Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Zuckerberg Refuses UK Parliament Summons Over Facebook Data Misuse, Agrees To Testify Before Congress (techcrunch.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the come-to-terms-with dept.

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."

12 of 167 comments (clear)

  1. Facebook was built on dishonesty. by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why would Zuckerberg comply with anything other than armed officers escorting him out of the building? The entire service was built on dishonesty. Stolen from another student, built to keep tabs on coeds they wanted to bang, and slurping and exploiting data on the other two billion people who have signed up since then. Facebook is toxic. Facebook is a cancer on the Internet. Facebook brings out the worst in people. Facebook breaks every privacy law a million times every day. The Internet needs to rid itself of Facebook.

    --
    Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
    1. Re:Facebook was built on dishonesty. by Luthair · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He's CEO of a company that does business in the UK, no different than being summed by the US government.

  2. Re:I don't blame the little weasel by sabri · · 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.

    --
    I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
  3. Cuts both Ways by Roger+W+Moore · · 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.

    1. Re:Cuts both Ways by Luckyo · · Score: 2, 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.

    2. Re:Cuts both Ways by Blymie · · Score: 2, 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.

    3. Re:Cuts both Ways by sabri · · Score: 1, 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 court may have some jurisdiction when it comes to the adspace being sold, and local taxes to be paid, but that's about it.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    4. Re:Cuts both Ways by AmiMoJo · · 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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  4. Re:I don't blame the little weasel by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  5. ...or worse by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They can do a lot more than just ban his site. Really annoying an entire government is a dangerous thing to do given that they literally make the rules and the UK has no written constitution to constrain it: it's a parliamentary dictatorship.

  6. Re:"We are accountable", *I* am not personally tho by slew · · Score: 4, 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...

  7. Re:Not "Big Tech" by Anonymous Coward · · 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