Slashdot Mirror
Zuckerberg Rebuffs Request To Appear Before UK Parliament (apnews.com)
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has rejected a request to appear before an international parliamentary delving into the questions around fake news. From a report: The rebuff came after Damian Collins, the head of the U.K. parliament's media committee, joined forces with his Canadian counterpart in hopes of pressuring Zuckerberg to testify, as he did before the U.S Congress. Facebook rejected the invitation to appear before the so-called "international grand committee" session Nov. 27, arguing it wasn't possible for Zuckerberg to appear before all parliaments.
Play the Commonwealth card! Her Majesty calls you to testify before the 2.4 billion citizens of her Commonwealth Realms and allied republics, many of whom are nations currently targeted by Facebook.
I wouldn't either, even were I pure as the driven snow.
I have no love for Zuck or FB, but it's hard to see this as anything but a dog and pony show, or a kangaroo court.
There's no benefit to him, and plenty of potential downside. Why would he show up?
He must have better things to do than fly around the world explaining things
Then the UK Parliament must keep whatever assumptions they have about Zuck without him having a chance to defend himself or his company, and legislate accordingly.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
to say nothing about inviting the asking of serious questions about the power of the state to censor, etc.
The UK already does censor. There are things called super injunctions that rich people and royals can use to silence the press when they do something embarrassing (and the newspaper's are not even allowed to admit they're being censored when it happens). There is also already censorship of certain types of consensual pron. UK regularly censors what is on children's shows. Some shows from America have to be reworded before being allowed to be shown in UK or get banned altogether. And... don't forget hate speech. You can be arrested just for saying something hateful about a minority.
In many ways Britain is a free and forwards-looking country- but in many other ways it is a censor-heavy contradiction of itself and what it purportedly believes in. I love the UK but it has some back-ass censorship laws in place. They're not going to block Facebook; but, don't act surprised if Britain censors anything. The government certainly reserves the right and there is no written constitution that forbids them.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
If I - as an American - were asked to appear before foreign government bodies for questioning, my response would not be so politic.
They were likely thinking that this foreign US company called Facebook, was conducting business worth billions in their countries with their citizens, likely violating local privacy and finance laws in the process, and before going nuclear with penalties, fines, and extraditions they wanted to give the CEO opportunity to defend his company's actions.
Will they deny him entry into Commonwealth entities? That might be inconvenient, but that would be all.
Contrary to what many people think, the Commonwealth member nations are actually independent, or at the very least, self-governing. The UK cannot dictate to the rest of the Commonwealth to ban or otherwise sanction any individual. In other words, even that minor inconvenience isn't even on the table. (And, no, Elizabeth II cannot try throwing her weight as Queen around, even in nations where her power is more than ceremonial, without potentially triggering a wave of monachy abolition movements.)
Obviously, the Commonwealth nations could agree to take some action, but that is unlikely on anything but the least controversial issues. Everyone has a dozen mutually incompatible agendas of their own, never mind trying to figure out something they all agree on with others.
If it works in theory, try something else in practice.
"it wasn't possible for Zuckerberg to appear before all parliaments"
Funny, he seems to have the time to court nearly every country's MARKETS, but not to speak to their government. What, he's got a lot of paperwork to do?
He had the time to basically wander across America on his apologia tour https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0... (that was turned into an hilarious meme https://mashable.com/2017/09/2...). But not for, say, the democratically elected representatives of a major western government to speak with him?
-Styopa
and before going nuclear with penalties, fines, and extraditions they wanted to give the CEO opportunity to defend his company's actions.
And defend he would. To the courts, and to the legal challenges against him. On the other hand this is a shitty parliamentary inquiry without legal binding what so ever. There is literally no benefit to him given the allegations against him to talk to these people.
The Count Dankula kerfuffle certainly shows what side the UK stands for. What a fucking waste of taxpayer money that was.
Indeed, if you're an F1 millionaire you can get away with Nazi themed sex parties with prostitutes dressed as concentration camp guards and have the newspapers silenced so they can't report on it (at least for a time). If you're a nobody and you post a video showing you pranking your girlfriend by teaching her cute dog to do a Nazi salute you get charged with a hate crime
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Why should Zuckerberg testify before a UK governmental body? Facebook is for the record, Facebook UK LTD, a corporate entity in the UK. He is not one of the officers of that entity. The nearest person of interest in that UK entity is Sheryl Sandberg (Director).
Because despite trying their hardest to appear so, Parliament is not in fact a total bunch of muppets and do in fact know who is in charge of facebook.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
If it's not "every government in the world" then it's highly relevant. A statement cannot be both true and false. You seem to imagine that false statements that are grandiose give Zuckerberg an air of respectability. He just wants to make me puke. And he can get off my lawn.
Since Facebook committed crimes on British soil, Britain does indeed have the right to subpoena him. They are entitled to place an international arrest warrant out for him, due to the seriousness of the existing charges, if they so wish. However, failing to respect a subpoena is also a crime sufficient for an international arrest warrant.
The EU is another matter. Whatever other rights they have, they have the absolute right to block Facebook not only from Europe but from anywhere that can be reached via European backbone links, which is just about everywhere not America. (Facebook has traded in personal data in violation of EU privacy law, which means that the EU has the legal authority to prohibit anyone from doing business with it.) That gives them the authority to demand whatever the hell they want.
Zuckerberg is not big or bright, he's not turning up not because he's busy but because he's a coward who knows that he can't buy his way out of trouble the way he did with the US government.
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)
If someone refuses informal requests to appear before a select committee of the House of Commons with the power to send for persons, papers and records then they can formally summon him. Failure to appear when summoned would make him liable to be declared in contempt of Parliament. In theory, Parliament has the power to imprison those it finds in contempt, which would mean that Zuckerberg would probably want to avoid entering the UK. In practice, I think it would be unprecedented for the committee to issue a formal summons to a non-citizen non-resident. If you want a longer discussion, I found a Commons briefing document from 2016.
No, no power. Except to totally ruin your business model.
And, yes, they do have power. Failure to answer a subpoena is a criminal offence.
Which means he can't answer to the British courts, because as soon as he turned up, he'd be arrested for contempt of Parliament. Under the British system, this can be indefinite, since Britain is leaving the EU and will no longer follow EU law obligating them to limited tariffs.
He has sold personal information to agents of a hostile power that has launched multiple chemical warfare attacks against Britain. What sort of trial do you think he'd get?
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)
Contempt of Parliament is a crime in the UK and, for the remainder of the time it is in the EU, a crime across Europe. The UK is eligible to issue an International Arrest Warrant, although no nation is obligated to honour it. It does, however, mean Zuckerberg can't risk going anywhere outside of America because any nation might decide to cash in.
Russia was given material aid by Facebook, Russia has launched radiological and chemical weapons attacks on Britain, it wouldn't take much for MI6 to find a way to spin it that these are related. The potential damage to the Facebook brand vastly exceeds any legal penalty that could be exacted by Britain, although the EU could come close by fining Facebook $50 billion, a fine fairly normal for them when they want to discipline a corporation.
A great many international Internet links enter Europe through Britain. Makes it handy for Five Eyes. Also makes it very handy for filtering.
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)
Parliament is run by Fraggles, the Lords by Muppets.
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)
This case involves a country known to some as Russia.
You may not be aware of this, but MI5 and MI6 aren't happy with Russia right now. Neither are quite a few hospitals, police forces, tea shops or other organizations, but it's generally the people with power that matter.
Aiding and abetting Russia through providing material support in a criminal enterprise... It's not going to fly, is it? Seriously? That's an open invitation to the lawyers. That the incidents are probably unrelated is irrelevant. All you need is some basis you can offer to a judge in a foreign country and you've got yourself an international arrest warrant. Any time Zuckerberg goes outside of the US, he gets slapped with an extradition request.
Doesn't matter if he never does, either. If it causes Facebook shares to crumble in value, he's maybe not broke but certainly not the mogul he makes himself out to be. And that wouldn't be hard. Psychological Operations is the military term. And he's handed them a near-infinite supply of ammo for it.
His ego is extremely fragile, the real reason he didn't go. I do not believe it would be difficult for MI6 to exact a very British revenge.
Or, as Number 6 from The Prisoner would say, who is hammer and who is avil?
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)
How's life in the hypocrite lane?