6 ms·

Zuckerberg's Hawaii estate: battle's latest turn 'devastates' local family

40 points by Jerry2 7y ago

seanalltogether 7y ago
It interesting that Hawaii's land ownership rules were intended to protect small owners but have in effect made it so that only the rich can afford to wade through all the bullshit to actually acquire new property.
- czzarr 7y ago
  that's the consequence of most rules and regulations supposed to "protect the weak"
  - EliRivers 7y ago
    Definitely going to need some kind of citation on that one. Pretty much all regulation is to protect the less powerful from the more powerful and to stop people in advantageous positions exploiting others. The rich and powerful can't (in many countries, at least) openly wander around killing and stealing, for example, and the range of regulations down from there covers an enormous amount.
    - hellisothers 7y ago
      Regulatory Capture is I imagine what the Poster is talking about, it’s happening right now with Facebook’s suggestion that perhaps more regulation is a good idea... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
    - pmontra 7y ago
      It could go that way but it's usually the most powerful to have the connections with lawmakers and suggest what to write (or not to write) in some laws. About unintended consequences, check this article about GDPR after one year https://truthonthemarket.com/2019/05/24/gdpr-after-one-year-costs-and-unintended-consequences/ https://truthonthemarket.com/2019/05/24/gdpr-after-one-year-... I quote a couple of sentences but there is much more there > After the rule took effect in May, Google’s tracking software appeared on slightly more websites, Facebook’s on 7% fewer, while the smallest companies suffered a 32% drop, according to Ghostery, which develops privacy-enhancing web technology. > The fact that Google’s compliance strategy has ended up hurting its competitors and redirecting higher demand back to its own marketplace, where it can guarantee it has user consent, has unsettled publishers and ad tech vendors
      - fyfy18 7y ago
        If you are an adtech company who's primary business was selling personal information of users, then yes, of course GDPR will have had a big impact. Google has put a lot of effort into being GDPR compliant, so I'd assume a lot of busineses switched away from smaller competitors for that reason. I run a small SaaS business, which doesn't do anything ethically questional with user data, and becoming compliant involved: - writing a document on GDPR compliance - changing a few settings so IPs aren't logged or are at least anonymised - verifying log files aren't kept longer than needed and don't contain personal information that isn't needed I don't even need a popup asking for users to give permission to store personal information, because I'm not doing anything that needs that.
        czzarr 7y ago
        did you not get any requests for DPAs, additional certifications, etc?
        fyfy18 7y ago
        You don't need to get any certifications to be compliant, it's not like PCI where you need to be certified by a third party. This site has a simple checklist of what you need to do to be compliant: https://gdprchecklist.io/ https://gdprchecklist.io/ Most of the actions you need to take are just respecting the user's privacy and being explicit about how their data is shared. If you use your laptop in a coffee shop you wouldn't expect the barista to stand behind you and watch what you are doing, then share that data with their colleagues and suppliers. I'd say for a small company it's actually easier than a large company, as you have fewer processes that need to be changed. In my case it was a lot simpler to become compliant for this than VAT MOSS. I haven't had any requests for data, so I don't have an automated way to export it yet, but if anyone requests it I can build it quickly.
scythe 7y ago
The use of “ancestral land” gives the misleading impression that the claimants are Hawaiian natives, but in fact they are descendents of a Portuguese immigrant who bought the land in the 1880s. The analogy to colonialism — the taking of indigenous property by invaders - is farcical if not outright appropriation.
- sametmax 7y ago
  You can say that about any land, in any time in history. Humans kept moving and killing each others for 1000 of years. There is not a single place that haven't been taken from somebody else at some point in the last 10k y. Not to mention immigration, assimilation, raping and slavery that ensure the bloodline of pretty much evrybody was mixed up at some point.
rasz 7y ago
“In the UK, I would not be able to take on a client seeking to purchase a property or business in excess of a rational review of their wealth or earning history.” comedy gold
- cylinder 7y ago
  Funny but at the same time the UK branch of our company has to do a lot more diligence when they on board a new client than we do and that's due to EU regs.
  - raverbashing 7y ago
    You are right. Then the trick used in the UK is that it's not "a person" buying a property, it is "a company" (could be registered in the UK or elsewhere). It could be even a company owned by other companies Example: https://www.transparency.org.uk/press-releases/bbc-panorama-exposes-dirty-money/ https://www.transparency.org.uk/press-releases/bbc-panorama-... There is a good amount of brexit supporters that want to make these regulations even laxer.
- tempodox 7y ago
  In the US, letting clients buy property in excess of their wealth was what created the housing crisis. The tax payer had the dubious honor of bailing out the banks that tried to get rich that way.
jimnotgym 7y ago
There is a line here that Zuckerberg suggests this is to protect his privacy. I can't even begin to sort out how messed up that is!
- krustyburger 7y ago
  I’m the biggest critic when it comes to user privacy of Facebook (and Google) of anyone in my friend group. I say that first because I want to establish my bonafides- I genuinely care about user privacy and feel that Facebook has dropped the ball left and right on the matter. What’s worse, it appears that the company and (judging from some of his comments) Mr. Zuckerberg himself don’t believe in such a thing as meaningful privacy in the first place. So it’s not just a case of mistakes made, it’s that Facebook stands opposed to some of my own most cherished values. Having said all that, I think it’s important to separate Facebook’s corporate actions from Zuckerberg’s private life. Just because his company is engaged in questionable practices doesn’t mean he isn’t entitled to the same benefit of the doubt anyone else enjoys. And I have to say, if I had his wealth and his fame/notoriety, I’d bloody well want as much real-world privacy as I could get. I think it’s disingenuous to judge him for that or pretend it has any relation at all to Facebook’s policies.
  - rando444 7y ago
    I agree with this sentiment But I think you'd have to be naïve to think "they trust me, dumb fucks" .. and facebook's corporate disregard for user privacy are wholly unrelated.
    - krustyburger 7y ago
      I don’t think they are. I very much think he’s complicit in Facebook’s misbehavior. Those corporate misdeeds are something worthy of as much attention as can be given to them. But I don’t think that has any bearing on whether Zuckerberg himself should be faulted for wanting to protect his family from paparazzi cameras or worse.
  - EpicEng 7y ago
Maro 7y ago
"By the time Zuckerberg purchased the surrounding acres in 2014, the title to the four parcels was divided between hundreds of descendants." I just don't see how MZ is in the wrong trying to sort out ownership and purchase, for a presumably fair price, such a piece of land.
- samcday 7y ago
  I really don't want this to come across as rude, but consider this. Your comment is pretty extreme capitalism apologia. You don't have to be a complete socialist to reasonably consider the idea that maybe a private individual being able to use their power to seize any land they want, points to some major problems in the current social system you have. I don't want this necessarily to get super political though, so if I've stepped over a line feel free to vote me down into oblivion :) I just think stories like this are interesting because if you put down your ideaologies and look at the situation you realize nobody is right, but there's some obvious policy changes that are necessary.
  - gtfratteus 7y ago
    He bought the land for more than fair value. He didn't seize anything.
    - krustyburger 7y ago
      I seized a really nice dinner tonight. Don’t worry, my server seized 20% of the total bill from me.
- close04 7y ago
  Yeah, I was surprised to find out that anyone submitting a legitimate bid at least %5 higher than the winning bid basically overrides the result of the already closed auction [0] . Which makes me wonder what's the purpose of an auction if you can revisit it after the fact. On another note: > Ownership of the kuleana has sparked a years-long legal dispute involving hundreds of parties that has made international headlines and prompted a public apology from the Facebook CEO, who promised to drop his pursuit of the land in a 2017 letter published in The Garden Island. [0] What’s one more broken promise when your privacy is at stake? My ability to take this guy's side morally is a purely theoretical concept at this point. [0] https://www.thegardenisland.com/2019/06/05/hawaii-news/andrade-buys-all-four-kuleana/ https://www.thegardenisland.com/2019/06/05/hawaii-news/andra...
soapdog 7y ago
I love Kaua'i and been there many times and consider the garden island my spiritual home. What Zuckerberg is doing to all those that are poorer than him is evil. I closed my Facebook account earlier this year and I think that people who still are on this platform should take some time to reflect about their values and where to place their trust. The source of money that powers all these actions, from world-wide democracy wrecking algorithms, to the lack of any kind of decent oversight, to hundreds of Hawaiians losing their land, it is ultimately from the usage of Facebook and its sister products. If that kind of behavior is not OK with you folks, then, why not vote with your wallet and leave? There is a whole decentralized web in the making and and it feels much like the blogosphere. Leave those sillos, stop funding evil people.
- soapdog 7y ago
  ... And sorry for the personal post. I often avoid posting from the heart here but I spent the last 16 years going to Kaua'i, basically a large part of my adulthood and what I perceive as myself is linked that to the experiences in that island. I get a bit emotional when multibillionaires go wrecking the place (which already has its share of crap millionaires to be honest).
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

40 points by Jerry2 7y ago

It interesting that Hawaii's land ownership rules were intended to protect small owners but have in effect made it so that only the rich can afford to wade through all the bullshit to actually acquire new property.

czzarr 7y ago
that's the consequence of most rules and regulations supposed to "protect the weak"
- EliRivers 7y ago
  Definitely going to need some kind of citation on that one. Pretty much all regulation is to protect the less powerful from the more powerful and to stop people in advantageous positions exploiting others. The rich and powerful can't (in many countries, at least) openly wander around killing and stealing, for example, and the range of regulations down from there covers an enormous amount.
  - hellisothers 7y ago
    Regulatory Capture is I imagine what the Poster is talking about, it’s happening right now with Facebook’s suggestion that perhaps more regulation is a good idea... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
  - pmontra 7y ago
    It could go that way but it's usually the most powerful to have the connections with lawmakers and suggest what to write (or not to write) in some laws. About unintended consequences, check this article about GDPR after one year https://truthonthemarket.com/2019/05/24/gdpr-after-one-year-costs-and-unintended-consequences/ https://truthonthemarket.com/2019/05/24/gdpr-after-one-year-... I quote a couple of sentences but there is much more there > After the rule took effect in May, Google’s tracking software appeared on slightly more websites, Facebook’s on 7% fewer, while the smallest companies suffered a 32% drop, according to Ghostery, which develops privacy-enhancing web technology. > The fact that Google’s compliance strategy has ended up hurting its competitors and redirecting higher demand back to its own marketplace, where it can guarantee it has user consent, has unsettled publishers and ad tech vendors
    - fyfy18 7y ago
      If you are an adtech company who's primary business was selling personal information of users, then yes, of course GDPR will have had a big impact. Google has put a lot of effort into being GDPR compliant, so I'd assume a lot of busineses switched away from smaller competitors for that reason. I run a small SaaS business, which doesn't do anything ethically questional with user data, and becoming compliant involved: - writing a document on GDPR compliance - changing a few settings so IPs aren't logged or are at least anonymised - verifying log files aren't kept longer than needed and don't contain personal information that isn't needed I don't even need a popup asking for users to give permission to store personal information, because I'm not doing anything that needs that.
      - czzarr 7y ago
        did you not get any requests for DPAs, additional certifications, etc?
        fyfy18 7y ago
        You don't need to get any certifications to be compliant, it's not like PCI where you need to be certified by a third party. This site has a simple checklist of what you need to do to be compliant: https://gdprchecklist.io/ https://gdprchecklist.io/ Most of the actions you need to take are just respecting the user's privacy and being explicit about how their data is shared. If you use your laptop in a coffee shop you wouldn't expect the barista to stand behind you and watch what you are doing, then share that data with their colleagues and suppliers. I'd say for a small company it's actually easier than a large company, as you have fewer processes that need to be changed. In my case it was a lot simpler to become compliant for this than VAT MOSS. I haven't had any requests for data, so I don't have an automated way to export it yet, but if anyone requests it I can build it quickly.

scythe 7y ago

The use of “ancestral land” gives the misleading impression that the claimants are Hawaiian natives, but in fact they are descendents of a Portuguese immigrant who bought the land in the 1880s. The analogy to colonialism — the taking of indigenous property by invaders - is farcical if not outright appropriation.

sametmax 7y ago
You can say that about any land, in any time in history. Humans kept moving and killing each others for 1000 of years. There is not a single place that haven't been taken from somebody else at some point in the last 10k y. Not to mention immigration, assimilation, raping and slavery that ensure the bloodline of pretty much evrybody was mixed up at some point.

rasz 7y ago

“In the UK, I would not be able to take on a client seeking to purchase a property or business in excess of a rational review of their wealth or earning history.” comedy gold

cylinder 7y ago
Funny but at the same time the UK branch of our company has to do a lot more diligence when they on board a new client than we do and that's due to EU regs.
- raverbashing 7y ago
  You are right. Then the trick used in the UK is that it's not "a person" buying a property, it is "a company" (could be registered in the UK or elsewhere). It could be even a company owned by other companies Example: https://www.transparency.org.uk/press-releases/bbc-panorama-exposes-dirty-money/ https://www.transparency.org.uk/press-releases/bbc-panorama-... There is a good amount of brexit supporters that want to make these regulations even laxer.
tempodox 7y ago
In the US, letting clients buy property in excess of their wealth was what created the housing crisis. The tax payer had the dubious honor of bailing out the banks that tried to get rich that way.

jimnotgym 7y ago

There is a line here that Zuckerberg suggests this is to protect his privacy. I can't even begin to sort out how messed up that is!

krustyburger 7y ago
I’m the biggest critic when it comes to user privacy of Facebook (and Google) of anyone in my friend group. I say that first because I want to establish my bonafides- I genuinely care about user privacy and feel that Facebook has dropped the ball left and right on the matter. What’s worse, it appears that the company and (judging from some of his comments) Mr. Zuckerberg himself don’t believe in such a thing as meaningful privacy in the first place. So it’s not just a case of mistakes made, it’s that Facebook stands opposed to some of my own most cherished values. Having said all that, I think it’s important to separate Facebook’s corporate actions from Zuckerberg’s private life. Just because his company is engaged in questionable practices doesn’t mean he isn’t entitled to the same benefit of the doubt anyone else enjoys. And I have to say, if I had his wealth and his fame/notoriety, I’d bloody well want as much real-world privacy as I could get. I think it’s disingenuous to judge him for that or pretend it has any relation at all to Facebook’s policies.
- rando444 7y ago
  I agree with this sentiment But I think you'd have to be naïve to think "they trust me, dumb fucks" .. and facebook's corporate disregard for user privacy are wholly unrelated.
  - krustyburger 7y ago
    I don’t think they are. I very much think he’s complicit in Facebook’s misbehavior. Those corporate misdeeds are something worthy of as much attention as can be given to them. But I don’t think that has any bearing on whether Zuckerberg himself should be faulted for wanting to protect his family from paparazzi cameras or worse.
- EpicEng 7y ago

Maro 7y ago

"By the time Zuckerberg purchased the surrounding acres in 2014, the title to the four parcels was divided between hundreds of descendants." I just don't see how MZ is in the wrong trying to sort out ownership and purchase, for a presumably fair price, such a piece of land.

samcday 7y ago
I really don't want this to come across as rude, but consider this. Your comment is pretty extreme capitalism apologia. You don't have to be a complete socialist to reasonably consider the idea that maybe a private individual being able to use their power to seize any land they want, points to some major problems in the current social system you have. I don't want this necessarily to get super political though, so if I've stepped over a line feel free to vote me down into oblivion :) I just think stories like this are interesting because if you put down your ideaologies and look at the situation you realize nobody is right, but there's some obvious policy changes that are necessary.
- gtfratteus 7y ago
  He bought the land for more than fair value. He didn't seize anything.
  - krustyburger 7y ago
    I seized a really nice dinner tonight. Don’t worry, my server seized 20% of the total bill from me.
close04 7y ago
Yeah, I was surprised to find out that anyone submitting a legitimate bid at least %5 higher than the winning bid basically overrides the result of the already closed auction [0] . Which makes me wonder what's the purpose of an auction if you can revisit it after the fact. On another note: > Ownership of the kuleana has sparked a years-long legal dispute involving hundreds of parties that has made international headlines and prompted a public apology from the Facebook CEO, who promised to drop his pursuit of the land in a 2017 letter published in The Garden Island. [0] What’s one more broken promise when your privacy is at stake? My ability to take this guy's side morally is a purely theoretical concept at this point. [0] https://www.thegardenisland.com/2019/06/05/hawaii-news/andrade-buys-all-four-kuleana/ https://www.thegardenisland.com/2019/06/05/hawaii-news/andra...

soapdog 7y ago

I love Kaua'i and been there many times and consider the garden island my spiritual home. What Zuckerberg is doing to all those that are poorer than him is evil. I closed my Facebook account earlier this year and I think that people who still are on this platform should take some time to reflect about their values and where to place their trust. The source of money that powers all these actions, from world-wide democracy wrecking algorithms, to the lack of any kind of decent oversight, to hundreds of Hawaiians losing their land, it is ultimately from the usage of Facebook and its sister products. If that kind of behavior is not OK with you folks, then, why not vote with your wallet and leave? There is a whole decentralized web in the making and and it feels much like the blogosphere. Leave those sillos, stop funding evil people.

soapdog 7y ago
... And sorry for the personal post. I often avoid posting from the heart here but I spent the last 16 years going to Kaua'i, basically a large part of my adulthood and what I perceive as myself is linked that to the experiences in that island. I get a bit emotional when multibillionaires go wrecking the place (which already has its share of crap millionaires to be honest).
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]