6 ms·
This is Sovereign power in action, being the power that each country has to escalate when people or companies do not behave according to their norms. We general
by lancewiggs 8y ago
This is Sovereign power in action, being the power that each country has to escalate when people or companies do not behave according to their norms. We generally don’t see it a lot but when it happens results can be severe.
It serves as a good warning that when doing business in any country you need to abide by the written and unwritten codes of conduct for that country. Two other less pleasant examples are Assange and Khashoggi.
- enraged_camel 8y agoExactly. I'm very happy with this turn of events. In repeatedly turning down the British Parliament's request to testify, Zuckerberg displayed a stunning level of arrogance, and brought this upon himself.
- sys_64738 8y agoI thought he was quite right to turn them down. He doesn’t owe a foreign government his presence to answer to them unless he’s got a warrant for his arrest. I could imagine that there are implications for tech companies now operating in the UK if they’re subject to raids by the British police force. It sets a dangerous precedent.
- rikkus 8y agoHe isn’t legally required by the laws of a land but it was felt by many that he did, in fact, owe his presence.
- NeedMoreTea 8y agoWhy does it set a dangerous precedent? Facebook in the UK is wholly subject to the decisions of Facebook in the US. He may not be a British subject, but his business operates in the UK. All business in the UK should be subject to UK law and regulation and the officers accountable. It should not matter if the law is old or the company has a head office elsewhere. Same for companies operating in other countries. If I choose to start operating my business in the USA I would reasonably expect to be subject to US law, and accountable to it.
- candiodari 8y agoIt sets the dangerous precedents of foreign governments imposing rules on internet companies that have no "real" local presence. And before you ask what's wrong with that, let's not forget that Saudi Arabia, China, and I'm sure 5 other countries have forced Facebook/Google/Microsoft/... to hand over data and then used it to execute gays and dissidents. Even in the UK case, it's pushing hard for these companies to just hand over all data they have to their secret service (not even limited to UK citizens). You know, to "protect the children".
- galvin 8y agoFacebook has offices in London
- candiodari 8y agoI don't see how offices change the argument
- cannabisceo 8y agoWhat is your definition of 'having a local presence'?
- izacus 8y agoBy making their products available to users in the country they effect the people of that country. They ARE present.
- nolok 8y agoEh, you could argue about the making available to access for a long time either way. But there is a much more straight to point argument: they want, and take, money from UK customers (advertisers). If they want to keep doing that, they need to follow UK laws. It's like how your little website may do things that are not ok in country X and you don't care, but if you want people and businesses from country X to be able to spend money on your website then you need to care.
- mikeash 8y agoHe doesn’t owe them his presence, and they don’t owe him the right to operate in their country. If he doesn’t want to deal with the UK government, he could pull out of the country.
- umichguy 8y agoSimple answer: You want to do business in any country, you abide by their laws within their jurisdiction. Don't like it? Pull out. Simples. Don't you think the U.S. would not have done the same (probably would've done much sooner) if a company was repeatedly turning up its nose and thumbing it?
- mtgx 8y agoDoesn't Facebook have a subsidiary in UK?
- JetSpiegel 8y agoIt does, even though it's just a wrapper over Facebook Ireland.
- Lio 8y agoHe should have been issued with an arrest warrant in the same way we issue them for contempt of court. I don’t think a dangerous precedent has been set. I think foreign tech should be aware right from the start, if you break the law you and your staff will be punished. It’s the same deal for UK firms working in US. HSBC was quite rightly punished for money laundering in the US.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- pjc50 8y ago> subject to raids by the British police force This is kind of tautologous; if you're in the UK, suspected of having committed a crime, or certain other infractions (health and safety etc), you can be raided. It's more surprising when the FBI managed to do a raid in New Zealand.
- Latteland 8y agoParliament shouldn't be able compel any random company to hand over internal papers just on a whim. The police can't do that. You have to have a reason, and it can't be a fishing expedition as we say in the us. You must have cause to suspect something. In this case, it's unclear what the cause to justify this could be.
- johneth 8y agoParliament is sovereign. Power flows from it. This means Parliament can do what it wants.
- Latteland 8y agoI've been told the uk has an unwritten constitution. But they must have limits, like the us. The us Congress can't make a law overriding the Supreme Court. What about in the uk? My point is countries are "soverign" but they often have legal limits on the leader, parliament etc. Parliament can't say sentence someone to death for making fun of them or something surely. In the us you can still plead the 5th amendment even when supoened by the Congress, for example (avoid self-incremenation).
- slededit 8y ago> Congress can't make a law overriding the Supreme Court Indeed they can, the Supreme court merely interprets the law. If congress decides to change the law then the Supreme Court's interpretation is moot. These days changing the constitution is politically infeasible so it may seem this way - but ultimate power rests with Congress.
- Latteland 8y agoOf course congress could amend the constitution, which I understood, but that takes 2/3rd of the states to support it. They can't make a regular law to overturn the supremes, right?
- 8y ago
- detcader 8y agoIf we casually allow that there are "unwritten" rules, then we accept that every government is merely a dictatorship ruled by whichever individuals have the most access to physical power. It would be great if everyone could by explicit on this, and if they are happy with it or not.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]