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."

101 of 167 comments (clear)

  1. Weeks? by OffTheLip · · Score: 1

    I guess he needs to bone up on his company security policy and business model.

    1. Re:Weeks? by Mr+D+from+63 · · 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.

    2. Re:Weeks? by zlives · · Score: 1

      congress is old fashioned and leery of bitcoin, it takes time to gather bribes in cash.

  2. I don't blame the little weasel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    The UK is a frightening police state where they imprison people over pet videos.

    1. 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.
    2. Re:I don't blame the little weasel by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

      Besides, he doesn't speak their languages...

    3. 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.

    4. Re: I don't blame the little weasel by Reverend+Green · · Score: 2

      We're mostly all against that.

      Next!!

    5. Re:I don't blame the little weasel by Anonymous Coward · · 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.)

    6. Re: I don't blame the little weasel by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      UK and Germany. Look at the Pokemon el-Catalonia.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    7. Re:I don't blame the little weasel by Subm · · Score: 1

      He can stay at the Ecuadorian embassy.

    8. Re:I don't blame the little weasel by Cederic · · Score: 2

      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.

    9. Re:I don't blame the little weasel by Cederic · · Score: 1

      No, he's referring to this stupidity:
      http://www.heraldscotland.com/...

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

      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 lawsuit, it would be very likely to be ruled protected speech under the U.S. first amendment. Which, for the record, does not exist in your police state.

      Go back to your free speech zone.

      Just read this news report:

      A man has been arrested on suspicion of inciting racial hatred after allegedly posting a tweet in response to the Brussels attacks. The tweet read: "I confronted a Muslim woman yesterday in Croydon. I asked her to explain Brussels. She said 'Nothing to do with me'. A mealy mouthed reply." Matthew Doyle, 46, was arrested on Wednesday night in Croydon.

      This would never happen in the U.S.

      So F you, and F your police state.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
  3. Business as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The UK Parliament are "dumb fucks" anyway.

    1. Re:Business as usual by bobbied · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:Business as usual by e3m4n · · Score: 1

      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, from 2003 - Present. Not a single president has ever been convicted in the senate and removed from office since the amendment was created to allow for impeachment.

  4. His prerogative by pdms · · Score: 1

    And I guess if would be the UKs prerogative to ban his site in the UK

  5. 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 thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The Zuck is complying where he has to , but more importantly why should he accommodate the non-binding asks of foreign governments?

    2. 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.

    3. Re:Facebook was built on dishonesty. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Except one is HIS government and the other is NOT.

    4. Re:Facebook was built on dishonesty. by e3m4n · · Score: 1

      I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit.

      its the only way to be sure.

    5. Re:Facebook was built on dishonesty. by hdyoung · · Score: 1

      Meh. Why so mad at Facebook and Zuckerberg? Anyone who bothers to think about Facebook with more than 3 neurons firing effectively will see it for what it is. First- kudos to Zuckerberg for leading the development of BY FAR the most successful socializing service on the internet. We're called "social animals" for a reason. Facebook is extremely effective at meeting a deep-seated human need for connection. Second - it doesn't charge users, so it's got to make money some other way. Companies don't run on air, moisture and dreams, they run on dollars. Third - anyone who has even the most RUDIMENTARY understanding of the internet would realize that Facebook is using your data to sell ads, and that anything posted there might as well be considered public domain.

    6. Re:Facebook was built on dishonesty. by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

      spoken like a large shareholder....

    7. Re:Facebook was built on dishonesty. by fisted · · Score: 1

      Drugs are helluva drug.

      --
      CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
    8. Re:Facebook was built on dishonesty. by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    9. Re:Facebook was built on dishonesty. by spire3661 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I dont think you understand the UK on this. They were not 'requesting', its an order couched in nice language. This move is going to cost him a LOT of political capital to fix. You dont refuse a 'request' from Parliament.

      --
      Good-bye
    10. Re:Facebook was built on dishonesty. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      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.

    11. Re:Facebook was built on dishonesty. by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      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.

    12. Re:Facebook was built on dishonesty. by Cederic · · Score: 2

      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.

    13. Re:Facebook was built on dishonesty. by Luthair · · Score: 1

      Not if Facebook wants to do business in that country. For example, companies that do business in the USA but aren't headquartered there are still subject to US embargoes.

    14. Re:Facebook was built on dishonesty. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      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?

  6. American Companies by sanosuke001 · · Score: 1

    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?

    --
    -SaNo
    1. Re:American Companies by e3m4n · · 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).

    2. Re:American Companies by Anonymous Coward · · 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!

    3. Re:American Companies by jd · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    4. Re:American Companies by jd · · Score: 1

      Sensible people have wanted the UN to take over the Internet, because countries mess it up all the time.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    5. Re:American Companies by MoaDweeb · · Score: 1

      Is this a self-appointed task or God-given?

      --
      New Zealanders are well balanced with a chip on each shoulder. One represents Australia, the other the rest of the world
    6. Re:American Companies by Cederic · · Score: 1

      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.

  7. Suckerberg? by pdms · · Score: 1

    I like it!

  8. The big tech trial... by cloud.pt · · Score: 1

    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?

    1. Re:The big tech trial... by cloud.pt · · Score: 1

      well, so much for ignoring that Preview feature...

  9. 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 zlives · · Score: 1

      don't do the crime, if you can't do the time.

    4. 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.
    5. Re:Cuts both Ways by tomxor · · Score: 4, 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.

    6. Re:Cuts both Ways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Dublin isn't in the UK either.

    7. Re:Cuts both Ways by e3m4n · · Score: 2

      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 themselves in a world of shit. Suddenly all financial assets would find themselves frozen (im not a banker but similar stuff happened in the 80s when they took all of Noriega's money). I don't know how the world banking industry works in such cases, but suffice to say that they CAN and DO use the world banking mechanism to seize cash. If FB were violating laws in the EU or UK, with regards to their citizens, they can impose fines, and international agreements made between countries will go and collect large swaths of cash from poor baby zuckfuck.

    8. 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
    9. Re:Cuts both Ways by Luckyo · · Score: 2

      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.

    10. Re:Cuts both Ways by freeze128 · · Score: 2

      What if Facebook doesn't technically "do business" in the UK? Suppose they don't sell adverts to the UK, but still allow UK users to log in and post for free? Is that still "doing business"?

    11. Re:Cuts both Ways by ISoldat53 · · Score: 1

      What else has he got to do?

    12. Re:Cuts both Ways by sit1963nz · · Score: 1

      Just look at Kim Dotcom.

    13. Re:Cuts both Ways by sabri · · Score: 1

      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 another country where online gambling is legal. Yes, he may ask local ISPs to block it, but he has 0 jurisdiction to force that foreign company to do anything.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    14. Re:Cuts both Ways by Trongy · · Score: 1

      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.

    15. Re:Cuts both Ways by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      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 you are not and it is a prosecutable criminal offence. All the PR agencies, advertising forms, forced ads internet companies, new agencies, are all on notice and it means cases will have to be pursued that would normally be ignored. Messy, messy, messy, if you are or ever have been a paid internet troll, watch out, you might be getting an arrest warrant delivered to you, once they go down that particular rabbit hole a lot of people are fucked, trolls, hmm, so something good to look forward too ;D.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    16. Re:Cuts both Ways by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      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.

    17. Re:Cuts both Ways by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      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 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 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.

    18. Re:Cuts both Ways by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

      Until the March 2019, 2019 Brexit date, the UK is still part of the EU http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-pol... 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.

      --

      I'm not repeating myself
      I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
    19. Re:Cuts both Ways by dwillden · · Score: 1

      If they can come up with an extraditable criminal charge then ok. But this was a request to testify, not face criminal charges. Additionally, as a US Citizen he is not subject to Parliament or it's whims so that charge is not one that we would extradite for. Thus as he is subject to Congressional Subpoena's (and contempt of Congress) he is testifying there.

      You cannot hold a citizen of another nation with no allegiance to your government in contempt of requests or demands of that government.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    20. Re:Cuts both Ways by dwillden · · Score: 1

      He has to abide by UK laws in how his business operates in the UK. But he still has no obligation to go before Parliament. He is a US Citizen, not a British subject. Parliament can tax or fine FB and even shut it down in the UK (and face the outrage of the people for blocking their FB feeds). It cannot compel a citizen from another country to testify before it. If the actions of his company are criminal acts they can indict him, and then try to extradite him to the UK to face those charges. But that would be to face charges in criminal court, not testify before Parliament.

      He will testify before the US Congress, as is proper. The UK Parliament can go fly a kite.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    21. Re:Cuts both Ways by sabri · · Score: 1

      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 responsible for the content of their ads. The transactions are done through local subsidiaries, since Facebook Inc is not a legal entity in the U.K.

      The platform is not run by those local subsidiaries. It is run and paid for by Facebook Inc. The end-user freely provides their data to Facebook Inc, which does not exist in the U.K. The fact that local subsidiaries sell ads on the facebook.cum website makes no difference.

      This is nothing more than yet another third world police state parliament trying to bully an American company. Because when it comes to civil liberties, the U.K. police state is ranking very low these days.

      And for the record, I'm not exactly a big fan of Facebook.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
  10. A wrench in his presidential aspirations by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  11. Not "Big Tech" by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 4, Interesting

    These are data miners, not technologists. They provide little to no net benefit to society, they simply trick idiots into handing them information so they can sell it off to marketing and PR parasites.

    1. Re:Not "Big Tech" by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      All of those things can be done without these companies. The companies listed do those things as bait to acquire data. That's like saying there's merit to allowing animals to eat and trappers sticking bait in bear traps are the good guys.

    2. 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

    3. Re:Not "Big Tech" by NicknameUnavailable · · 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.

    4. Re:Not "Big Tech" by MoaDweeb · · Score: 1

      Rupert Murdoch did purchase Myspace which is still available.

      --
      New Zealanders are well balanced with a chip on each shoulder. One represents Australia, the other the rest of the world
    5. Re:Not "Big Tech" by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      MySpace was one of the first ones Facebook killed. They imported the user base then shut down all the search functionality, thereby crippling the site. It's never recovered since then because the thing about MySpace which made it good was the ability to search by interest, keyword, traits, hobbies, etc - basically all the stuff Facebook collects and sells off about users, but it was all available to users to use unfiltered (e.g. MySpace itself wasn't applying filters to limit anything - be it for subscription promotion like dating sites or for social engineering like Facebook and dating sites.) You could use it to meet people in any category you'd get along with easily, since they changed it it's just useless. They didn't technically close them down, but they effectively did by crippling the functionality.

  12. ...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.

    1. Re: ...or worse by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      That is arguably the stupidest thing I've heard on the internet today.

      #FakeNews

    2. Re:...or worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I thought we were an autonomous collective?

    3. Re: ...or worse by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      It's a parliamentary committee, which is not the government, any more than a Congressional commitee is the President.

    4. Re:...or worse by e3m4n · · Score: 1

      You're fooling yourself. We're livin' in a dictatorship, a self-perpetuating autocracy, in which the working class--

    5. Re:...or worse by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      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...

    6. Re:...or worse by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

      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 another.

      I know that this is hard to comprehend for an American but the UK and other parliamentary governments are only bound by custom and a general desire to behave well. This is a far better system than a written constitution since it gives far more flexibility while also preventing the rich from hiring armies of lawyers to strike down laws that they do not like....which is exactly why Zukerberg should be concerned because, unlike the US, his army of lawyers will find it very hard to protect him from a parliament that is out to get him.

    7. Re:...or worse by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      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 prevents a government passing whatever laws it likes, given sufficient support.

      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

      My god what happens if a constitutional amendment gets passed that repeals the majority of the constitution??? See how this works?

      because of a well-established principle that no parliament may bind another.

      Except that in practice we have signed up t otreaties which cede control in certain areas like the ECHR and they can overturn things.

      I know that this is hard to comprehend for an American

      You're arguing with a Brit you numpty. And you seem to be very ignorant about how non-British systems work, too.

      but the UK and other parliamentary governments are only bound by custom and a general desire to behave well.

      That's the same as all other systems.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    8. Re:...or worse by Cederic · · Score: 1

      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.

    9. Re:...or worse by tomxor · · Score: 1

      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"

  13. Re:"Refuses"? by tomhath · · Score: 1

    And what could Zuckerberg say that any other top Facebook executive such as the CTO or chief product officer could't say. This is just posturing by politicians and clickbait by BeauHD

  14. Re:Zuckerberg did nothing wrong by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

    TOS is not an excuse to break laws. Facebook's seeming invincibility or suspension of reality is ending.

  15. "We are accountable", *I* am not personally though by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

    You know, it's a corporation thing... The shareholders made me do it.

  16. Re:Zuckerberg did nothing wrong by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

    And what law is that? Funny how when Obama did it in 2012 nobody complained.

  17. sound and fury signifying nothing by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

    Photo op for politicians. No laws were broken, at least no one has cited one law that was broken. All that has been implied is that data was mis-used, which is also incorrect. Data was mined and used. Just like Obama did in 2012.

    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.

    1. Re:sound and fury signifying nothing by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 3, 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...

      The UK Data Protection Act. 1998.
      That's the law that was broken.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    2. Re:sound and fury signifying nothing by jd · · Score: 2

      Data Protection Act, both the British and European versions.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    3. Re:sound and fury signifying nothing by Cederic · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:sound and fury signifying nothing by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      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 - and for that they deserve to be set ablaze.

    5. Re:sound and fury signifying nothing by jd · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  18. good for him by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

    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.

  19. The Gospel According to Q by sexconker · · Score: 1

    >>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

  20. 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...

  21. Data by M2616 · · Score: 1

    Isnt Facebook's business model based on being able to capitalize on user data? Do people not understand this when they setup an account with FB? Honestly, I dont understand why people are upset about this.

  22. Re:First HOSTS by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

    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).

  23. Re:Zuckerberg did nothing wrong by MoaDweeb · · Score: 1

    '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.

    --
    New Zealanders are well balanced with a chip on each shoulder. One represents Australia, the other the rest of the world
  24. Re:Reciprocity, AND it makes sense by Cederic · · Score: 1

    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.

  25. Enjoy The Tax Audit, Mr Zuckerberg... by ytene · · Score: 1

    Facebook [and other companies] have been using a variety of loopholes to smuggle profits out of the UK for years.

    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 not the case here - and being rude to a government is not going to help his case much.

  26. So What by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    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?

    --
    Just another day in Paradise