6 ms·

I 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

I 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 ago
He 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 ago
Why 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 ago
  It 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 ago
    Facebook has offices in London
    - candiodari 8y ago
      I don't see how offices change the argument
      - cannabisceo 8y ago
        What is your definition of 'having a local presence'?
  - izacus 8y ago
    By making their products available to users in the country they effect the people of that country. They ARE present.
    - nolok 8y ago
      Eh, 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.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    Yet it seems like it sets a less dangerous precedent than heavy handedly seizing a domain via ICANN and closing down poker sites that had no presence at all in the USA. Similar for torrent and streaming sites, or Kim Dotcom. Perhaps the UK should have adopted the heavy handed US approach instead? Nations, including and often starting with the USA, want internet companies to obey their laws. That shouldn't still surprise. In the case of less savoury regimes I would prefer that Facebook, Google or whoever would respond ethically and choose to withdraw rather than compromise thousands of people to make a few extra dollars. Better yet I'd prefer that data sharing with such places was legislated against.
  - rleigh 8y ago
    It's a huge conceit to suggest that "internet companies" have not got a "real" location. They are registered companies. They have head offices. They have regional offices. They own entire datacentres. They are traded on stock exchanges. They trade for money with customers in countries all over the world. They are not above the law. Legally, is Facebook any different than say, 3M or IBM? Both are US corporations with offices, manufacturing and distribution facilities in the UK. They are obviously subject to UK law. The precise location of particular data stored by the company, and servers accessing the data, seems a very odd criterion upon which to argue that the company is not subject to the rule of law. The company exists as a legal entity in the UK, it has offices and employees, and customers. It does have a presence. And it should absolutely be required to obey the law of the land. (A few years ago, I might have had a slightly different view. But companies like Facebook and Google have taken such gross liberties with the law, and even the fundamental functioning of democracy itself, that I think there's an urgent need for them to be reigned in, harshly. They brought it entirely upon themselves.)
mikeash 8y ago
He 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 ago
Simple 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 ago
  The us would do worse like sending FBI in other countries to arrest people. Or CIA.
  - sjg007 8y ago
    In some cases it is called leverage and in cases where you don't have leverage then extraordinary rendition.
mtgx 8y ago
Doesn't Facebook have a subsidiary in UK?
- JetSpiegel 8y ago
  It does, even though it's just a wrapper over Facebook Ireland.
Lio 8y ago
He 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.

rikkus 8y ago

He 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 ago

Why 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 ago
It 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 ago
  Facebook has offices in London
  - candiodari 8y ago
    I don't see how offices change the argument
    - cannabisceo 8y ago
      What is your definition of 'having a local presence'?
- izacus 8y ago
  By making their products available to users in the country they effect the people of that country. They ARE present.
  - nolok 8y ago
    Eh, 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.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  Yet it seems like it sets a less dangerous precedent than heavy handedly seizing a domain via ICANN and closing down poker sites that had no presence at all in the USA. Similar for torrent and streaming sites, or Kim Dotcom. Perhaps the UK should have adopted the heavy handed US approach instead? Nations, including and often starting with the USA, want internet companies to obey their laws. That shouldn't still surprise. In the case of less savoury regimes I would prefer that Facebook, Google or whoever would respond ethically and choose to withdraw rather than compromise thousands of people to make a few extra dollars. Better yet I'd prefer that data sharing with such places was legislated against.
- rleigh 8y ago
  It's a huge conceit to suggest that "internet companies" have not got a "real" location. They are registered companies. They have head offices. They have regional offices. They own entire datacentres. They are traded on stock exchanges. They trade for money with customers in countries all over the world. They are not above the law. Legally, is Facebook any different than say, 3M or IBM? Both are US corporations with offices, manufacturing and distribution facilities in the UK. They are obviously subject to UK law. The precise location of particular data stored by the company, and servers accessing the data, seems a very odd criterion upon which to argue that the company is not subject to the rule of law. The company exists as a legal entity in the UK, it has offices and employees, and customers. It does have a presence. And it should absolutely be required to obey the law of the land. (A few years ago, I might have had a slightly different view. But companies like Facebook and Google have taken such gross liberties with the law, and even the fundamental functioning of democracy itself, that I think there's an urgent need for them to be reigned in, harshly. They brought it entirely upon themselves.)

mikeash 8y ago

He 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 ago

Simple 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 ago
The us would do worse like sending FBI in other countries to arrest people. Or CIA.
- sjg007 8y ago
  In some cases it is called leverage and in cases where you don't have leverage then extraordinary rendition.

mtgx 8y ago

Doesn't Facebook have a subsidiary in UK?

JetSpiegel 8y ago
It does, even though it's just a wrapper over Facebook Ireland.

Lio 8y ago

He 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.