pick employees. Zuckerberg et al. don't hesitate to cash the checks they earn from the UK and elsewhere. Zuckerberg et al. are unfailingly disappointed whenever the US fails to conform to the demands of international authorities (climate agreements, immigration policy, gun laws, etc.)
Yet let any of these countries demand Zuckerberg appear before investigators and all the sudden everything is "unrealistic" or "unreasonable."
You know what? Fuck Zuckerberg. He can spend the next tens years schlepping from one 18 star hotel to the next all over Europe and Asia dealing with these investigations as far as I'm concerned. If Zuckerberg doesn't like it he can stop accepting revenue from ad views outside the US or whatever he has to do to eliminate his obligations in foreign countries. If that means the Facebook business model isn't feasible then so be it; nothing of value will have been lost.
Re: (Score:2)
Zuckerberg et al. don't hesitate to play tax games among all these foreign countries.
Sadly tax games are often quite legal. And in the less reputable countries, discreetly encouraged.
Zuckerberg et al. don't hesitate to cash the checks they earn from the UK and elsewhere.
Same can be said of GlaxoSmithKline, Lloyds Bank, Virgin Atlantic, Dyson, etc. Globalization is current reality and not illegal.
Yet let any of these countries demand Zuckerberg appear before investigators and all the sudden everything is "unrealistic" or "unreasonable."
That's a false equivalence. Something like the United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce summoning CEO Tony Hayward to discuss the Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster is not equivalent to Facebook doing something that people don't like were there does not yet exist proper l
How about we ... (Score:2)
if you have a problem with it get elected to Parliament and make them stop.
I do have a problem with it, but it's ridiculous that you think my only option is to somehow take charge charge of another country's political process.
For example, one alternative is I could point out the problems with the situation. Maybe even write an essay or have a rational debate about it. Maybe people could say something insightful about one side or the other.
Or I guess people could crank everything to far extremes, try to dismiss anything that doesn't immediately lead to the desired conclusion, and w
Re: (Score:2)
Except what you're saying is quite consistent with the parent. The "et al." bit.
Now I know you're talking about multiple CEOs there but the reality is the CEO does none of what you said. The people who do it are the large teams of people across multiple layers of management often dispersed across the globe to make this global border-less reality a ... well ... reality.
It's those very people who support all of what you say, and it's those same people who the OP rightfully commented as being the correct peopl
Re: (Score:1)
It would help to "try" to keep the data safe. AFAIK Google has not had a massive data leak yet. The reason is that Google is one of the few companies I know of that actually takes software security quite seriously in their designs. Sure they will hoard more data than they should, but they are not reselling individual users very private details to the highest bidder like Facebook does. I worked at Google and at 'Enterprise Software Security' companies so I have pretty good knowledge of how it works under the
Re: (Score:2)
No company can keep its users data safe, as has been proven by the endless parade of personal data leak disclosures that we have been seeing.
If that's true. Then they shouldn't have the data.
The only way to keep the data safe is to delete it.
I think that's what legislature is trying to figure out. If GDPR-like laws can protect people without choking off all commerce. (obviously yes, but I think it's prudent for legislature to do the due diligence).
But let's be realistic here. Someone like Zuck shows up to Parliament it's going to be so politicians can give him a dressing down like some kind of circus act for the masses. "Look at me, I'm your MP and I'm tough on these big rich tech guys. Remember
Re: (Score:2)
Your analogy requires some laws to have been broken.
Charge him with a crime. Extradite him. There are real processes in place for criminals that us normal non-rich people endure.
Except this isn't about a crime. This is about political showmanship. Each government that failed to protect its citizenry from businesses Facebook gets to try and save face by summoning Zuck and trying to shift the blame. Fail to regulate your markets properly and suffer from assholes trying to make a buck at your citizenry's expen
Re: (Score:2)
You're making assumptions without understanding the UK legal system, and because of that, you're wrong.
You have to understand that inquiries in the UK do have legal standing - they can legally compel him to attend, this is exactly what they're talking about here.
And this is a crime - claiming the UK hasn't regulated properly here isn't the issue, the case is being built against them by the ICO, the fact it's not reached judgement yet doesn't mean it didn't happen. Facebook is most definitely in breach of UK
Re: (Score:2)
Parliament is not a court room. Being summoned to court is not at all the same as being summoned to face UK Parliament or the US Senate. Certainly we use similar words like hearing, trial, discovery, inquriy, testimony, and others in these things. But please don't confuse them as being identical in process and purpose.
and I answered the rest in my earlier post. (I misspoke when I said Directive instead of Act because EU has a similarly named DPD)
Call me a cynic but I feel we're seeing political theater rath
Re: (Score:2)
"Parliament is not a court room"
I didn't at any point say it was. It does however have the authority to issue a legal summons, and anything said there can lead to legal agreements, and be used in subsequent legal proceedings. So regardless of it not being a court room, it still has some of the same powers and authority as a court room does.
The European Data Protection Directive you refer to is the European Directive from which the Data Protection Act stems - the Data Protection Act is the UK's implementatio
Re: (Score:2)
It does however have the authority to issue a legal summons
And I never questioned that.
You gave your opinion - fine, but it was wrong.
This has been more about you putting words in my mouth.
Don't try and lecture me on a topic
Seems like your projecting. And on that note I'm out.
IANAL in any jurisdiction (Score:2)
Just a layperson's 2 cents,
The UK Data protection directive is mostly about not transferring inappropriate risk to users and restricts what sort of things are enforcable an in EULA. It's not a comprehensive privacy law. A data breach does not automatically make a business like Facebook liable for damages under UK DPD. If they have taken reasonable security precautions, which can often be argued that they are no worse than others in the industry, then the consequences should be pretty minimal for FB.
What is
Re: (Score:3)
Does Australia, Canada, New Zealand, France, Germany, The Netherlands, and Sweden each get a turn summoning a CEO for questions?
It's a big unrealistic to expect someone to visit every country in a timely manner.
He could have arranged a question-and-answer session before an international representative group and done this all at once -- it's not like it's been a secret UK legislators have wanted to talk to him. He just chose to play the classic "I'm going to ignore you unless I'm legally obligated to because you can arrest me" card.
Who'd have though being a major figure in an global business would require lots of meetings with people you don't really want to talk to? :rolleyes:
Re: (Score:2)
it's not like it's been a secret UK legislators have wanted to talk to him.
If they are anything like the US Senate, they wanted to do so on their terms and not his. Much of their behavior is about scoring political points.
Who'd have though being a major figure in an global business would require lots of meetings with people you don't really want to talk to? :rolleyes:
There is a difference between a business obligation, political obligation, and a legal obligation. If I am legally obligated to present myself at the whim of any world government, and doing so means I've violated that government's laws and will be barred from future entry, then that's pretty unreasonable. Certainly within their sovereign power. But it is right? i
Re: (Score:2)
Chop him up and send a few bits to every country.
(little green checkmark) (Score:2)
If this was Stack Overflow, I would have selected this as the best answer.
Scene: Ecuadorian embassy (Score:2, Funny)
*knock on the door*
*Assange opens it*
Assange: Mark?
Zuckerberg: Hey man, slumber party?
The writing on the wall (Score:5, Insightful)
I can see how this will play out.
The big players (Google, Facebook, Twitter, et al.) should not determine what's acceptable speech, or attempt to enforce it.
That's the job of the government, there's lots of existing precedent to rely on, and there are clear avenues of appeal and change.
So here's what will happen: things will get really bad for awhile, then something will happen that breaks the dam. There will be a flood of calls to break up Google (in particular), and twitter and facebook and all the others.
Facebook's problem wasn't that they gave information to an outside party, it's that the party was associated with Trump that got them in trouble. Largely the same thing happened with Obama, and Facebook didn't care.
Recently published research [scribd.com] shows that google manipulated search results to make Clinton seem more favorable to Trump. The research uses comparisons of search keys between Google, Bing, and Yahoo to make it's point, and is based on results published in PNAS. An excerpt:
overall, manipulating search suggestions can shift a 50/50 split among people who are undecided on an issue to a 90/10 split without people’s awareness and without leaving a paper trail for authorities to follow.
Google engages in unfair media manipulation at its worst, they are literally trying to sway the results of an election to a candidate they prefer. Facebook and Twitter are doing the same. Facebook does the same thing indirectly, by selling personal information to companies who themselves do the manipulation.
It was thought to be "the smart move" when the Obama campaign did it, and at the time no one realized that the same effect could be turned the other way.
The big players are right now laying the grounds for the upcoming election by eliminating certain opinions. Gun proponents explaining how to clean and care for their guns get their accounts locked, videos get demonetized, commentary gets shadow-banned... despite claims of "it was a mistake" and "it's our AI", the results have been largely one-sided.
I don't expect Facebook to be smart enough to notice what's happening (or Google or Twitter), so the most likely outcome is that this will come to a head with enormous public outcry over something in the future (possibly the upcoming US midterm elections), and the companies will be forceably broken down into smaller pieces or made to submit to regulation.
A pity, really. Facebook could probably get a lot of consumer good will by being the champions of human rights.
Instead, they seem hell-bent on forcing governments to step in with regulation.
Re: (Score:3)
There will be a flood of calls to break up Google
There have been for the past decade. The reality is it won't happen.
Google engages in unfair media manipulation at its worst, they are literally trying to sway the results of an election to a candidate they prefer.
So they are a news company then? I'm not sure anymore if you're just stating the obvious, manufacturing outrage, or actually clueless as to how the media represents elections in general.
Gun proponents explaining how to clean and care for their guns get their accounts locked, videos get demonetized, commentary gets shadow-banned... despite claims of "it was a mistake"
Fake news. Google has never said it was a mistake.
the companies will be forceably broken down into smaller pieces
If you think this is likely you really haven't been paying attention to the past 30 years.
Why Zuckerberg? (Score:2)
Why not summon the head of Facebook's UK operations first? I don't understand their obsession. Did they ask the UK based employees already and not get a satisfactory answer, or something that can only be answered by the CEO?
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
All of the questions MPs want answered pertain to decisions being made by Zuckerberg and his US-based subordinates.
Ahhh so not Zuckerberg, but a bunch of people under him. So why not just ask their local UK office. I'm sure they can get that information for them.
Except they don't. Summoning someone foreign to something like this is not at all about answering questions, it's about staging a public show.
Re: (Score:2)
Because Zuckerberg is effectively responsible for every policy implemented by those under him. That's what being CEO means.
No, no he is not. Not unless he was personally involved in the decision in some way. That's what corporations are all about.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you German? Just asking because the German language doesn't have different words to describe responsible and accountable. The CEO is not responsible, he's accountable. Or at least should be. That doesn't make them a good target for an interrogation if you want questions answered.
Does make for a good lynching though.
Re: (Score:1)
Parliamentary select committees don't get much press, even in the UK, outside a few broadsheets and a bit of comment on Radio 4, and BBC Parliament which probably doesn't break a viewship of four figures at any given moment, and maybe five minutes on Newsnight. If you are going to do something for show, this isn't exactly the best forum.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not summon the head of Facebook's UK operations first? I don't understand their obsession. Did they ask the UK based employees already and not get a satisfactory answer, or something that can only be answered by the CEO?
Because they want a charade of an interrogation instead of actually doing anything.
If they really wanted to do something, they would be doing it, and not setting up a show.
Need (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Indeed - they need to get their own house in order first:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/... [theregister.co.uk]
Extradition FTW! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think they should get with the State Department and get him extradited like any other criminal.
Sure, just right after Iran finished with him on blasphemy charges.
I understand that Mark is least deserving person, but unless everyone is protected by our laws, no one is.
Re: Extradition FTW! (Score:2)
You think our laws protect commoners like us? Really?
Re: How about this? (Score:2)
Shills be shillin'
Donations (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does it really work both ways? That UFO nutter (the one who looked like a startled Patrick Swayze) who was accused of hacking wasn't anywhere near the US.
teh lulz (Score:2)
What's the UK going to do do enforce a "summons"?
Scotland Yard is too busy punishing bloggers and cartoonists for "hate speech", and both of their soldiers are already busy in Afghanistan.
They could always threaten to withhold all Tesco coupons, but Zuck's butler shops at Whole Foods.
Or maybe have an MI6 bot campaign spam-post swimsuit pictures of Teresa May to his personal timeline until he complies.
Re: (Score:1)
Teresa May is a porn actress. That would be a better threat if they were swimsuit pictures of Theresa May.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, it is a huge difference. One achieved fame for being elected head of the Tories, and the other gained her fame honestly.
Re: (Score:1)
And it's British things like this that led to the Eighth Amendment...
Political grandstanding (Score:2)
It will be just like in the US: politicians want to look concerned, so - wow - they're going to summon him and make him answer questions. The questions, themselves, of course, will be softballs. It's all about being seen on camera.
Summoned not for spying and PI gathering (Score:2)
Easy... (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing will get a mega-corp CEO in the room like a threat to their profits.
Re: (Score:2)
Just point out that the UK's Customs and Revenues Service will be taking a very detailed look at Facebook's tax returns, with a view to implementing necessary corrections in legislation that will prevent Zuck from off-shoring his profits to some tax haven.
Nothing will get a mega-corp CEO in the room like a threat to their profits.
And they will call the bluff. Not a bluff a per se but rather tax offices audit mega corporations all the time. Funny thing, every time they are found to be perfectly compliant with their immoral but legally enabled practices.
That's what you get when you pay your accountants more than the government does.
The USA's Julian Assange (Score:2)
yes senator (Score:2)
Re: Libeling me JustAnotherOldDouche? (Score:1)
Too much of a coward to address your spam post in the Twitter article yesterday? You're hiding.
As for this post, it contains a violent threat. Your deranged behavior has greatly increased to the point of making random posts in articles where the targets of your rage haven't even posted. It's time for you to be banned from Slashdot and involuntary committed to a mental health institution.