16 ms·

Serious question no snark: 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 c

Serious question no snark: 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)

TallGuyShort 9y ago
Based on my admittedly limited understanding of the UK's particular brand of parliament, the House of Commons is essentially a panel of experts and advisors from various fields and they hold little direct legal authority in and of themselves, but they're supposed to be very influential to the people who do. 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.
- lainga 9y ago
  Various fields indeed: Contract law, tort law, wills & estates law, corporate law...
- bdamm 9y ago
  The ignorance displayed in this branch is amazing. 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.
  - TallGuyShort 9y ago
    No I'm South African - but I recently toured Westminster Palace and was told that laws are generally drafted and revised plenty in the House of Commons but are unable to move anything all the way through without the House of Lords at least rubber stamping it. 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?
    - abritinthebay 9y ago
      Like the US the UK has two houses to act as a check and balance on each other. 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.
    - Silhouette 9y ago
      Our legal and government system isn't directly analogous to, for example, the separation of powers that exists in the US. 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.
    - 9y ago
- erpellan 9y ago
  The House of Commons closest US analogy is the House of Representatives. So, it's the equivalent of being asked to testify before Congress.
- mcjiggerlog 9y ago
  This is pretty inaccurate. The House of Commons refers to the main house of parliament which is made up entirely of elected members of parliament (MPs). 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.
- Balero 9y ago
  Your description suits the House of Lords better, though is not wholly accurate. 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.
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    Isn't the monarch the most powerful "body" of UK government, in theory at least.
    - qubex 9y ago
      The Sovereign would never risk a showdown with the House of Commons because the latter would win. As such, the Sovereign’s role is largely ceremonial.
      - kazen44 9y ago
        This is pretty much the case for any monarchy in europe these days. 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-to-sign-abortion-law-takes-day-off.html https://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/05/world/belgian-king-unable...
    - andrewaylett 9y ago
      When viewed in a certain light, maybe. But the monarch's hands are tied by parliament: while in theory the Queen may choose not to assent to a bill put before her, it's widely considered that freedom would be withdrawn if she actually tried to use it. 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.
- vidarh 9y ago
  The House of Commons is, in terms of authority, one of the most powerful parliamentary chambers in the world. 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.
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    >In the UK, a central principle is that parliament is entirely sovereign. // 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.
    - vidarh 9y ago
      This is sort of true, but only in extremely limited cases. 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.
- qubex 9y ago
  You’re very wrong, but it’s also unpleasant that you are being downvoted so forcibly. 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.
  - TallGuyShort 9y ago
    Oh you know what? I think I am thinking of the House of Lords - thanks. My point is more that it's information gathering anyway. There's no reason they have to deal with an official UK representative of the company - they want to speak to whoever they think is really the best insight / strongest influencer. And if that's Zuck and not the CEO of the UK legal entity, it's Zuck they talk to.
cryptoz 9y ago
> How does UK know who Zuckerberg is? ... > 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'.
- dazc 9y ago
  He has a valid point in as much as 'Shouldn't they be dealing with Facebook UK ceo? ' Since UK Parliament doesn't have any jurisdiction over the CEO of a US corporation?
  - LargeWu 9y ago
    No, but they do have plenty of jurisdiction over business conducted in their country. Facebook is very dependent on a laissez-faire approach to privacy, and snubbing the House of Commons could put that at risk in the UK.
  - vidarh 9y ago
    Is it likely the Facebook UK CEO will be able to tell them anything useful? 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.
    - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
      >The UK Parliament can decide it has jurisdiction over whatever it likes. // They can but that sounds like it would breach international law (and often be an impotent declaration).
      - SllX 9y ago
        The British Parliament is an institution that helped shape and construct the present international order, at one point holding jurisdiction over a quarter of the Earth's surface area. 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.
s0rce 9y ago
How do they know who he is? He's widely known and famous worldwide as the CEO of a multibillion dollar social-media company. Also, does Facebook UK have a CEO? I don't think they are compelling him to speak simply requesting it.
raverbashing 9y ago
The question is less stupid than it seems given the usual shortsightedness of judicial proceedings. Possible answer, Facebook UK/EU (or a related company) is owned by Facebook US, who has Zuckerberg as one of the owners/directors.
Silhouette 9y ago
This is roughly analogous to being asked to testify before a congressional committee in the US. It doesn't matter who you are in the business world: if people at this level of government invite you, you show up. 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.
- therealmarv 9y ago
  When he attends it would be only a big favor... I'm betting he will not attend. This is more politics, they are making a bold statement to ask the CEO but it's not his duty to speak to UK officials as a US citizen (no matter what).
  - Silhouette 9y ago
    When he attends it would be only a big favor... 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.
  - bowlofpetunias 9y ago
    Being allowed to do business in any country is "a big favor". Guess which "favor" has the biggest impact...
anon1385 9y ago
Select committees can ask anybody they like to appear. Although as far as I understand they don't technically have the power to force private individuals to attend. See this briefing if you want to delve in the UK's arcane political system http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06208/SN06208.pdf http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN062... (pdf)
- jsty 9y ago
  Anyone interested in this might also consider [1], which describes possible mechanisms by which a person might be compelled - namely by order of the House of Commons. [1] http://publicregulatoryblog.fieldfisher.com/2016/declining-a-select-committee-invitation/ http://publicregulatoryblog.fieldfisher.com/2016/declining-a...
namelost 9y ago
He is not being called by a court. He is being called as a witness to a parliamentary committee. The chair of the committee can call anybody in the world that they deem appropriate. 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.
- kazen44 9y ago
  > 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?
  - mstade 9y ago
    Hah, that’d be ironic – the UK is of course still a full member of the EU but for them to push any agenda but brexit can’t very well be good for negotiations, nor the public perception of it all, can it?
    - IAmEveryone 9y ago
      I’m German, and love watching the U.K. getting raked over the coals with regards to Brexit. 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.
      - mstade 9y ago
        I don't disagree with you, but it's also hard to ignore that this makes for an uncomfortable position for the Brexiteers.
forgottenpass 9y ago
>Zuckerberg is a private is citizen as far as UK is concerned, no? 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-with-significant-control https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06331310/persons-...
- fwgwgwgch 9y ago
  I had the same thought initially but I don't think that in matters of execution, ownership should or is brought in. At some point, sure. But not when we're "having a talk".
  - forgottenpass 9y ago
    It's patently obvious to the layperson that the product available at facebook.com in the UK is largely directed by the parent company that is responsible for the facebook.com product globally. 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.
feelin_googley 9y ago
"In a letter to Mr Zuckerberg, Mr Collins accused Facebook of giving answers "misleading to the Committee" at a previous hearing which asked whether information had been taken without users' consent. 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.
- SllX 9y ago
  The way I'm reading that is that if it is anybody but Zuckerberg, it will not reflect well on Facebook during their testimony.
- arrythur 9y ago
  I believe it absolutely has to be Zuckerberg to get the highest level of accountability from the company.
- phyller 9y ago
  I don't think Zuckerberg will go, though I'm sure Facebook would like to send him. This puts them in a bad spot. To show respect, Zuckerberg should go. But then it sets a precedent that every country can summon him at will and it becomes an insult if he doesn't show up. And there are enough countries and committees that would enjoy ordering a US megacorp executive around, that it has a real risk of becoming a problem. 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.
- 9y ago
vkou 9y ago
Nobody's forcing him to attend, but if there is any fire behind the smoke, him refusing to attend can give Parliament reason to assume ill intent in subsequent investigations/trials, when none existed.
- M2Ys4U 9y ago
  Refusing to attend can be considered Contempt of Parliament. Theoretically that can carry a term of imprisonment that lasts until the next election.
  - kazen44 9y ago
    does this also apply to non UK citizens though?
  - jahewson 9y ago
    No, that’s only for a compulsory summons, which this is not.
    - M2Ys4U 9y ago
      Indeed, but if Zuckerberg/Facebook Inc. refuses to comply I would expect that to be the next step.
urda 9y ago
> How does UK know who Zuckerberg is? 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.
- johannes1234321 9y ago
  In the world of diplomacy sometimes "obvious" facts aren't "clear" but you use nice words, i.e. one could talk to an embassador and give them the chance of introducing their representative. 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)")
dragonwriter 9y ago
> How does UK know who Zuckerberg is? 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.
- chiph 9y ago
  IANAL, but I'm curious - Can Parliament issue a Crown Court Bench Warrant compelling a non-UK subject to appear? And if that gets ignored, presumably the person can't ever enter the country unless it's to respond to the warrant. But what about a Commonwealth Nation - would that person have to avoid entering Canada?
  - gsnedders 9y ago
    It's incredibly rare that warrants are issued at all; since the late 18th century, it's a Speaker's Warrant that's used (and enforced by the Serjeant-at-Arms of the House; prior to that no warrant was needed at all). They are formally issued by the House, and not Parliament as a whole. 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.
simonbarker87 9y ago
If the US congress are allowed to summon Tony Hayward (then CEO of BP) over the Deep Water Horizon catastrophe then it is a fairly straight line to see how UK House of Commons can do the same for Facebook's CEO.
ptrott2017 9y ago
Facebook Inc - is listed at Companies House (UK register of businesses) as a legal person with significant control (75%) of Facebook UK. Mark Zuckerberg is the senior officer of the significant person company that has a controlling interest in a UK company. Either an officer of the company (i,e, those listed as officers/ Directors of Facebook UK) or, as in this case, a person representing significant control(more than 50% ownership and therefore potentially a say in or responsibility for operations) of a UK company can be requested to explain a companies activities to either the UK parliament or a UK court.
MistahKoala 9y ago
You're being entirely reasonable with your line of questioning. There is a Facebook operation in the UK, but the scale and reach of the issue is such that the House of Commons committee concerned wants to hear from the company's executive leadership. 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.
pjc50 9y ago
Compare the situation of Amazon which I posted a reply to a similar question: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16611317 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16611317 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.

TallGuyShort 9y ago

Based on my admittedly limited understanding of the UK's particular brand of parliament, the House of Commons is essentially a panel of experts and advisors from various fields and they hold little direct legal authority in and of themselves, but they're supposed to be very influential to the people who do. 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.

lainga 9y ago
Various fields indeed: Contract law, tort law, wills & estates law, corporate law...
bdamm 9y ago
The ignorance displayed in this branch is amazing. 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.
- TallGuyShort 9y ago
  No I'm South African - but I recently toured Westminster Palace and was told that laws are generally drafted and revised plenty in the House of Commons but are unable to move anything all the way through without the House of Lords at least rubber stamping it. 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?
  - abritinthebay 9y ago
    Like the US the UK has two houses to act as a check and balance on each other. 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.
  - Silhouette 9y ago
    Our legal and government system isn't directly analogous to, for example, the separation of powers that exists in the US. 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.
  - 9y ago
erpellan 9y ago
The House of Commons closest US analogy is the House of Representatives. So, it's the equivalent of being asked to testify before Congress.
mcjiggerlog 9y ago
This is pretty inaccurate. The House of Commons refers to the main house of parliament which is made up entirely of elected members of parliament (MPs). 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.
Balero 9y ago
Your description suits the House of Lords better, though is not wholly accurate. 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.
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  Isn't the monarch the most powerful "body" of UK government, in theory at least.
  - qubex 9y ago
    The Sovereign would never risk a showdown with the House of Commons because the latter would win. As such, the Sovereign’s role is largely ceremonial.
    - kazen44 9y ago
      This is pretty much the case for any monarchy in europe these days. 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-to-sign-abortion-law-takes-day-off.html https://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/05/world/belgian-king-unable...
  - andrewaylett 9y ago
    When viewed in a certain light, maybe. But the monarch's hands are tied by parliament: while in theory the Queen may choose not to assent to a bill put before her, it's widely considered that freedom would be withdrawn if she actually tried to use it. 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.
vidarh 9y ago
The House of Commons is, in terms of authority, one of the most powerful parliamentary chambers in the world. 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.
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  >In the UK, a central principle is that parliament is entirely sovereign. // 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.
  - vidarh 9y ago
    This is sort of true, but only in extremely limited cases. 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.
qubex 9y ago
You’re very wrong, but it’s also unpleasant that you are being downvoted so forcibly. 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.
- TallGuyShort 9y ago
  Oh you know what? I think I am thinking of the House of Lords - thanks. My point is more that it's information gathering anyway. There's no reason they have to deal with an official UK representative of the company - they want to speak to whoever they think is really the best insight / strongest influencer. And if that's Zuck and not the CEO of the UK legal entity, it's Zuck they talk to.

cryptoz 9y ago

> How does UK know who Zuckerberg is? ... > 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'.

dazc 9y ago
He has a valid point in as much as 'Shouldn't they be dealing with Facebook UK ceo? ' Since UK Parliament doesn't have any jurisdiction over the CEO of a US corporation?
- LargeWu 9y ago
  No, but they do have plenty of jurisdiction over business conducted in their country. Facebook is very dependent on a laissez-faire approach to privacy, and snubbing the House of Commons could put that at risk in the UK.
- vidarh 9y ago
  Is it likely the Facebook UK CEO will be able to tell them anything useful? 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.
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    >The UK Parliament can decide it has jurisdiction over whatever it likes. // They can but that sounds like it would breach international law (and often be an impotent declaration).
    - SllX 9y ago
      The British Parliament is an institution that helped shape and construct the present international order, at one point holding jurisdiction over a quarter of the Earth's surface area. 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.

s0rce 9y ago

How do they know who he is? He's widely known and famous worldwide as the CEO of a multibillion dollar social-media company. Also, does Facebook UK have a CEO? I don't think they are compelling him to speak simply requesting it.

raverbashing 9y ago

The question is less stupid than it seems given the usual shortsightedness of judicial proceedings. Possible answer, Facebook UK/EU (or a related company) is owned by Facebook US, who has Zuckerberg as one of the owners/directors.

Silhouette 9y ago

This is roughly analogous to being asked to testify before a congressional committee in the US. It doesn't matter who you are in the business world: if people at this level of government invite you, you show up. 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.

therealmarv 9y ago
When he attends it would be only a big favor... I'm betting he will not attend. This is more politics, they are making a bold statement to ask the CEO but it's not his duty to speak to UK officials as a US citizen (no matter what).
- Silhouette 9y ago
  When he attends it would be only a big favor... 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.
- bowlofpetunias 9y ago
  Being allowed to do business in any country is "a big favor". Guess which "favor" has the biggest impact...

anon1385 9y ago

Select committees can ask anybody they like to appear. Although as far as I understand they don't technically have the power to force private individuals to attend. See this briefing if you want to delve in the UK's arcane political system http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06208/SN06208.pdf http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN062... (pdf)

jsty 9y ago
Anyone interested in this might also consider [1], which describes possible mechanisms by which a person might be compelled - namely by order of the House of Commons. [1] http://publicregulatoryblog.fieldfisher.com/2016/declining-a-select-committee-invitation/ http://publicregulatoryblog.fieldfisher.com/2016/declining-a...

namelost 9y ago

He is not being called by a court. He is being called as a witness to a parliamentary committee. The chair of the committee can call anybody in the world that they deem appropriate. 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.

kazen44 9y ago
> 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?
- mstade 9y ago
  Hah, that’d be ironic – the UK is of course still a full member of the EU but for them to push any agenda but brexit can’t very well be good for negotiations, nor the public perception of it all, can it?
  - IAmEveryone 9y ago
    I’m German, and love watching the U.K. getting raked over the coals with regards to Brexit. 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.
    - mstade 9y ago
      I don't disagree with you, but it's also hard to ignore that this makes for an uncomfortable position for the Brexiteers.

forgottenpass 9y ago

>Zuckerberg is a private is citizen as far as UK is concerned, no? 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-with-significant-control https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06331310/persons-...

fwgwgwgch 9y ago
I had the same thought initially but I don't think that in matters of execution, ownership should or is brought in. At some point, sure. But not when we're "having a talk".
- forgottenpass 9y ago
  It's patently obvious to the layperson that the product available at facebook.com in the UK is largely directed by the parent company that is responsible for the facebook.com product globally. 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.

feelin_googley 9y ago

"In a letter to Mr Zuckerberg, Mr Collins accused Facebook of giving answers "misleading to the Committee" at a previous hearing which asked whether information had been taken without users' consent. 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.

SllX 9y ago
The way I'm reading that is that if it is anybody but Zuckerberg, it will not reflect well on Facebook during their testimony.
arrythur 9y ago
I believe it absolutely has to be Zuckerberg to get the highest level of accountability from the company.
phyller 9y ago
I don't think Zuckerberg will go, though I'm sure Facebook would like to send him. This puts them in a bad spot. To show respect, Zuckerberg should go. But then it sets a precedent that every country can summon him at will and it becomes an insult if he doesn't show up. And there are enough countries and committees that would enjoy ordering a US megacorp executive around, that it has a real risk of becoming a problem. 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.
9y ago

vkou 9y ago

Nobody's forcing him to attend, but if there is any fire behind the smoke, him refusing to attend can give Parliament reason to assume ill intent in subsequent investigations/trials, when none existed.

M2Ys4U 9y ago
Refusing to attend can be considered Contempt of Parliament. Theoretically that can carry a term of imprisonment that lasts until the next election.
- kazen44 9y ago
  does this also apply to non UK citizens though?
- jahewson 9y ago
  No, that’s only for a compulsory summons, which this is not.
  - M2Ys4U 9y ago
    Indeed, but if Zuckerberg/Facebook Inc. refuses to comply I would expect that to be the next step.

urda 9y ago

> How does UK know who Zuckerberg is? 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.

johannes1234321 9y ago
In the world of diplomacy sometimes "obvious" facts aren't "clear" but you use nice words, i.e. one could talk to an embassador and give them the chance of introducing their representative. 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)")

dragonwriter 9y ago

> How does UK know who Zuckerberg is? 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.

chiph 9y ago
IANAL, but I'm curious - Can Parliament issue a Crown Court Bench Warrant compelling a non-UK subject to appear? And if that gets ignored, presumably the person can't ever enter the country unless it's to respond to the warrant. But what about a Commonwealth Nation - would that person have to avoid entering Canada?
- gsnedders 9y ago
  It's incredibly rare that warrants are issued at all; since the late 18th century, it's a Speaker's Warrant that's used (and enforced by the Serjeant-at-Arms of the House; prior to that no warrant was needed at all). They are formally issued by the House, and not Parliament as a whole. 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.

simonbarker87 9y ago

If the US congress are allowed to summon Tony Hayward (then CEO of BP) over the Deep Water Horizon catastrophe then it is a fairly straight line to see how UK House of Commons can do the same for Facebook's CEO.

ptrott2017 9y ago

Facebook Inc - is listed at Companies House (UK register of businesses) as a legal person with significant control (75%) of Facebook UK. Mark Zuckerberg is the senior officer of the significant person company that has a controlling interest in a UK company. Either an officer of the company (i,e, those listed as officers/ Directors of Facebook UK) or, as in this case, a person representing significant control(more than 50% ownership and therefore potentially a say in or responsibility for operations) of a UK company can be requested to explain a companies activities to either the UK parliament or a UK court.

MistahKoala 9y ago

You're being entirely reasonable with your line of questioning. There is a Facebook operation in the UK, but the scale and reach of the issue is such that the House of Commons committee concerned wants to hear from the company's executive leadership. 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.

pjc50 9y ago

Compare the situation of Amazon which I posted a reply to a similar question: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16611317 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16611317 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.