Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Leaked Documents Reveal Facebook's Global War On Data Privacy Laws (theguardian.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the leaning-in dept.

"Facebook threatened to pull investment projects from Europe and Canada if lobbying demands from COO Sheryl Sandberg were not met," reports Business Insider, adding "Canada buckled immediately."

And that's just the beginning. The Observer reports: Facebook has targeted politicians around the world -- including the former UK chancellor, George Osborne -- promising investments and incentives while seeking to pressure them into lobbying on Facebook's behalf against data privacy legislation, an explosive new leak of internal Facebook documents has revealed. The documents, which have been seen by the Observer and Computer Weekly, reveal a secretive global lobbying operation targeting hundreds of legislators and regulators in an attempt to procure influence across the world, including in the UK, US, Canada, India, Vietnam, Argentina, Brazil, Malaysia and all 28 states of the EU...

The documents appear to emanate from a court case against Facebook by the app developer Six4Three in California, and reveal that Sandberg considered European data protection legislation a "critical" threat to the company. A memo written after the Davos economic summit in 2013 quotes Sandberg describing the "uphill battle" the company faced in Europe on the "data and privacy front" and its "critical" efforts to head off "overly prescriptive new laws...." John Naughton, a Cambridge academic and Observer writer who studies the democratic implications of digital technology, said the leak was "explosive" in the way it revealed the "vassalage" of the Irish state to the big tech companies. Ireland had welcomed the companies, he noted, but became "caught between a rock and a hard place... Its leading politicians apparently saw themselves as covert lobbyists for a data monster."

A spokesperson for Facebook said the documents were still under seal in a Californian court and it could not respond to them in any detail: "Like the other documents that were cherrypicked and released in violation of a court order last year, these by design tell one side of a story and omit important context."

48 of 128 comments (clear)

  1. Facebook=Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Remember, the Facebook is good. The Facebook is love. The Facebook is life. The Facebook must grow. Walk without rhythm and you won't attract the Wyrm.

    1. Re: Facebook=Good by r_naked · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If someone has a Facebook account at this point they are a fucking moron.

      I love the rationale of: "That is the only way I can stay in touch with family and friends".

      Yeah, really, then you are an even bigger moron, and you deserve everything that comes from your stupidity.

      --
      -- http://anonet.org -- The internet the way it was meant to be. Check it out, you may be surprised.
    2. Re: Facebook=Good by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      If someone builds a competing service to Facebook, either they charge for the service (and nobody uses it because "Facebook is free") or they sell their users privacy (and get corupted just like what happened to Facebook and Google). Maybe we can convice the Government to run this as a public service? To stop the Russians from rigging elections, right?

    3. Re: Facebook=Good by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      If someone has a Facebook account at this point they are a fucking moron.

      Not having a Facebook account doesn't stop them from tracking you all over the internets. Noscript or ublock does that. I use both, plus a separate cookie mangler.

      I use Facebook because that's where discussion groups I want to participate in are located. I don't share incriminating personal information there, I just talk about bus conversions and shit. The state already knows I drive a bus conversion.

      I also block ads, so Facebook can only make money on me by what, selling my personality profile? So what, people will find out I'm interested in buses, cb radios, and auto paint? Oh noes!

      You can refuse to use Facebook, that's not stupid. But nor is using it, or at least, no dumber than using any other site you don't control personally. Most websites track and monetize you. You might as well say the same thing about using Slashdot. Noscript suggests there's four+ different trackers on the page I'm typing this comment into right now.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re: Facebook=Good by bagofbeans · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Facebook can only make money on me by what, selling my personality profile?

      It's a bit more than that. Facebook makes interfences about you based on similarities between the data it has on you and other people. That projection data profile is what it sells. If that assessment suggests to your insurer that you are a higher risk, there's nothing you can do about it, even if the alert is false.

      This is where the privacy battle is going to be. If you have a smart meter, your high resolution consumption pattern may suggest that you're growing or manufacturing something illegal - so probable cause. The ensuing no-knock invasion could leave you dead due to a false positive. Without that smart meter, no suspicion, no probable cause, no warrant.

    5. Re: Facebook=Good by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Without that smart meter, no suspicion, no probable cause, no warrant.

      Wrong. Refusing the smart meter installation is itself suspicious. At minimum, you're untrusting and/or anti-authoritarian. Or maybe you're trying to hide your usage patterns. The same is true of a Facebook account. If you don't have one, many will take that as a suspicious sign. The fix isn't to refuse to use Facebook, it's to seek legislation to make it illegal to base decisions which will affect your life on Facebook metrics.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re: Facebook=Good by bagofbeans · · Score: 2

      Or maybe you're trying to hide your usage patterns.

      Yup. None of their business. Like most of my lifestyle details. There is a difference between 'privacy' and 'secrecy'.

    7. Re: Facebook=Good by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      If you don't have one, many will take that as a suspicious sign.

      It's why I have an (almost empty) facebook profile

    8. Re: Facebook=Good by fafalone · · Score: 2, Informative

      Police were using electricity consumption to look for grow houses long before smart meters were invented. The electric company always had the information so they could bill you, and thus it's a "business record" over which you have no privacy interest and the police could freely access thanks to our courts penchant for shitting all over whatever "right" gets in the way of police.

    9. Re: Facebook=Good by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      If your country's elections can be "rigged" by screwing around with a social media platform, then your country deserves the end result.

      1960: s/a social media platform/TV shows/
      1930: s/a social media platform/radio shows/
      1880: s/a social media platform/newspapers/
      1700: s/a social media platform/ye town crier/

      'twas ever thus.

      Fucking moron doesn't even begin to describe the average American voter.

      Aaaaand (picking a purely hypothetical example out of the air) British voters are so much more savvy, as they've recently demonstrated.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    10. Re: Facebook=Good by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      A typical school bus is 40' long, 8' wide, and the interior space is about 6' tall in the center. Some of them have a 6'6" ceiling, though. The walls are about 2" thick, the roof and ceiling are curved and the space between them is 2-3" thick. You may do the math and convert to tapes, and thus to LoCs.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re: Facebook=Good by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Yup. None of their business. Like most of my lifestyle details. There is a difference between 'privacy' and 'secrecy'.

      Yeah? But what are you trying to hide?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re: Facebook=Good by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I didn't realize I had a choice when they upgraded my meter, but I don't have any objections to it either. They do provide nice detailed usage reports for me even correlating usage to weather.

      I don't know where you live, maybe they're using decent meters. PG&E isn't. The meters they have chosen a) are failure prone b) tend to read high and not low when they fail c) sometimes literally burst into flames. We had a combi lock on our gate, we shared the code with PG&E and they were to call before using it, and not share it with third parties. Then they shared it with the contractor they were using to do smart meter installs, so we changed the lock and didn't give them the code any more. We were also photographing our meter and sending the photos to our reader, then PG&E changed their policies so that we couldn't do that any more. PG&E is a criminal conspiracy.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  2. This is the profit motive at work by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Whenever it is more profitable for a company to invest in corrupting the political process instead of improving its services, it will invest in corrupting the political process.

    This process is unstoppable when the added benefit of unequal cost/benefit distribution makes it expensive for the other players in the market to oppose such political "investment", and multiplies the profits of the corrupting entity many times over.

    1. Re:This is the profit motive at work by Solandri · · Score: 2

      This process is unstoppable when the added benefit of unequal cost/benefit distribution makes it expensive for the other players in the market to oppose such political "investment"

      BS. This process is trivial to stop. People just need to read the EULA and understand exactly what it is they're giving up when the agree to use a service like Facebook. Nobody puts a gun to your head and forces you to use Facebook. It's completely voluntary.

      So fundamentally, this isn't a problem with companies or profit or a corrupt political process. At the very root of it all, the problem is people being lazy and not really thinking about what they're agreeing to give away in exchange for participation in a social media service. Equating it to corporate behavior or corrupt politics is tantamount to admitting that people are too dumb to do the right thing for themselves, and cannot be educated to behave more sensibly. Which basically means you disagree with the entire philosophy of democracy, where you trust the people to make the right decision.

    2. Re:This is the profit motive at work by dryeo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nobody puts a gun to your head and forces you to use Facebook. It's completely voluntary.

      I'm finding it harder and harder to avoid Facebook, too many things happening on it or requiring it. Sure i can and do not get involved in my community because it now all happens on Facebook, can't even post a letter to the editor in the local paper because you need a Facebook login, and so on.
      As the article hints at, at some point Facebook will succeed in lobbying the government to require Facebook to access government services, unless you're willing to travel a hundred miles and find the room in the basement with the sign about beware of leopards.

      The other thing with Facebook is I have to actively avoid them more and more as they're everywhere. Hidden scripts and 1 px images on unrelated web pages for example. I never agreed to their tracking me but they sure try, probably have a shadow account of me with too much info on it as I doubt that I'm 100% avoiding them.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    3. Re:This is the profit motive at work by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So fundamentally, this isn't a problem with companies or profit or a corrupt political process.

      So, "fundamentally", how to you explain the hard facts in TFA about Facebook trying to bribe politicians into supporting anti-data harvesting legislation then? Since this is /., I will not ask if you've read TFA, but instead quote TFS for you:

      FB has been promising investments and incentives while seeking to pressure them into lobbying on Facebook's behalf against data privacy legislation.

      And it has not been a small thing either. It is a well-orchestrated worldwide operation: documents ... reveal a secretive global lobbying operation targeting hundreds of legislators and regulators in an attempt to procure influence across the world, including in the UK, US, Canada, India, Vietnam, Argentina, Brazil, Malaysia and all 28 states of the EU

      You think this isn't a problem? You think it is easy for the average voter to confront corporate subterfuge on this scale? You must be quite ignorant of how politics works, then, because it is happening everywhere and you, the average guy, have been sidelined from the political process by corporate long before you were born.

      This process is trivial to stop.

      You don't say. How easy is it to stop an operation like the one described above? Please elaborate, I'm very interested to hear about it. How do you learn about it, how do you get access to the likes of the UK prime minister or MPs on equal footing with Zuckerberg. How do you get your ass to Davos, mister, where Zuckerberg flies on his private jet with his army of manipulators? Show me how you've done it.

      Please show me how "trivial" it is to stop a large international corporation, which business model is abusing the lack of global oversight, from shopping for politicians willing to sell out their constituency. Show me also how "trivial" it is to block Facebook from completely spying on you while you're using the Internet on all your devices if you're not a somewhat competent sysadmin.

      Equating it to corporate behavior or corrupt politics is tantamount to admitting that people are too dumb

      "Equating" what, my friend? The described facts about FB trying to influence the "race to the bottom" in privacy with various forms of bribery so that they can use their other manipulative technologies to spy on users does not show that users aren't "dumb" at all. It shows how insidious and ruthless the said corporation is.

      Do you think that you are as clever as the whole technical and marketing machine that is FB? You have delusions of competence, my dear. You saying you can stand your ground alone against FB is tantamount to you admitting you have no idea how easy a target you are.

    4. Re:This is the profit motive at work by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 1

      Well, start counting. Wake me up when it is stopped. I won't be holding my breath.

    5. Re:This is the profit motive at work by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      people are too dumb to do the right thing for themselves, and cannot be educated to behave more sensibly.

      Call me a cynic, but look at history. I think it proves the point, doesn't it?

      There are perhaps counterexamples - the American revolution, England getting rid of the monarchy, England restoring the monarchy - but I suspect the reason why we study them is precisely because they are so rare.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  3. Naughty boys and girls by tsa · · Score: 1

    Naughty boys and girls. It's time for a Europe-wide ban on selling data without the users consent.

    --

    -- Cheers!

  4. Politicians sold us out, sadly! by bogaboga · · Score: 2

    "Facebook threatened to pull investment projects from Europe and Canada if lobbying demands from COO Sheryl Sandberg were not met," reports Business Insider, adding "Canada buckled immediately."

    If I had the means, I'd have asked FaceBook to take a hike.

    I guess thy would have taken one anyway. A number of nations continue to survive [and thrive] without FaceBook. Besides, our youngsters would be more sane to a degree without it.

    1. Re:Politicians sold us out, sadly! by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      They buckled immediately because they knew they could say anything and if it ever came down to it the courts would be the ones to decide jurisdiction not them. There was no downside to placating her.

    2. Re:Politicians sold us out, sadly! by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      "Facebook threatened to pull investment projects from Europe and Canada if lobbying demands from COO Sheryl Sandberg were not met," reports Business Insider, adding "Canada buckled immediately."

      If I had the means, I'd have asked FaceBook to take a hike.

      Then you would have lost the means. These politicians got elected by claiming they gave people "stuff", which happened to be Facebook projects of different sorts. The politician that doesn't get "the jobs" doesn't get "the job". I'll go out on a limb here and make the prediction that AOC won't be re-elected, and the deciding factor, regardless of its merits, will be her stance on the Amazon deal.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  5. It's sad, really by jenningsthecat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This news should have people all over the world protesting in the streets against corporate interference in governance, and Facebook should wake up tomorrow to find at least 90% of their user base simply gone. If people had any sense, knew what was good for them, and had the will to act on the knowledge, Facebook would be a fucking ghost town within a month and entirely dead within a year.

    What's almost certain to happen instead is two or three news cycles of feigned outrage on the part of governments, a similar period of feigned contrition on the part of Facebook, people swearing off Facebook for a week, and then... nothing. Business as usual will continue; what should be a brick wall that stops Mark Fuckerberg dead in his tracks, will be a minor speed bump on the road to complete abolition of personal privacy.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    1. Re: It's sad, really by sound+vision · · Score: 2

      Yes, the only reason people value their privacy is because of the evils of Socialism. Pay no mind as Facebook constructs the US's very own Social Credit System with the data. Even Grandma is plugged in these days. What are you, some kind of Luddite? Look, cats!

    2. Re:It's sad, really by yodleboy · · Score: 2

      Well, at least now we know what Slashdot account Mark Zuckerberg uses.
       
      Auto correct is trying to change Zuckerberg to rubbernecker. Even my browser knows he's watching me.

    3. Re:It's sad, really by jenningsthecat · · Score: 2

      Wow! Even when I assume that you're posting in good faith and not shilling, I still find it hard to know where to begin. Given your relatively low UID and the reasonably high coherence of your writing, it seems unlikely that you are unaware of the implications of all this data gathering. Facebook has already been outed for experimenting on its users by manipulating their news feeds and gauging their responses. Was this innocent psychological research in the name of furthering human knowledge? No, it was testing the feasibility of using the data they gather to manipulate users' emotions and behaviour toward a desired end. Can you not see that all of this data collection and profiling is leading to a state where powerful forces that are pretty much answerable to nobody, know more about us than we know about ourselves? And that's not just a figure of speech - I mean quite literally that Facebook, Google, and the like can predict their users' behaviour better than the users themselves can. It's clear to anyone who's not in denial, that their end game is to be able to influence people even more consistently and effectively than their own close friends and family members might. I'm quite sure Big Data can do that to a large number of their users right now; but even if I'm wrong in that, do you honestly believe they won't succeed in doing it in the very near term?

      On the other hand, if you really believe that they aren't using the data they gather to manipulate people without their knowledge and informed consent; or if you believe that their efforts are harmless or ineffectual; or if you think that people who fall prey to that manipulation are weak or stupid, or are lacking in character or personal responsibility; then all I can say to you is "stop drinking their Kool-Aid, give your head a shake, and get a clue".

      As for "falling for a socialist narrative", I started to gain a deep distrust of online data gathering back in the Classmates days - that was before both Facebook and Google. The only narrative involved is mine - it's based on a lifetime of observations of corporate behaviour.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    4. Re:It's sad, really by ayesnymous · · Score: 1

      Let's buy FB stock then, at least get something out of losing our privacy.

    5. Re:It's sad, really by jwymanm · · Score: 1

      Great reply. I get that point about the data but tell me if you think Facebook is the only one that can or is doing that? I believe that the government doesn't want the competition. I mean the entire point of data collecting is to be used to as you say to "manipulate people." Either by making a product or advertisement more effective or whatever Facebook had planned. But should the laws apply to general data collection which is a freedom we all have or should the laws be applied to the manipulation act? It's like guns. Should we outlaw guns or should we outlaw killing people with guns (which is already outlawed). I guess that is what I was getting at without so much as saying it. We're all free to collect data. I don't even know how you expect to stop companies from doing it. But when it comes to use that data and "be evil" that is when you/government can do something and stop them. You conflate state with Facebook also. Facebook is a company. It doesn't pass laws (minus lobbies which I am against) and it doesn't put people in prison or take rights away from people. If Facebook were a state in the USA or country I'd be out there with a pitchfork first thing along with you guys.

  6. I deleted Facebook ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... on Feb 7 of this year. It won't go into effect until Mar 9 and I must not log back in because the beast will escape the steely knife.

    I used a program (FBP) to purge ALL of my Facebook data (it was time-consuming) and deleted leftover data manually.

    Then I deleted ... not deactivated. I just know those motherfuckers didn't delete a goddam thing, but I can't control them.

    I'm an amateur photographer, guitar player and singer, and a retired IT guy who can help other people.

    Facebook was a good place to share my work and keep in touch with family, friends, and like-minded strangers.

    I have no replacement. Other social media are not as high profile, but they are just as evil.

    I know that my disengagement doesn't mean a goddam thing to Facebook, but it means something to me.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:I deleted Facebook ... by Picodon · · Score: 2

      I know that my disengagement doesn't mean a goddam thing to Facebook, but it means something to me.

      I know what you mean but, really, this may be the only way successful social movements can really start.

    2. Re:I deleted Facebook ... by Dunkirk · · Score: 2

      I thought I deleted it my account 2 years ago. Like, I specifically went through a process, according to some web site, that was supposed to delete it -- not just deactivate it. I recently found that I needed to recreate an account. Lo and behold, I couldn't use my same email address. I reset my password. Everything was still there.

      We all understand that they never delete anything from their side, but, at this point, I'm not even sure they have removed the stuff you think you've deleted from your timeline for anyone else.

      --
      Acts 17:28, "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being."
  7. The more we learn about Facebook... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... the worse Facebook looks.

    1. Re:The more we learn about Facebook... by Miser · · Score: 1

      Heh. You're just NOW figuring this out?

      I knew it from the start. Never had a Facebook, never will.

      -Miser

  8. "tell one side and omit important context" by mrspoonsi · · Score: 2

    Let me help fill in that missing context, facebook wants to collect as much data as its servers can hold on everyone on the planet, even those not signed up to facebook. They want to use this data to further their own aims, be it sell adverts, or ensure facebook retains its position in the market through all means available to them...

  9. sloppy reporting by the Guardian by epine · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I normally like the Guardian, but I'm annoyed they didn't mention the names of the ministers in Malaysia and Canada who immediately buckled.

  10. Missing context by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

    Business Insider: "Facebook threatened to pull investment projects from Europe and Canada if lobbying demands from COO Sheryl Sandberg were not met," ...

    Facebook: "Like the other documents that were ... released ... these by design tell one side of a story and omit important context."

    Missing Context: Facebook also threatened the politician's families -- including their dogs.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  11. GET OFF FACEBOOK by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It's time for Zuckerbook to DIE, plain and simple. Start by deleting your Facebook account and going back to actually being social with people you actually know.

  12. Hosts by betsuin · · Score: 1

    cat /etc/hosts | grep face
    # localhost is used to configure the loopback interface
    127.0.0.1 www.facebook.com
    127.0.0.1 facebook.com
    127.0.0.1 login.facebook.com
    127.0.0.1 www.login.facebook.com
    127.0.0.1 static.ak.connect.facebook.com
    127.0.0.1 connect.facebook.net
    127.0.0.1 www.connect.facebook.net
    127.0.0.1 apps.facebook.com
    ::1 www.facebook.com
    ::1 facebook.com
    ::1 login.facebook.com
    ::1 www.login.facebook.com
    ::1 static.ak.connect.facebook.com
    ::1 connect.facebook.net
    ::1 www.connect.facebook.net
    ::1 apps.facebook.com
    127.0.0.1 facebook.com
    127.0.0.1 www.facebook.com
    127.0.0.1 connect.facebook.com
    127.0.0.1 developers.facebook.com
    127.0.0.1 ads.interfacelift.com
    127.0.0.1 ads.ak.facebook.com.edgesuite.net


    I've probably missed a few.

  13. What did you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Dumb fucks" - Marc Zuckerberg on his first few 100 users.

    Then he got filthy rich. To him his strategy and way to treat users obviously worked. Why change?

  14. so, let the docs be revealed by AndrewFlagg · · Score: 1

    so what, let the docks be revealed. what harm can be done by telling the truth. if profit, greed, and motivation to skirt the laws and wield influence over some politicians... uh... that's nothing new... its legal.. called lobbying though heavily corrupted when $^7 or greater is exchanged in the alley.

  15. Lobbying 28 states of the EU by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    They lobby the all 28 states of the EU, but they must also lobby the EU commission, which is the only institution in EU that can start a new directive.

  16. You are the product by FeelGood314 · · Score: 1

    Until people actually start paying for the social media sites they use then you will continue to be treated like the pigs in a factory farm than. I know of one good pay to use social media site and they do an amazing job. We need to get over this free mentality. It's not free.

  17. Whatsapp's ties to Facebook by twosat · · Score: 1

    A cousin of ours in Italy was almost screaming to my sister during a phone call the other day to use Whatsapp. She uses Whatsapp with other family members, but I am leery about getting involved with something that has ties with Facebook. She is not interested in using other programs like Hangouts or Signal that I was suggesting. I was thinking about getting a cheap mobile phone and a SIM with no other contacts on it to use Whatsapp exclusively with her. Anybody here have any experiences with Whatsapp to relate?

    1. Re:Whatsapp's ties to Facebook by havana9 · · Score: 1

      I have for them this old advertising. By the way I have a flat VOIP number with a landline number and unlimited calls and I am using the exact white and light cyan phone you see there. Excellent audio quality.I don't understand why people doesn't make phone calls, I know that whatsapp does more than phone call, but I know also that cost isn't a problem because nowadays there are a lot of flat plans with it. Una telefonata allunga la vita

  18. electricity consumption by bagofbeans · · Score: 1

    Meters read once a month don't tell a lot. Grow houses use electricity all day, all night - which a smart meter has the resolution to report.

  19. Re: In China, you mean? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    If their suspicions based on not having FB make them search, search. You won't find anything. If they tried to "do" anything based on those suspicions alone, my lawyer makes money on the deal.

    Tomorrow's headline: Internet tough guy shot while resisting arrest.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  20. This is an example of why real democracy is by PJ6 · · Score: 1

    impossible without controlling the international flow of capital.