Country Officials Outraged Over Zuckerberg's Absence from Hearings

AlphaAtlas

AlphaAtlas

[H]ard|Gawd
Staff member
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
1,713
As we've reported before, this is a bad time to be Facebook. The company is under fire for a number of scandals around the world, and now, they're facing outrage from parliamentarians who intended to question Zuckerberg over the Cambridge Analytica data scandal. Instead of getting Facebook's CEO, the 24 representatives from the UK, Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, France, Ireland, Latvia, and Singapore got Richard Allan, Facebook's vice-president of policy solutions. When answering some of the questions, Allan allegedly told the representatives that "he would have to come back with more details," while Damian Collins told the BBC that the documents recently seized from Facebook could be published next week.

"We've never seen anything quite like Facebook, where, while we were playing on our phones and apps, our democratic institutions... seem to have been upended by frat-boy billionaires from California," Canadian lawmaker Charlie Angus said at a special international hearing at Britain's parliament. "So Mr Zuckerberg's decision not to appear here at Westminster (Britain's parliament) to me speaks volumes," he said, later suggesting Facebook could be broken up to help address the issues.
 
Last edited:
Biznatch said:
Well it's going to hurt when each of the countries make their own regulations regarding facebook, or just ban it outright. I'm thinking it might be a good time to start a long short position.....
Click to expand...

true but what does he care he made his money
 
No sympathy for Zuckberg or the social media addicts but if you dont like facebook then just block it in your country. No one is forcing you to use it or not have space for another company to create a copycat for your country that you have more control over. Where does it stop? What if Somolia or PRNK become outraged that he didnt show for their hearings??? Is this one guy obligated to travel to every country in the world for their political photo ops? So everyone knows how OUTRAGED they are feelings?
 
For those who aren't aware, Facebook and Google want to be regulated. They've been gaslighting the public for a few years about this, amplifying their own scandals, Facebook putting out thousands of ads over a long period of time 'apologizing'. This is not normal corporate damage control. They want the public to put pressure on the government to regulate them.

Why? Because if Facebook and Google need 200 employees dedicated to complying with regulations, it won't even register in their financial statements.

Now, what is the likelihood of a startup being able to deal with those same regulations? It puts up a regulatory barrier to competition, entrenching the existing players as de facto monopolies.

This is not a conspiracy theory, but common practice in many industries. Lobby for regulations that won't be a problem for you, but will make it nearly impossible for a new player to challenge you in the market.

"Oh please, PLEASE don't regulate us, that's something we definitely don't want!"
- Brer Rabbit
 
maxius said:
zuck may the head of a multinational but he does not have sit for anyone except the usa congress
Click to expand...

Technically he doesn't even have to sit for them. He could refuse. The fine is only $1k and 1 year in prison max for refusing a subpeona and it has to make it through the House and the courts before that happens.

the-one1 said:
Zuckerberg can send them a pic of his butt hole and there's not a damn thing they can do about it.
Click to expand...

Wrong: Extradition. If he breaks a law in a country we have an extradition treaty with then by treaty we have to hand him over. Not saying that will happen just that there ARE consequences.
 
maxius said:
true but what does he care he made his money
Click to expand...

Really he made his shares, when those shares tank because Facebook is in legal trouble he loses his money fast. You're right, he's still going to be very rich, he certainly won't go broke, but he'll feel it. That's all before the recovery and civil suits start if things get really bad. That's what could break him and cost him his freedom.

That's why even the oiliest of oil barons will sit in the hot seat and take their medicine, they have a lot to lose.
 
facebook partnered with Obama for his 2012 election essentially giving a politician access to nearly the same data as this cambridge scandal. Except they claim cambridge was helping the opposing party. Can't have that.
 
kju1 said:
Do you have a source for that?
Click to expand...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/17/obama-digital-data-machine-facebook-election
"A unified computer database that gathers and refines information on millions of potential voters is at the forefront of campaign technology – and could be the key to an Obama win"

This is from way back in 2012, when a trans-national corporation partnering with a political party to tilt the election in a certain direction was celebrated. The 'good' kind of meddling, apparently.
 
GlowingGhoul said:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/17/obama-digital-data-machine-facebook-election
"A unified computer database that gathers and refines information on millions of potential voters is at the forefront of campaign technology – and could be the key to an Obama win"

This is from way back in 2012, when a trans-national corporation partnering with a political party to tilt the election in a certain direction was celebrated. The 'good' kind of meddling, apparently.
Click to expand...


Where does it say they had access to the same data as CA?.... This issue was never that C.A. gathered facebood data, it's that they violated the TOS to get access to data they should not have been allowed to. So are you saying facebook gave Obama's campaign that same level of access violating their terms? Or are you just posting a source about political campaigns using big data and trying to include the Obama campaign in a completely unrelated legal issue? Because I have new for you, the GOP has also been using big data analytics in their campaigns for years, and are WAY better at it than the left.
 
GlowingGhoul said:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/17/obama-digital-data-machine-facebook-election
"A unified computer database that gathers and refines information on millions of potential voters is at the forefront of campaign technology – and could be the key to an Obama win"

This is from way back in 2012, when a trans-national corporation partnering with a political party to tilt the election in a certain direction was celebrated. The 'good' kind of meddling, apparently.
Click to expand...

This looks to me more like they asked people for their data and idiots gave it to them.
 
Biznatch said:
Where does it say they had access to the same data as CA?.... This issue was never that C.A. gathered facebood data, it's that they violated the TOS to get access to data they should not have been allowed to. So are you saying facebook gave Obama's campaign that same level of access violating their terms? Or are you just posting a source about political campaigns using big data and trying to include the Obama campaign in a completely unrelated legal issue? Because I have new for you, the GOP has also been using big data analytics in their campaigns for years, and are WAY better at it than the left.
Click to expand...

Do you have a source for that?
 
kju1 said:
Technically he doesn't even have to sit for them. He could refuse. The fine is only $1k and 1 year in prison max for refusing a subpeona and it has to make it through the House and the courts before that happens.



Wrong: Extradition. If he breaks a law in a country we have an extradition treaty with then by treaty we have to hand him over. Not saying that will happen just that there ARE consequences.
Click to expand...

First, I don't see that they can compel Zuckerberg to appear. Nor can they reasonably hold him in contempt if he doesn't. He is not a citizen of any country in the EU. Their questions revolve around Facebook policies and Facebook sent a senior member that specifically handles the policy.

Second, that isn't really how extradition works. The US does not have to hand over someone just because they have a treaty. There are a number of different processes that affect whether or not an individual will be extradited, including showing proper legal reasons for extradition.
 
NoOther said:
First, I don't see that they can compel Zuckerberg to appear. Nor can they reasonably hold him in contempt if he doesn't. He is not a citizen of any country in the EU. Their questions revolve around Facebook policies and Facebook sent a senior member that specifically handles the policy.

Second, that isn't really how extradition works. The US does not have to hand over someone just because they have a treaty. There are a number of different processes that affect whether or not an individual will be extradited, including showing proper legal reasons for extradition.
Click to expand...

Its not that hard to imagine a situation in which the EU passes a law requiring CEOs of countries in their little corner of the world to show upon legal summons if such a law doesn't already exist. Then all they have to do is apply the extradition process. Note I didn't say it was easy or that we would AGREE to it. I just said it was possible...the post I replied to said there wasnt shit they could do to him. I disagree. If you break a law in another country you can still face consequences.
 
Biznatch said:
Well it's going to hurt when each of the countries make their own regulations regarding facebook, or just ban it outright. I'm thinking it might be a good time to start a long short position.....
Click to expand...
And there is the moment that the ideals of the Internet died. Gone are the concepts of choice and being open to other cultures of the world, nope they have to follow their rules if they want their citizens visiting other websites. I mean don't get me wrong China has been doing it for ages, but everyone knows they're scummy. The grand openness that was the Internet has reverted to following the rules of each individual entity, whether they're about collecting data, collecting taxes, or collecting the surfing habits of their citizens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Madoc
like this
kju1 said:
Its not that hard to imagine a situation in which the EU passes a law requiring CEOs of countries in their little corner of the world to show upon legal summons if such a law doesn't already exist. Then all they have to do is apply the extradition process.
Click to expand...
It's not too hard to imagine a situation where all these internet companies pull a "Cayman Islands" type of situation and don't have any physical presence in these other countries, including all the jobs they provide, and then there's no violation of rules of any particular country since they don't exist in those countries, and hence can't be held accountable for the laws of them either.
 
NoOther said:
First, I don't see that they can compel Zuckerberg to appear. Nor can they reasonably hold him in contempt if he doesn't. He is not a citizen of any country in the EU. Their questions revolve around Facebook policies and Facebook sent a senior member that specifically handles the policy.

Second, that isn't really how extradition works. The US does not have to hand over someone just because they have a treaty. There are a number of different processes that affect whether or not an individual will be extradited, including showing proper legal reasons for extradition.
Click to expand...

Of course they can. Facebook is a registered business entity in the EU, conducts business in the EU, pays taxes in the EU, and he is the principal officer.

They can impose penalties for failing to appear if given a lawful order to do so, they can even bar Facebook from doing business in the EU.

If criminal charges are preferred, he'd be extradited, or be in violation of extradition treaties, as long as there is an equivalent criminal law in the US.
 
maxius said:
true but what does he care he made his money
Click to expand...


Are you somehow forgetting that if one of these more influential nations decides that old Zucky committed a crime, they could ask for his extradition and the US might just give it to them?

I suppose he could partner up with Julian Assange in the Ecuadoran embassy, but I'm understanding that Julian has quite the odour lately, Mark may not be so inclined.
 
GlowingGhoul said:
Of course they can. Facebook is a registered business entity in the EU, conducts business in the EU, pays taxes in the EU, and he is the principal officer.

They can impose penalties for failing to appear if given a lawful order to do so, they can even bar Facebook from doing business in the EU.

If criminal charges are preferred, he'd be extradited, or be in violation of extradition treaties, as long as there is an equivalent criminal law in the US.
Click to expand...

Facebook is registered, but that doesn't mean they can compel an individtual. If they want to impose penalties on the company they can. But saying they can compel a non-citizen to show up for court based on something regarding the company and then prosecute the individual for not showing is not a valid legal claim.

Again, you would have to show how Zuckerberg committed a crime. Not being a citizen what obligation is Zuckerberg under to show up?
 
kju1 said:
Its not that hard to imagine a situation in which the EU passes a law requiring CEOs of countries in their little corner of the world to show upon legal summons if such a law doesn't already exist. Then all they have to do is apply the extradition process. Note I didn't say it was easy or that we would AGREE to it. I just said it was possible...the post I replied to said there wasnt shit they could do to him. I disagree. If you break a law in another country you can still face consequences.
Click to expand...

Did you forget what you posted just a few posts above? Let me remind you:

kju1 said:
Wrong: Extradition. If he breaks a law in a country we have an extradition treaty with then by treaty we have to hand him over. Not saying that will happen just that there ARE consequences.
Click to expand...

You are literally saying that because of a treaty we "have to hand him over". That is not true.
 
sfsuphysics said:
And there is the moment that the ideals of the Internet died. Gone are the concepts of choice and being open to other cultures of the world, nope they have to follow their rules if they want their citizens visiting other websites. I mean don't get me wrong China has been doing it for ages, but everyone knows they're scummy. The grand openness that was the Internet has reverted to following the rules of each individual entity, whether they're about collecting data, collecting taxes, or collecting the surfing habits of their citizens.
Click to expand...

To be fair, if you are monetizing a resource (In this case personal data) from a particular nation, you should be held to that nations laws. Profiting from advertising or via donation shouldn't be held to the same standards as those aren't monetizing a resource. Consumer data is a resource ergo should be regulated just like any other resource. That's my position on it anyway.
 
NoOther said:
Facebook is registered, but that doesn't mean they can compel an individtual. If they want to impose penalties on the company they can. But saying they can compel a non-citizen to show up for court based on something regarding the company and then prosecute the individual for not showing is not a valid legal claim.

Again, you would have to show how Zuckerberg committed a crime. Not being a citizen what obligation is Zuckerberg under to show up?
Click to expand...


I believe you are incorrect in this case.

If an individual who serves as a company officer is summoned to appear before a court, and if failure to appear is a crime, then extradition for that criminal offense is entirely possible.

In this case however, no such legal summons was issued and Mark Z. was simply "invited" to appear. It would seem that they did not wish to legally compel him to appear before the court and simply hoped he could be convinced if asked nicely.
 
lcpiper said:
I believe you are incorrect in this case.

If an individual who serves as a company officer is summoned to appear before a court, and if failure to appear is a crime, then extradition for that criminal offense is entirely possible.

In this case however, no such legal summons was issued and Mark Z. was simply "invited" to appear. It would seem that they did not wish to legally compel him to appear before the court and simply hoped he could be convinced if asked nicely.
Click to expand...

I am not sure what you are saying was incorrect about my statement. My contention is that unless Mark Zuckerberg himself is called to account for a crime he committed, there is no obligation for him to show up. A CEO does not have to answer for the crimes of the company, but they may have to answer for crimes they committed as CEO. This is my point, their questions had to do with Facebook policies and how Facebook is addressing those policies. In that particular case, there is no obligation that Zuckerberg show up, and FB did the appropriate thing of sending the appropriate officer (the policy officer).

Also, even if they were to subpoena Zuckerberg himself for a crime related to his role as CEO, that does not mean he would be immediately extradited. There is a process for extradition that one needs to go through. My point was that extradition is not an automatic.

Their point wasn't really to get Zuckerberg to show up, their point was to grandstand and make a huge circus out of the fact that he did not show up. The world is going completely bonkers on what they believe is obligation, and mostly because the masses are eating up all the BS the media puts out.
 
41NW%2B3hisdL.jpg


buy one of these and he might show up.
 
NoOther said:
I am not sure what you are saying was incorrect about my statement. My contention is that unless Mark Zuckerberg himself is called to account for a crime he committed, there is no obligation for him to show up. A CEO does not have to answer for the crimes of the company, but they may have to answer for crimes they committed as CEO. This is my point, their questions had to do with Facebook policies and how Facebook is addressing those policies. In that particular case, there is no obligation that Zuckerberg show up, and FB did the appropriate thing of sending the appropriate officer (the policy officer).

Also, even if they were to subpoena Zuckerberg himself for a crime related to his role as CEO, that does not mean he would be immediately extradited. There is a process for extradition that one needs to go through. My point was that extradition is not an automatic.

Their point wasn't really to get Zuckerberg to show up, their point was to grandstand and make a huge circus out of the fact that he did not show up. The world is going completely bonkers on what they believe is obligation, and mostly because the masses are eating up all the BS the media puts out.
Click to expand...


A CEO can damned well be held criminally liable or crimes committed by the company if he is proven as complicit in the crimes.

He can also be compelled to appear before a court of law.

But as I read your comment here more thoroughly I come to realize that we both actually are saying the same thing and believe the same thing. Yes someone can be extradited, yes their is a process, but in this case it's not even part of the equation, he was not summoned to appear, moot point, wasted breath. I'll stop chasing your tail on this if you'll stop chasing mine :D
 
I think many of these leaders are worried Zuckerberg may have enough dirt on them to push for this dissolving of facebook.

No matter how you slice it, nothing good is going to happen to Facebook.
 
DNMock said:
To be fair, if you are monetizing a resource (In this case personal data) from a particular nation, you should be held to that nations laws. Profiting from advertising or via donation shouldn't be held to the same standards as those aren't monetizing a resource. Consumer data is a resource ergo should be regulated just like any other resource. That's my position on it anyway.
Click to expand...
I dunno, if some Brazilian company chopped down all the rain forest hardwood trees and delivered them to Lumber Liquidators for a boat load of money are you going to go after Lumber Liquidators as criminals? Or the company who chopped down the trees?

The analogy goes like this, Facebook is not a EU company, they are an entity on the web, it's the residents of that country that go to Facebook of their own free will, and give up all their data freely. I get the idea of other countries may not allow you to TOS your non-fundamental rights away, but how are you supposed to deal with something that's as easy as typing in an address that goes to some other world? I know the parallels between "real world" and "interwebs land" are sketchy, but I see this as the same as someone who flies to another country and that country records all their personal data upon entry, would the country be held responsible for laws of where the person came from as far as privacy of records?
 
Here's what I'm wondering: What are the politicians hoping to accomplish in a hearing with Zuckerberg, aside from scoring cheap political points? They're not going to uncover any new facts. The issue has already been beaten to death and analyzed in excruciating detail.
 
sfsuphysics said:
..................Facebook is not a EU company...................
Click to expand...


Ehemmmm ....................

https://en-gb.facebook.com
https://de-de.facebook.com
https://fr-fr.facebook.com

International companies, like Facebook, may have a home in the US or elsewhere, but they also open offices in other countries, doing business in those countries, subject to those countries laws.

It's the cost of doing business abroad as a multinational business.

Hell, even in the US, a company like Facebook, or Apple, can be required to make adjustments for individual State laws. Take Privacy Notice laws as an example.
 
Last edited:
I have not read the comments, but why don't those countries that do not like Facebook, just stop it from entering their country?
Too simple or am I missing something?
 
Hagrid said:
I have not read the comments, but why don't those countries that do not like Facebook, just stop it from entering their country?
Too simple or am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Because they arent China.
 
Hagrid said:
I have not read the comments, but why don't those countries that do not like Facebook, just stop it from entering their country?
Too simple or am I missing something?
Click to expand...

I'd call your attention to this map. It's not just about blocking a Facebook website. Facebook operates portals within these other countries, business locations with servers, networks, data storage, the works.

https://www.facebook.com/careers/locations


I removed the oversized map, it was overkill, but the link to the page remains.
 

Attachments

  • 36987520_1175972525883206_5127367580423553024_n.png?_nc_cat=101&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-1.png
    36987520_1175972525883206_5127367580423553024_n.png?_nc_cat=101&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-1.png
    551 KB · Views: 37
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top