Zuckerberg Rebuffs Request To Appear Before UK Parliament (apnews.com) 209
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.
Hum... Both UK AND Canada? (Score:2)
Alright, I'll try something...
"Hey, Zuckerberg! Don't be a wanker, eh?"
And China... (Score:2)
âoeInternet media should spread positive information, uphold the correct political direction, and guide public opinion toward the right direction,â the state-run Xinhua news service reported in April, summarizing the instructions of Mr. Xi, who âoestressed the centralized, unified leadership of the Party over cybersecurity.â
Re: (Score:2)
TBH, I think he has a good point, is he supposed to testify in 200 parliaments across the world?
What If Indonesia invites him? Or Italy, how about Singapore? Or Iran? Or Uzbekistan? Or Afghanistan? Or Malta?
And I live in the UK and I don't like Zuck' or Facebook.
Testify to the 2.4 Billion Commonwealth Citizens (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess my first question would be "or what?"
Is the UK going to try to block Facebook? That's a pretty good way to piss off your citizens as well as the government of one of your major trading partners (the United States); to say nothing about inviting the asking of serious questions about the power of the state to censor, etc.
Will they deny him entry into Commonwealth entities? That might be inconvenient, but that would be all.
I'm sure there are other levers to pull, but I'm not sure what they would be.
Re:Testify to the 2.4 Billion Commonwealth Citizen (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Taxes, fines, and regulations.
Regulations especially. The UK or Canada could quite easily make it clear that their existing privacy law applies to Facebook.
Re:Testify to the 2.4 Billion Commonwealth Citizen (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, all Commonwealth members are equal.
There is one area where they do have to legislate together, namely the Monarchy. Things like the order of succession have to be agreed to by all members of the Commonwealth.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really though, because they're only agreeing on the long list of titles that are normally omitted. :)
I don't think they've ever claimed a different order of succession than was determined by the British. They wouldn't try, if a country disagreed they'd just leave the Commonwealth instead. I mean, how would they ever win that argument? "No, sorry, Britain doesn't know what their succession is." That would be silly.
They don't collectively legislate the order of succession, they collectively show continuin
Re: (Score:2)
The Statute of Westminster says,
Re: (Score:2)
Right, right, that's the whole point. The Commonwealth is a club, not a cartel. It has no powers other than something something having to do with cricket.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you'll find the cricket is merely an excuse for a good tea.
Indeed, I think you'll find England have paused their rampant domination of a struggling Sri Lankan side so that they can enjoy a nice mid afternoon cuppa in Galle.
It'll be nice if Jennings can get his century when they resume, although the 351 run lead is probably already enough.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not quite correct. The only countries which have to legislate together on the succession are the 16 countries where Elizabeth is the monarch. They're a minority of the Commonwealth countries.
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the US was a Commonwealth nation, (we're not) then they could try to force the US Government to force Zuckerberg to testify, but then they'd find out that the US Government has no power to order him to, and so they'd just have to kick us out. Kicking members out of the Commonwealth is 100% of the power that the Commonwealth has over members. 100%.
Under US law, the British Parliament is outside US jurisdiction. If you wanted to the US Government to have the power to order US Persons to testify there, you
Re: (Score:2)
That's not entirely true. As a permanent member of the UN security council, one of the world's largest economies, a nuclear power with substantial conventional force projection capabilities and a centuries old reputation the UK exerts a tremendous amount of influence.
It just doesn't derive from its position in the Commonwealth.
Re: (Score:2)
The weirdest part is the idea that Queen Elizabeth II is some sort of political figure who would get involved in this stuff! My goodness.
It doesn't matter what powers she still is granted, attempting to wield political powers is not going to happen. The British Royal Family understands very well their role in society, which is why they still have that roll, and are in fact well loves around the world for the grace and dignity with which they play it.
Re: (Score:2)
You expressed it more clearly, but I think that was actually my point with the throwing weight around thing.
Re: (Score:2)
The queen doesn't have a direct political role, but she still plays a role. To many citizens, the queen's disapproval of a government action (or inaction) would carry a lot of weight.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is exactly why she's not going to express disapproval! It would carry weight, which is a political act itself, and it would endanger the Royal Family's position in society. Their contemporary position in society is based on being outside of politics, that doesn't just mean not running for office, it means actually remaining outside of politics. There are different "sides" in politics, and so if you say something that carries weight, all the people that disagree know you were being political!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they could block Facebook. And don't think they'd give a damn about their bad reputation. They're going to lose the next general election, so why should they care? What's in it for them? Besides, people in Britain hold privacy dear to them, we invented most of the existing data protection laws around the world. Don't expect the British to support Facebook, in a showdown.
(And, no, nobody would regard it as censorship. It is enforcing a law the British requested in the first place. To put it in perspecti
Re: (Score:2)
Britain is more likely to put out an international arrest warrant
No, they're more likely to go "Well, fuck him" and regulate Facebook anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
The mouse that roared.
Re: (Score:2)
They can start by making an actual legal summons rather than just a pretty-please letter from a parliamentry subcommittee.
Re: (Score:2)
I find it fascinating that you've made assumptions about the politics (and marital status) of the person to whom you replied, none of which relate even slightly to the post they made.
It doesn't make you look good. Or sane.
Re: (Score:2)
News flash: The United States is not a member of the Commonwealth.
For "historical reasons."
For those same historical reasons, Americans find it hilarious that the British Government would send a "summons" to an American.
I think the general response is going to be something along the lines of, "Shove it up your Battle of New Orleans!"
I wouldn't either (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
a dog and pony show, or a kangaroo court
So pretty much what that US Senate hearing was. Seriously, while watching those proceedings I sort of expected (and hoped) Mark to reply at some point: "I'm sorry, but I came here to answer your questions, not to be berated like a little schoolboy"
Re:I wouldn't either (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering his company is at the heart of various data and democracy interference scandals that are under active criminal investigation in the UK, he might want to defend it. By not doing so he risks the outcome being worse for Facebook, as Parliament will correctly assume that it's unaccountable to them and an existential threat.
Re:I wouldn't either (Score:5, Informative)
criminal investigation in the UK, he might want to defend it.
But doing so would do no such thing. Defending a legal challenge is done in a different place in front of a different group of people.
Re: (Score:2)
if he doesn't answer to parliament because parliament has the power to increase funding to the people who investigate him
Only in the US are criminal investigative outcomes determined on a funding level.
It's rare people in Zuckerberg's position reject such a request, precisely because the long term cost will likely be high.
Maybe you should look at who is requesting, how, and for what purpose. Then you'll find it's not rare at all.
Re: (Score:2)
The war was an attempt by the UK to take the United States back. They failed. That means, the US won.
And the US didn't win the Battle of New Orleans. We lost rather badly. However, the courage of our soldiers misled the British into believing that they were being led into a trap, and that there must be a whole bunch of reinforcements that are going to show up any time, and so while they won all the fighting, they failed to advance and gain access to the interior.
The point of the battle, and the point of rem
Re: (Score:2)
No, if that was true they'd just summons the head of Facebook UK, somebody who is under their jurisdiction, and who they can summon whenever they want.
The press don't care about that person, so it wouldn't make headlines, so they didn't do it. That's the gravitas that attaches to their activities in this matter.
Re: (Score:2)
...and then what? He'd go broke or something?
Re: (Score:2)
The EU has taken to placing fines of billions to tens of billions on companies and individuals who abuse corporate power.
He doesn't have that kind of money.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Because he wants to do business (sell ads) in these countries.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what trade relationships between nations regulate. It isn't ad-hoc.
Re: (Score:2)
Should explain that to the Americans, or perhaps you were going for a funny mod?
Even with sticking to trade agreements, nations can have different privacy laws and such which make it hard for a company such as Facebook to operate in their country.
Re: (Score:2)
It turns out, I actually am an American, so you'll have to moron-splain to somebody else.
And sure, the UK can have whatever privacy laws they want. As long as they apply it to all the companies, we won't care.
And if facebook hates a privacy law, that means facebook users in that place are gonna be unhappy! Don't expect Americans to cry for Facebook, or for their users that will be upsetting politics in the UK.
They can make whatever rules they want, but trade relations are not ad-hoc.
Re: (Score:2)
And sure, the UK can have whatever privacy laws they want. As long as they apply it to all the companies, we won't care.
They do, and they do. But you do care, and you're so miserably misinformed it feels like wilful ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
If the UK wants to cancel the trade relationship they have with the United States, they can.
If they wanted to make that contingent on the behavior of individual US persons, or US companies, "byeeeeeeee!" The US Government doesn't have the powers to even try to do that, they won't even agree to negotiate on the subject, so no need for the threat; you'll have to just do it if you want it.
They might want to cancel Brexit first, before taking such rash action. ;)
Your idea that an American "lost rights" is pathe
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite. Zuckerberg has Facebook shares that are currently valued at billions of dollars. They could be valued at considerably less if public opinion and/or government regulation became overly critical of FB.
Re: (Score:2)
You're still not comprehending which government regulations apply to US companies.
It isn't hard. That would be US Government regulations.
Also, regarding UK regulations that affect US companies doing business there, that is regulated by the trade agreements between the US and the UK. It is not available to the UK to pass special laws to punish specific US companies. That would violate trade agreements.
All they can do is loosen their upper lips and huff and puff. I thought that they had stiff upper lips preci
Re: (Score:2)
regarding UK regulations that affect US companies doing business there, that is regulated by the trade agreements between the US and the UK
Only to an extent. Facebook is not being asked to comply with any regulations not already enforced against British and other companies. This isn't an international trade issue, this is a "Facebook are breaking UK law" issue.
If the US want to overrule UK law then yes, I'd rather we stopped trading with them. Why the fuck do you think Brexit even happened?
So? (Score:3)
Funny (Score:3)
"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... [nytimes.com] (that was turned into an hilarious meme https://mashable.com/2017/09/2... [mashable.com]). But not for, say, the democratically elected representatives of a major western government to speak with him?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He had the time to basically wander across America on his apologia tour
You didn't know this, but it turns out he's actually an American who lives in America!
You're welcome.
I wander around all the time, usually in America, no, I won't answer foreign "summons" either.
If you want it in writing, send Lord Cornwallis for the paperwork!
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is surely that Britain can lawfully pursue an international arrest warrant as he has committed serious criminal offences.
Further, as Russia has launched chemical and radiological weapons attacks on British soil, it would not surprise me in the least if any official charge placed alleged Facebook provided material support, either for the attack or just to Russian intelligence efforts.
It wouldn't matter much what Zuckerberg did, then. The kind of public relations damage the British government could
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, he seems to have the time to court nearly every country's MARKETS
No he doesn't, he employs people to do that. Just like each of those countries has people in Facebook's employ to handle requests for information.
Re: (Score:2)
That's how bad the UK parliament wants a distraction from the reality that Brexit "negotiations" are only about the bill, and that they can demand no trade concessions.
One isn't all. (Score:2)
In fact, he'd need only appear before the EU, AU and USAN to have appeared before over two thirds the inhabited globe.
By my count, that's three. His may be different. I am sure he can spare half a week from selling your data to whoever asks.
Re: (Score:2)
He's already appeared before 100% of the countries that have jurisdiction to summon him.
Coming up with some numbers that purport to add up to some percentage of something, doesn't make any of those numbers relevant.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
And he can get off my lawn.
LMFAO you don't seem to understand how lawns work.
He is a billionaire. He has so many lawns, if he drove past yours he'd think it was a vacant lot.
He doesn't need to be big, bright, or courageous in your eyes. Your eyes don't even land on him, you only get to see pictures in the media.
It just amazes me how people on slashdot, people who otherwise might be considered intelligent, somehow feel like they have personal power over the powerful in this world. It is like the ultimate exercise in sniffing your own
Re: (Score:2)
He's a billionaire on paper. He's worthless in any meaningful sense. And if you don't recognize the expression, you can get off my lawn too.
Re: (Score:2)
LMFAO dude, he owns most of an island. Neither of us know him, so we have no idea about his non-monetary life.
Hating people while on the internet doesn't actually mean you have extra value compared to other human beings. It just means you're an asshole.
Your meds are somewhere out there in that lawn. No, I'm not even looking for them. You're welcome, grandpa.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I totally agree. If he goes, it would be shoild. But he won't, because all the legal reasons are for not going.
The consequences are, the meanies in the UK Parliament might loosen their upper lips and say something unbecoming of their position. Don't expect Americans to be impressed, though. Our own politicians say worse things about us before breakfast!
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
He doesn't have to go. I believe this was a request, but parliamentary summons can be legally binding. If he was summoned, he still wouldn't have to go, but could be arrested if he visits the UK. Facebook representatives in the UK can be compelled to attend of course. And since parliament makes the laws, they're free to make laws that are unfavourable to Facebook.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Facebook UK Ltd (Score:2)
If the UK parliament is interested in having a company account for its UK activities they should call the corporate officers responsible for that company in the UK. So I would call this mostly a symbolic demand, which Zuckerberg is probably
Re:Facebook UK Ltd (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Parliament is run by Fraggles, the Lords by Muppets.
Re: (Score:2)
I am pretty sure a bunch of muppets would be just as effective or even more effective. At least it would be funny to watch.
Re: (Score:2)
and do in fact know who is in charge of facebook.
And how is this relevant? Every time you have a question about the country do you directly address only the queen or prime minister?
These very actions are what make them look like muppets. Feel free to issue an official summons at some point too by the way, rather than a jointly written letter with no legal weight signed by no government authority in particular.
Re: (Score:2)
And how is this relevant?
How is the person in charge of the whole edifice relevant? What?
Every time you have a question about the country do you directly address only the queen or prime minister?
Corporations aren't sovereign nations. But sure, let's give these massive, influential, opaque and nearly untouchable corporations even more priviliges. That sounds like a brilliant idea.
Feel free to issue an official summons at some point too by the way, rather than a jointly written letter with no legal weight si
Re: (Score:3)
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 ne
Re:Good for him (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The job of a multinational CEO when shit publicly (and potentially criminally) hits the fan is pretty much to fly around and explain things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no such thing as "hate" speech, there is only free speech.
Don't be silly. Some speech could qualify as both, and at the same time.
How you respond to hate speech should be the discussion, not idiocy like "There is no such thing".
Re: (Score:2)
The job of a multinational CEO when shit publicly (and potentially criminally) hits the fan is pretty much to fly around and explain things.
To their company's business partners, not to foreign politicians in their local venues. Duh.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. When you're a company like Facebook and the government of a nation where you do business calls you to answer questions about your part in massive privacy violations and interfering with democracy, you hop to. Or you expect to be regulated out of existence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's wrong with that question? I mean, the answer is, "By exploiting the personal data of our users to manipulate them" and that's exactly the fucking issue at hand.
Re: (Score:2)
If you "regulate [foreign companies] out of existence [in your market]" even though you have trade agreements with that nation, you unfortunately regulate all the trade with that nation out of existence.
Do you think the UK is ready to play that game with the US? Is the Empire that strong? LOL
Re: (Score:2)
The job of a multinational CEO when shit publicly (and potentially criminally) hits the fan is pretty much to fly around and explain things.
Not at all. The job of a CEO is to run a company. There are people in the employ of the company specifically for the purpose to fly around and explain things every time someone says please.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Interesting. The UK parliament passing judgement on a person and therefore legislating away their business. That sounds rife for legal challenges. Now if they are talking about Facebook I'm sure there are people in the UK office who would happily be able to answer questions they may have.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Think facebook would be happy if the UK made a law with the fine being 10% of global revenue
The UK made a law with the fine being 2% of global revenue. But if the company doesn't resolve the underlying issues it can be levied multiple times.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to make it illegal. As others have pointed out, that would just piss off your citizens.
Just levy a $10 fine for every time an inaccurate claim is posted on the platform. And a $100 fine for every violation of privacy law.
Re:WTF were they thinking? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:WTF were they thinking? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"On the other hand this is a shitty parliamentary inquiry without legal binding what so ever."
It does have legal binding. Parliamentary committees have the power to summons people. As a foreign citizen, not resident in the country, of course, that is hard to enforce and it is not often used.
Re: (Score:2)
It does have legal binding. Parliamentary committees have the power to summons people.
Nope. Parliamentary committees have the power to request the parliament to summon people. They have no power directly. This specific committee is not even exclusively representing the British parliament, it's a joint committee investigating on behalf of 5 different governments, none of which have made a legally binding request to appear, and none of which have any juristiction over a citizen of none of the countries in question.
Ah, the Leeson Enquiry (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
No, no power. Except to totally ruin your business model.
Not quite. That none the less is a democratic process that needs to be followed. The parliament can't unlaterally decide I don't like *insert specific company* and destroy them.
And, yes, they do have power. Failure to answer a subpoena is a criminal offence.
Which would be an issue if they subpoenaed him. They did not. Even if they did it would be a step away from their rehtoric given they are angry at Facebook and a subpoena against a company does not call out a specific person. There are local employees and local legal teams precisely to deal with the local matters in question.
Mind you
Re: (Score:2)
What sort of trial do you think he'd get?
A fair one.
Some things we do still do right. Mostly. Unless you're accused of terrorism based on illegally gathered evidence that the security services don't want people to know they have.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a slippery slope. Next month, France wants him to appear, then Spain and Italy, then Angola and China.
So what? What if he ends up going to 20 different countries? He is operating a multinational company and he needs to respect them. If he is operating within a country and doesn't show respect to that ruling body, I hope he get's punished.
I hope when the UK next considers tax laws they do remember this. There's a lot of talk about how big companies like Facebook dodge paying taxes, I hope this event is considered when the UK next looks at how to change that.
Re: (Score:2)
A CEO needs to show respect to governments? Since when?
Companies like Facebook operate within the letter of the law, and when they don't, they send a team of lawyers and delay whatever accusations against them until they become irrelevant. Respect doesn't come into it at any point.
Their only motivation is financial. All other motivations a company may seem to have (like being perceived as green) eventually all boils down to what's best for the bottom line... that's what you get for allowing the creation o
Re: (Score:2)
It's a slippery slope. Next month, France wants him to appear, then Spain and Italy, then Angola and China.
So what? What if he ends up going to 20 different countries? He is operating a multinational company and he needs to respect them. If he is operating within a country and doesn't show respect to that ruling body, I hope he get's punished.
I hope when the UK next considers tax laws they do remember this. There's a lot of talk about how big companies like Facebook dodge paying taxes, I hope this event is considered when the UK next looks at how to change that.
The EU is talking about it to, but they're not going to do it because they'd need support from all EU countries and something like half have already pointed out that they would never agree to something that adversarial towards the United States. The only way that the tax issues they have get solved is by international agreement about the rules of where companies pay tax.
The UK has even less power to dictate that on their own, and with Brexit looming, they don't even get to take aggressive negotiating positi
Re: (Score:2)
I thought Red meant Russia, a.k.a. "scary Communists". Seeing how they act, except using money instead of the military, it's hard to tell the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be really nice to be able to use wild cards in hosts..