12 countries conduct fiery grilling of data-harvesters, Zuckerberg defies subpoena and hides away, helps cellphone carriers spy on customers instead

[Delicieuxz]

Your weekly Facebook scandals update:

 

 

Today was day 3 of an international grand committee meeting in Canada, where lawmakers from 12 countries grilled and large data-harvesting companies'  representatives on their practices, data privacy and security, and interference in democracy. At the meeting are representatives from Facebook, Google, and Amazon, and Twitter. The sessions will continue next Wednesday.

 

Facebook's Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg were issued a legal subpoena for the meeting but failed to show up.

 

 

Facebook takes heat from global politicians after Zuckerberg, Sandberg defy subpoena

Quote

Facebook’s top executives were supposed to appear before lawmakers from 12 countries in Ottawa Tuesday, meant to take a grilling on what they’re doing to stop hate and disinformation spreading on their online platforms.

 

But instead of founder Mark Zuckerberg and chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg, a roomful of frustrated legislators — many of whom had flown across the world to be there — found themselves face-to-face with two representatives sent in their stead, defying a subpoena sent earlier this month.

 

“I am sick to death of sitting through hours of platitudes from Facebook and avoidance tactics about answering questions,” said member of the British parliament Jo Stevens, noting that Zuckerberg has also refused to appear before her country’s parliament.

 

“We can only conclude he’s frightened of scrutiny,” she added. “I want the boss here to take responsibility.”

 

Kevin Chan and Neil Potts, both global policy advisors for Facebook, were grilled for three hours by the lawmakers assembled in Ottawa for the second of three days of meetings of the International Grand Committee on Big Data, Privacy and Democracy. The committee included representatives from Canada, Singapore, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Germany, Chile, Estonia, Mexico, Morocco, Ecuador, Costa Rica and Saint Lucia.

 

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Google CEO Sundar Pichai were also invited — but not issued subpoenas — and declined, sending representatives instead.

 

In response to the ignored subpoena, the Canadian members of the committee voted across party lines to deliver an unprecedented second summons to Zuckerberg and Sandberg. If either visits Canada, they’ll be served with an immediate order to testify before the privacy and ethics committee even if the House of Commons isn’t sitting.

 

“As far as I know, we were not even informed that he wasn’t showing up,” said NDP MP Charlie Angus. “I’ve never seen a situation where a corporate head ignores a legal summons.”

 

...

 

Left unchecked, the technology threatens our democracy, said Jim Balsillie, the head of Centre for International Governance Innovation and a former CEO of the company that created BlackBerry.

 

“Data is not the new oil, it’s the new plutonium,” he said.

 

“Amazingly powerful, dangerous when it spreads, difficult to clean up and with serious consequences when improperly used.”

 

 

Amazon faces tough questions on Parliament Hill over privacy practices, ad targeting

Quote

Moments later, Alan Davidson — vice-president of global policy, trust and security for Mozilla, which developed the Firefox browser — told MPs he was shocked to discover that the Amazon Echo device in his home had recorded his children.

 

"I was shocked, honestly, and my family was shocked to see these recordings of our young children from years ago that are in the cloud and stored about us," Davidson told today's gathering of the International Grand Committee, a collaboration between politicians from Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, Ireland, Singapore and several other countries.

 

...

 

Angus said the committee has moved the yardstick over the past six months but its work is not yet done.

 

"What about the democratic rights of citizens? What are we going to do with artificial machine intelligence making decisions for our lives without our input?" he asked. "What are we going to do with facial recognition technology and holding massively powerful digital corporations to account?

 

"That's a profound shift in the political discussion and it's happening around the world."

 

Digital assistant devices are eaves-dropping devices, and if you use one, you should expect that the tech company, the government, police, and hackers are all listening in on it at all times because there is nothing stopping anyone from listening to them if they want to. And, of course, the tech company is always listening for monetizable information, and to 'activate' if a key word is spoken (though, the device has to be already listening in order to pick up a keyword).

 

 

 

In other 'Facebook is still worse than you think' news, the company markets surveillance data it has on you to your cellphone carrier:

 

Thanks to Facebook, Your Cellphone Company Is Watching You More Closely Than Ever

Quote

AMONG THE MEGA-CORPORATIONS that surveil you, your cellphone carrier has always been one of the keenest monitors, in constant contact with the one small device you keep on you at almost every moment. A confidential Facebook document reviewed by The Intercept shows that the social network courts carriers, along with phone makers — some 100 different companies in 50 countries — by offering the use of even more surveillance data, pulled straight from your smartphone by Facebook itself.

 

Offered to select Facebook partners, the data includes not just technical information about Facebook members’ devices and use of Wi-Fi and cellular networks, but also their past locations, interests, and even their social groups. This data is sourced not just from the company’s main iOS and Android apps, but from Instagram and Messenger as well. The data has been used by Facebook partners to assess their standing against competitors, including customers lost to and won from them, but also for more controversial uses like racially targeted ads.

 

Some experts are particularly alarmed that Facebook has marketed the use of the information — and appears to have helped directly facilitate its use, along with other Facebook data — for the purpose of screening customers on the basis of likely creditworthiness. Such use could potentially run afoul of federal law, which tightly governs credit assessments.

 

[Guest]

Do subpoenas apply to robots though?

I am genuinely unsure.

[mr moose]

I wasn't aware there was a legal responsibility to meet subpoena requirements in another country.    They'd need to extradite him on charges if they really want him there. 

 

To be honest, as much as I dislike facebook, I find it mind numbing that any politician genuinely expected him to front up if there is no legal obligation to. 

[LukeNukem9]

As if zuckerburg is working with huawei...

[Arika]

17 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I wasn't aware there was a legal responsibility to meet subpoena requirements in another country.    They'd need to extradite him on charges if they really want him there. 

 

To be honest, as much as I dislike facebook, I find it mind numbing that any politician genuinely expected him to front up if there is no legal obligation to. 

It's not illegal since subpoenas are not really enforced across borders. However

 

Quote

The decision to hold them in contempt, Zimmer said, would be voted on by the whole of Parliament.

 

"Nobody is going to come with some handcuffs and arrest them, but to be held in contempt by an entire country would not serve any platform well," he added.

 

[Arika]

25 minutes ago, PacketMan said:

Well, what about making better laws, giving social media a few weeks to adapt, and then pursuing?

like GDPR that facebook just look at and said "ok......nah"

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, Arika S said:

It's not illegal since subpoenas are not really enforced across borders. However

 

 

 

In other words these politicians are sulking because they have no power over him and want to make it sound like they are some sort of authority in the matter.

 

In serves no one to play "I'm important" games, it's embarrassing for the country and the politicians need to get on with running their country rather than dancing around with toy guns. 

 

I've always been at opposition with anyone who thinks/talks like they can extend their countries laws outside of their own boundaries, if it's such a problem have a study done, present the evidence then order the site be blocked in your country at ISP level.   I know people will get shitty with this, but if you can prove a site is misinforming people to the detriment of due political process during an election, then that amounts to defamation and libel.  Trying to hide behind the "it's not my content" argument is just an excuse to not take responsibility for the damage your site is an accomplice to.

 

 

[Derangel]

56 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

In other words these politicians are sulking because they have no power over him and want to make it sound like they are some sort of authority in the matter.

 

In serves no one to play "I'm important" games, it's embarrassing for the country and the politicians need to get on with running their country rather than dancing around with toy guns. 

 

I've always been at opposition with anyone who thinks/talks like they can extend their countries laws outside of their own boundaries, if it's such a problem have a study done, present the evidence then order the site be blocked in your country at ISP level.   I know people will get shitty with this, but if you can prove a site is misinforming people to the detriment of due political process during an election, then that amounts to defamation and libel.  Trying to hide behind the "it's not my content" argument is just an excuse to not take responsibility for the damage your site is an accomplice to.

 

 

" If either visits Canada, they’ll be served with an immediate order to testify before the privacy and ethics committee even if the House of Commons isn’t sitting. "

 

From the OP. Basically neither of them can ever visit Canada again or they will be forced to abide by the summons.

[thorhammerz]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

In serves no one to play "I'm important" games, it's embarrassing for the country and the politicians need to get on with running their country rather than dancing around with toy guns. 

Canadian politicians? Running the country? Into the ground, perhaps.

[ARikozuM]

They can extradite him to Canada or even impose fines on the company for not complying. I'm completely fine with either. Also, Mega City One. 

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Derangel said:

" If either visits Canada, they’ll be served with an immediate order to testify before the privacy and ethics committee even if the House of Commons isn’t sitting. "

 

From the OP. Basically neither of them can ever visit Canada again or they will be forced to abide by the summons.

Only for as long as the committee remains active,  after the committee has been disbanded (because these hearings are not permanent) they aren't going to issue warrant to force him to testify at a non existent hearing. 

 

At worse, if he enters the country in a few years,  they charge him for failing to comply with an official government order, which will be a laughable exercise in paper work and more "I'm important" games. All for the sake of not being humiliated after assuming Zuckerburgers was just going to drop everything to talk to a bunch of self important politicians working on re-election.

 

 

34 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

They can extradite him to Canada or even impose fines on the company for not complying. I'm completely fine with either. Also, Mega City One. 

I wonder if they can impose fines on facebook for that?

 

They can only extradite him if they are charging him with a crime that (in general terms because each country can be slightly different) is a crime in both countries, is a severe crime (usually of espionage or violence) and does not violate any of the US constitutions (where habeus corpus can be initiated).   I don't think Zucks has broken any laws yet.

 

 

[Derangel]

11 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Only for as long as the committee remains active,  after the committee has been disbanded (because these hearings are not permanent) they aren't going to issue warrant to force him to testify at a non existent hearing. 

 

At worse, if he enters the country in a few years,  they charge him for failing to comply with an official government order, which will be a laughable exercise in paper work and more "I'm important" games. All for the sake of not being humiliated after assuming Zuckerburgers was just going to drop everything to talk to a bunch of self important politicians working on re-election.

 

 

I wonder if they can impose fines on facebook for that?

 

They can only extradite him if they are charging him with a crime that (in general terms because each country can be slightly different) is a crime in both countries, is a severe crime (usually of espionage or violence) and does not violate any of the US constitutions (where habeus corpus can be initiated).   I don't think Zucks has broken any laws yet.

 

 

That is true.

 

For that, I doubt it. I imagine if fines were possible in this situation they would have already imposed them or threaten to impose them.

[leadeater]

28 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Only for as long as the committee remains active,  after the committee has been disbanded (because these hearings are not permanent) they aren't going to issue warrant to force him to testify at a non existent hearing. 

Was it issued for Mark Zuckerberg or the CEO of Facebook? Could just appoint a cat as interim CEO and send it to Canada.

 

Spoiler

Facebook testimony 

 

[Dylanc1500]

Just now, leadeater said:

Was it issued for Mark Zuckerberg or the CEO of Facebook? Could just appoint a cat as interim CEO and send it to Canada.

 

That would be amazing. I would legitimately want to shake the hand of every board member that okayed it.

[Derangel]

9 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Was it issued for Mark Zuckerberg or the CEO of Facebook? Could just appoint a cat as interim CEO and send it to Canada.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Facebook testimony 

 

The cat would be a more convincing human than Zukerberg.

[leadeater]

17 minutes ago, Derangel said:

The cat would be a more convincing human than Zukerberg.

With comments like that you might hurt his feelings and cause a buffer overflow in the simulation engine.

[maartendc]

Maybe these countries should make laws blocking Facebook and any Facebook related server traffic across their entire country.

 

Let's see how fast Markie-Mark shows up then.

[ThePD]

1 minute ago, maartendc said:

Maybe these countries should make laws blocking Facebook and any Facebook related server traffic across their entire country.

 

Let's see how fast Markie-Mark shows up then.

And piss off a massive amount of people in the Country who use Facebook. I don't think a politician would want to be responsible for that kind of backlash.

[maartendc]

13 hours ago, leadeater said:

With comments like that you might hurt his feelings and cause a buffer overflow in the simulation engine. 

[ARikozuM]

23 minutes ago, ThePD said:

And piss off a massive amount of people in the Country who use Facebook. I don't think a politician would want to be responsible for that kind of backlash.

Let the people get pissed off. Let them learn exactly what FB does behind the scenes. Let them see Mega City One. Let them learn why nipping this now is better than letting it run free. 

[ThePD]

18 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Let the people get pissed off. Let them learn exactly what FB does behind the scenes. Let them see Mega City One. Let them learn why nipping this now is better than letting it run free. 

People know what Facebook does with your data, the thing is... people don't care because Facebook is convenient and lets people easily communicate with family members, friends. People will use products that are not in their best interests if it helps them in some way.

[maartendc]

2 hours ago, ThePD said:

And piss off a massive amount of people in the Country who use Facebook. I don't think a politician would want to be responsible for that kind of backlash.

Basically what your comment is saying is that Facebook is "too big to fail", just like the banks are / were.

 

Disconcerting proposition, no?

 

I disagree, I would vote for it. Other services would flourish in its stead.

[mr moose]

21 minutes ago, maartendc said:

Basically what your comment is saying is that Facebook is "too big to fail", just like the banks are / were.

 

Disconcerting proposition, no?

 

I disagree, I would vote for it. Other services would flourish in its stead.

People might go back to talking to each other face to face or on the phone. 

[Sauron]

TIME FOR A TRADE BAN AMIRITE

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

People might go back to talking to each other face to face or on the phone. 

That sounds horrible.