How does this work? How does UK know who Zuckerberg is? Shouldn't they be dealing with Facebook UK ceo? Zuckerberg is a private US citizen as far as UK is concerned, no?
Edit: stop being smartasses (to the no longer top voted replies). I am asking from a legal perspective. Facebook UK is the only entity UK law should know of (acc to my limited understanding)
The UK civil service is generally literate, and has been following corporate heirarchies longer than the US has existed. Finding the CEO of a publicly held multinational corporation is not difficult.
> Shouldn't they be dealing with Facebook UK ceo?
Facebook UK doesn't seem to be the source of the issue they are concerned with.
> Zuckerberg is a private US citizen as far as UK is concerned, no?
And...so, what? While the UK Parliament may not have legal authority to issue compulsory summons in this case [0], that's not what they’ve done. They’ve asked him to testify, not issued notional compulsory demand. (The US Congress has occasionally done the same thing in the past to foreign CEOs.)
Of course, there is the implicit threat that if their concerns aren't allayed, there may be legislative actions directed at curbing the capacity of Facebook to undertake actions which raise similar concerns in the future.
> Facebook UK is the only entity UK law should know of
This is simply wrong. UK law needs to be cognizant of not only the officers but also the owners of Facebook UK, Ltd., and Facebook, Inc., is the dominant owner of Facebook, UK Ltd.
And, Facebook, Inc. not being a natural person, UK law and government needs to be cognizant of the officers, etc., of that firm, as well. It simply is not the case that foreign persons and entities are non-existent from the perspective of the law of the UK (or any other nation, generally.)
Heck, the US not only criminally indicts foreign citizens for violations of US domestic law outside of the US, it has used that as the basis for armed invasions (see, notably, the case of Manuel Noriega.) The UK merely inviting a foreign CEO to a parliamentary inquiry is comparatively routine.
[0] well, okay, they actually do, because parliamentary sovereignty, but they may lack practical enforcement powers.
Non-subjects can be compelled, most recently Rupert Murdoch in 2011 (wrt the News International wiretapping scandal), which along with his son James was AFAIK the last time a Speaker's Warrant to summon witnesses was issued.
As for Commonwealth countries... they have judiciaries independent* of the UK. If the subject was to visit an EU member state, the execution of a European Arrest Warrant would be a more feasible possibility, although I would think it's fairly remote (I mention it to put the Commonwealth point into perspective).
*Some Commonwealth realms (two or three, off the top of my head?) retain the Privy Council as part of their constitutional and judicial arrangements.
He said it was "now time to hear from a senior Facebook executive with the sufficient authority to give an accurate account of this catastrophic failure of process".
Requesting a response to the letter by 26 March, the MP added: "Given your commitment at the start of the New Year to "fixing" Facebook, I hope that this representative will be you.""
At a previous hearing, Facebook mislead a parliamentary committee.
Committee chairman now requesting accurate account from "senior Facebook executive" with proper authority.
Chairman "hopes" that will be Zuckerberg.
Poll: Do you think Facebook will have Zuckerberg give this account, or will they assign this task to some other Facebook employee? Feel free to explain your answer.
They'll probably send their highest level UK exec, or US exec that serves in some kind of ambassador role.
Edit: Plus, if Zuckerberg screws up and says something he shouldn't or commits to something he shouldn't, Facebook has no recourse. If they send a representative, that representative can always be deemed to not be properly representing the company, the statement can be clarified, and/or the representative can be chastised or replaced.
They will need of that all.
I think that sending “only” the Chief counsel Colin Stretch to the US Parliament was seen as a snub and they will want to correct that. The stock drop hurts: Mark sees that as his own performance review and the drop was large.
- Nicola Mendelsohn CBE (Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, a British high-ranking title) is the CEO of the International holding (based in Dublin); as her title indicates, she’s in Whitehall as a fish in water and she’s certainly already making sure everything is fine; I’m not sure she will speak publicly, but she will absolutely brief the speakers on who is on the committee, so look for her in the delegation;
- Sheryl Sandberg is widely seen as the politician whisperer; I can’t imagine her not close to this; she’s more soft-spoken than other in this list, the most European in the team and a good orator, especially when things get complicated; I’d recommend her as she’s the recognised “grown-up”: some of Mark’s star power and closer to the age group of the committee;
- Elliot Schrage, Head of Comms, PR (& somehow also Legal); he is a fixer and the kind of attorney claiming his bloody-handed client is innocent; he’s directly involved in most of that and I think not sending him would be a mistake; he can be a little too American and brash for something like Whitehall so I would definitely make sure he’s properly trained, but that guy could sell them their own shirts and get paid a commission for the pleasure; I was surprised that he wasn’t at the US Commission hearing;
- Colin Stretch, Chief Legal counsel, didn’t made a great showing in the US, so it’s unlikely he’ll speak, but I can’t imagine he won’t be close;
- Boz who twitted about it would make sense, as he’s still the head of Ads and I believe was in charge of the Platform at the time, but he kind of already burned himself with the argument that it’s not a “data leak” and might not play well.
- Chris Cox has a notoriously staggering reality-distortion-field. He’s a probably billionaire with Facebook but would likely have made more money as a cult-leader. Works well on larger, more passive crowd, but this is an angry committee looking for his pound of flesh -- I’d be surprised, but if he talks, I would demand all of you watch it, because that is probably going to be spectacular public speaking, even by the Parliament’s high standards; Chris had been to London earlier in the past years (there are many product teams there); whether the felt this was productive might influence if he find the time to come back;
- for the rest of the leadership committee: Mike Schroepfer (CTO) has a real work to do, and is less relevant; I don’t know Dave Wehner (CFO) but he’s probably less relevant too.
Mark works with all those (and a handful more) as a close committee and I suspect that he mainly limits travel to avoid being too far from that committee for too long. To avoid breaking that, it is possible that most of those people show up. It will be disruptive of many of them to go, but it will send a strong signal and they can reach out to different members individually more effectively that way.
Facebook has misunderstood why European countries are trying to regulate them since their opened the service internationally. Getting at least to understand how UK see what they are doing would help. I would encourage them to reach out, as UK is the easiest to understand in detail and the closest to the US system.
On the other hand, Facebook would be keen to downplay the incident and might not send senior people -- but that’s misunderstanding British politics.
Chris Cox and Mike Schroepfer are going, which is a very reasonable set: both are very knowledgeable, articulate speakers. I’m not sure how much of a scalping MPs will want it to be. I’m afraid that British politicians don’t appreciate Mark’s stance that his lieutenants understand the situation better.
As I wrote: Chris is a magician, so we’ll see.
I'd guess it's more likely than not that Zuckerberg himself will appear.
The reason is simple: this is the nightmare scenario that privacy advocates have been talking about. It's a massive leak of personal data, which has been deliberately and seriously abused, and there is substantial evidence of profound implications going to the heart of our democratic processes.
It also happened just a few weeks before arguably the biggest shift in privacy law in the history of the EU comes into effect, and all of this is set against a backdrop of much increased public scepticism about both social networks specifically and big data hoarders in general, following a string of other worrying stories (some of which were about Facebook and some of which weren't, but that doesn't matter very much as far as public sentiment goes).
If this one is handled badly, it really could become an existential threat to Facebook's current very lucrative business model throughout the EU. And apparently it's already been mishandled on a previous occasion with the same parliamentary committee, so sending someone that isn't going to command the committee's confidence this time would be mishandling on a scale of pulling the pin and dropping the grenade at your feet.
The legal perspective is that Parliament decides the law of the UK. If Zuckerberg doesn't turn up, then he is snubbing the very people who decide the future of Facebook UK.
it also sets a precedent for other (european) countries to try the same.
If he doesn't show up their, they might take this "up the bloc" so to speak, and make this an european issue.
Does facebook want that on it's hands?
But that should not have any impact on cooperation in such areas where the U.K. and the rest of the EU have a long history of friendship.
Facebook, as well as Russia’s murders and chemical weapons attacks, are a problem for all. The U.K. should and will get the solidarity of all rule-of-law countries, both as a matter of friendship and self-interest.
The only real impact a government can have, cutting Facebook access, even in the direst circumstances, is rarely a smart option.
Serious question: if I were to be called by the UK chair of the committee, aside from optics - why cant I just say "FU"? What authority do they have over me?
NOTE: Not defending FB/Z
Here's a bit more: https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z...
They could find you in contempt, which would matter if you ever visited the UK.
The risk for Facebook is that the public are increasingly frustrated with big companies not paying their fair share of tax. Some people will say "but they're only paying what the law says they have to pay". Those people are failing to understand the British cultural value of "not taking the piss". Not attending would be saying "FU", and that's likely to add to the pressure to make these large companies pay more tax.
> [I]t remains unclear what sanctions it would have at its disposal. Historically, those found guilty of contempts could be fined or imprisoned, but those sanctions have not been used by the Commons since 1666 and 1880 respectively. For all sorts of practical, legal and constitutional reasons, it is highly doubtful that the modern House would seriously consider this.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/contempt-witn...
Is this accurate? The House of Commons briefing paper on Select committees: evidence and witnesses[1] describes the power as:
> In general a select committee with the power to send for persons, papers and records may summon any person within the United Kingdom jurisdiction as a witness.
[1] researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06208/SN06208.pdf
Assuming the UK law and parliament cared exclusively about Facebook UK LTD, take a look at who runs that. [1] Unsurprisingly the majority of shares and control belong to Facebook, Inc. A company that Zuckerberg is an officer of.
[1] https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06331310/persons-...
If they're at the "just having a talk" level, they still want to talk to the people who set direction over the relevant parts of Facebook. Which is less obvious, but is still Facebook Inc.
I'll grant that Facebook UK is probably involved with advising the parent company about local laws. However, assume hypothetically that any and all privacy or data protection laws are repealed in the UK tomorrow. Who do you think would set the marching orders for what data is acquired in the UK, and how it is used? Facebook UK?
If Facehook UK existed for more reasons than having a legal entity to handle the UK affairs of Facebook Inc, I'd agree with you. Say, for example, if Facebook UK owned a newstand magazine edited in London and sold primary in England. In that case, if parliament wanted to talk about the magazine then Facebook UK would be the right entity to talk to first.
If you have an extremely good reason not to attend, maybe you can get away with sending sincere apologies and an adequate delegate to appear on your behalf, at least in the short term. Otherwise, while it might not be possible for the committee to compel Zuckerberg to appear before them in person by law, failing to do so would almost certainly have repercussions for Facebook's continued success in the UK.
Sure, in the same way that Facebook's continued operation in the UK without full tax and data protection investigations is only a big favour.
Guess which "favor" has the biggest impact...
Which "entity" is Facebook in the UK? Well, there's no facebook.co.uk. If you scrabble about for an "about" on facebook.com, it lists the US headquarters. The SSL certificate says "Facebook, Inc".
If I traceroute in the UK to "facebook.com" I get 157.240.1.35, which although it geolocates to London is an edgebox in the 157.240.0.0/16 block registered to ... Facebook Inc, Menlo Park.
The UK office is just for buying advertising, it's not publishing to the public.
Possible answer, Facebook UK/EU (or a related company) is owned by Facebook US, who has Zuckerberg as one of the owners/directors.
Unfortunately, the BBC News article misrepresents what the select committee chairman actually said with his letter, which was to merely request Zuck's appearance before the committee. There is no suggestion in the letter itself that Zuck is being 'summoned', which would be both amusing and embarrassing.
See this briefing if you want to delve in the UK's arcane political system http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN062... (pdf)
[1] http://publicregulatoryblog.fieldfisher.com/2016/declining-a...
How would they not know who he is? It's the world's largest social media platform, they're going to know who he is. What kind of reasoning is this?
The Government may call up whoever they like, and not showing up would be a bad thing for Facebook operations in the UK.
I however assume the original poster was more inclined "do the, have any means to summon some American citizen" (to which the answer is "they can summon who they like, and the other can do what they like, unless his state of residence has some form of agreement (like extraditement in criminal court cases)")
I'm assuming you're American so let me use an American metaphor. The UK House of Commons is basically the House of Representatives. They hold enormous direct legal authority.
But this inquiry is still information gathering regardless, is it not? It's not of any prosecutorial nature, and it needn't be the actual leader of Facebook's UK entity if they don't believe that the UK entity has a ton of control over Facebook in general in all the ways it affects the UK.
edit: Holy shit, downvote storm - if I'm wrong about their legal authority, I'm wrong, but where are the other explanations for why that house is summoning Zuckerberg that contradict mine?
One is directly elected (Commons) one isn’t (Lords) though the Lords is somewhat indirectly due to political appointees.
The Prine Minister is the leader of the majority Party in the Commons.
The House of Commons consists of elected MPs, and forms our primary legislative body. The typical process is for legislation to originate in the Commons where it's brought forward by the government of the day, go through various stages where it bounces back and forth between the Commons and the House of Lords, and then become law when it receives royal assent. The latter is almost entirely a formality these days, and while the Lords can and routinely does propose amendments to laws and can delay laws it isn't happy with, ultimately the Commons can overrule them if it really wants to. Various other possibilities for originating legislation exist, but they are rarer, and the Commons still ultimately wins disagreements if it chooses to.
Our administrative/executive government is not independently elected, but rather a Prime Minister is selected to form it. The PM is almost always the leader of a party that can command the support of the Commons, either with an outright majority for their party in its own right or through some sort of coalition or other partnership agreement. Consequently, the PM is usually an MP themselves. They then select, normally from among MPs and Lords, other people to form a Cabinet and take on the various senior positions in the government. In principle, the holders of these posts are all servants of the Crown for traditional reasons, but again that is essentially a formality today.
Aside from its direct legislative duties, Parliament (the Commons and Lords) also conducts a lot of work in committees like the one we're talking about today; arguably, this is where most of the real work actually happens, since these committees often provide the detailed scrutiny of new proposed legislation within their field as well, but more generally the work of the committees may guide both legislation and the actions of the government (that is, the executive/administrative element led by the PM).
In short, MPs are really the heart of our system of government, and being awkward when a parliamentary committee invites you to attend is not going to end well.
The Commons, while technically not the Sovereign, is the sovereign body here. Being called in front of one of their committees is Serious Business in UK terms.
Under the Parliament Acts, other than narrow exceptions, the House of Lords can only delay bills. The Commons can pass most legislation without the consent of the Lords.
In this case it is a "select committee", which is a cross-party group of MPs which has been appointed to investigate the case. Committees can also invite special outside advisors to help. Select committees are not criminal investigations; their findings are passed to the government for consideration.
The house of commons is the elected body and is by far the most powerful body of UK government. A select committee is a group of people (largely made up of members of the house of commons) with a specific goal in mind. In this case investigating the actions of Cambridge Analytica and Facebook. These findings will then be delivered to the House (of Commons) along with any recommendations. The government has a large influence as to who is on the select group, so normally listens to their advice.
In Belgium for instance, the monarch has to sign all legislation into law. For personal reasons, could not sign a abortion bill drafted by the belgium parlement.
Because denying to sign the bill directly would results in basically the end of the monarchy, he decided to "resign" for a day, the cabinet assumed his powers, the bill got signed, and he was reinstated again.[0]
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/05/world/belgian-king-unable...
Much of what goes into the sausage-making that is the UK parliamentary system is there by custom, on the one hand because it would be legislatively expensive to modernise; on the other because no-one would ever agree on what to replace it with.
Most places there are constitutional limits on what parliament can decide and/or qualified majorities and other constraints needed to change constitutional law. In the UK, a central principle is that parliament is entirely sovereign. That is, parliament is not bound by any law decided by past parliaments, but can revoke or alter any of them (they are bound as long as they let a law stand, though) with a simple majority.
While your comment elsewhere that they need things to pass through House of Lords is sort of right, consider that the House of Commons powers are bootstrapped - e.g. the UK Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 severely curtailed the Lords powers, and both were passed as a direct response to the House of Lords being seen as obstructing the House of Commons. The Lords failed to stop both, because they knew in advance of the 1911 act that the government had threatened to simply stuff the Lords full of sympathetic new peers (lords).
As such, while the UK has a bicameral system, the Lords exceedingly rarely stop laws, it usually only delay them or cause negotiations over revisions, as if the Commons decide to push something through over the objections of the Lords, they generally get their will, and coupled with the lack of constitutional hindrances, they're more powerful than even most unicameral legislatives.
> I interpret this as trying to understand the problem better, not prosecute someone, in which case it's not who's-legally-responsible, but who-gets-Facebooks-DNA-and-vision-for-the-future.
This is true. It's not in any way a court proceeding. In this respect it's no different from being summoned to attend an inquiry in any other parliament.
Not entirely sovereign, legally the Sovereign is advised by parliament, the government is hers, and she signs acts in to law according to her whim ... of course the power resides in a delicate balance and the legal situation belies the complexity of the true power structure.
It is a constitutional convention that the monarch will follow the advice of ministers other than when exercising reserve powers, and ministers have extremely limited constitutional flexibility in terms of advicing the monarch to give assent. The monarchs power to refuse royal assent for bills is not part of the reserve powers other than in very limited circumstances (she can delay assent in the case of "near revolutionary" conditions; she can in theory refuse assent on advice of ministers, last exercised by Queen Anne in 1708; she can refuse assent on bills that directly relate to her reserve powers themselves, or her property).
So while on paper she "signs acts into law according to her whim", if she fails to sign laws outside that very narrow scope, she'll have violated a constitutional convention that has been a settled part of UK constitutional law for something like two centuries.
This would not just be outrageous, but would be subject to legal challenge, as notably, it has been established since 1611, and not challenged by a monarch since 1688, that the judiciary has the power to restrict the royal prerogative, and the judiciary in the UK has centuries of history of taking a very dim view on monarchs trying to reclaim powers that have been de facto transferred to parliament. Odds are she'd find herself having the power legally stripped from her at best, at worst it'd be the end of the monarchy.
In other words, in practice it is legal fiction that this power rests with the monarch - outside of the reserve powers it rests with the monarch only as long as she only exercises them in a ceremonial capacity in line with the wishes of parliament.
Even the reserve powers are retained mostly because they are exercised so incredibly rarely (e.g. some of them have not been attempted used for centuries) and/or have very limited effect (e.g. on the rare circumstances where the monarch has exercised her powers to choose whom to appoint as PM in modern history it was accepted because the decisions were in line with parliamentary reality, and because parliament could instantly overthrow said government if it did not agree with the choice), but the reserve powers are at least nominally actual powers that the monarch can with some caution actually exercise and get away with it. The rest of the royal prerogatives are not.
The reality is somewhat more complex once you consider the UK's treaty obligations, many of which are hard to reconcile with "pure" Dicean sovereignty, but it's a good starting point. As a counter example, the UK can't practically legislate in a manner that breaches the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights - completely unrelated to the EU). Similarly, while still a member of the EU the UK, like all EU members, has to accept the primacy of EU legislation over domestic statutes in the areas in which the EU has the competence to make laws.
Studying the uneasy relationship between dicey style sovereignty and EU legislation (hello "Factortame" cases...) was a core component of a law degree in the UK for the past few decades, I assume this will change shortly given recent history!
So, yes, it's more complex. I don't think anyone would suggest parliament would just rewrite arbitrary laws on a whim, because there are complex dependencies (hello Brexit). The point is there is no legal hindrance to it, and that is almost unique (I write "almost", but I don't know of a single other country where parliament has so unfettered power - I'd love examples).
> If the time should come when our Parliament deliberately passes an Act with the intention of repudiating the [EU] Treaty or any provision in it or intentionally of acting inconsistently with it and says so in express terms then I should have thought that it would be the duty of our courts to follow the statute of our Parliament.
or see Thoburn v SCC which established that constitutional statutes (such as those establishing the primacy of EU law) are only protected from _implied_ repeal.
The House of Commons is the highest authority in the UK and one of the most powerful and sovereign bodies in the world.
I think you were thinking of the House of Lords.
...
> Serious question no snark
Uh, sure. Everyone in the UK is dumb as a rock then and never heard of Facebook or Zuckerberg? How do they know who he is? Are you kidding?
Indeed, you have lots of 'snark'.
Since UK Parliament doesn't have any jurisdiction over the CEO of a US corporation?
The UK Parliament can decide it has jurisdiction over whatever it likes. You're right that they won't be able to enforce it. But the question Zuckerberg has to ask himself is whether his testimony or his failure to appear will make MPs more predisposed against him and Facebook. Whether or not it's a good idea to snub a parliamentary inquiry in any given country will vary greatly, but generally it will at least be a good idea to give it some serious thought before turning them down.
They can but that sounds like it would breach international law (and often be an impotent declaration).
Yeah, this guy is a US citizen, but he is the officer in charge of a multinational corporation that does business in and draws revenue from the UK and its dependents. Is he legally obligated to show up? Probably not. Would Parliament be able to enforce their decision if they decided he was legally obliged? Probably not, not in the case where they come up against the US though if he were resident in nearly any other country in the world though, they probably could.
International law relies on conventions agreed upon by nation-states, themselves a hodgepodge of various domestic and foreign interests. The only really big enforcement actor in the space is the United States Military, and so in cases where the United States Military isn't willing to take action for domestic reasons, international law basically means nothing.
So while Zuckerberg may not have to go himself, he probably should or just cut business ties with anybody in the UK now. They may not be able to force him by military might, but they can make his life difficult and Facebook's continued operations in the UK very very difficult.
Oh and do note that Facebook hosts British data globally, even if operations are conducted locally. In their position I would be going after the parent company, not the local stub unless I had to make a few examples out of the local stub to get the parent company's attention.
I can do that too if I want.
Specific attempts at enforcing it may or may not have legal basis, but that's an entirely separate issue.
It's entirely up to Zuckerberg whether or not he decided to appear, but he will need to consider that if he doesn't he might find the UK parliament more likely to take actions that will hurt Facebook later on.
The ECHR for example puts restrictions on impositions in to the private life of individuals. A demand to appear before Parliament without proper jurisdiction would appear a priori to be such an infringement.
Suggestions that "well Parliament can make things very difficult for him" whilst probably true should be given utmost contempt. Parliament should uphold the Rule of Law and not threaten people, even if it can.
I can't see any reason not to simply demand an officer of Facebook with executive powers be in attendance. Perhaps specified to be the person with management responsibility for data protection.
FWIW I'm very far from being a supporter of Zuckerberg, though am a user of Facebook.
You call it a demand, and seem to believe it has some kind of legal force, but it does not. They're asking. They're asking firmly, but they're still just asking. It has no more legal force than if I were to ask.
> Suggestions that "well Parliament can make things very difficult for him" whilst probably true should be given utmost contempt. Parliament should uphold the Rule of Law and not threaten people, even if it can.
Parliament is the source of law in the UK. The way parliament can make things difficult for him is to make law. Nobody is suggesting they should threaten people, but it is their job to e.g. consider the impact of how businesses threat their users and if appropriate to pass laws regulating it. If Facebook when given an opportunity to present their side to parliament decides not to take that opportunity, they should not be surprised if such laws does not take their views into account.
Zuckerberg should be happy to be explicitly given the opportunity to present Facebook's side - they need not extend that courtesy. They could instead simply make their decisions without hearing Facebooks side of the story at all.
> I can't see any reason not to simply demand an officer of Facebook with executive powers be in attendance. Perhaps specified to be the person with management responsibility for data protection.
A very simple reason is that they may not believe said persons would be able to offer the same input.
The parent appears to be asking why Zuckerberg should come.
There's a very good chance that legally speaking he's "unknown" to the UK - a private citizens of a foreign country that holds no position that brings him in to UK jurisdiction.
Perhaps they're also calling Facebook's CEO in the UK, the Facebook pertinent to UK law?
It does seem wise to call the person whose likely to actually be in control rather than the person who legally is responsible.