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.
> 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.
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?
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.
>The chair of the committee can call anybody in the world that they deem appropriate.
Serious question: if I were to be called by the UK chair of the committee, aside from optics - why cant I just say "FU"? What authority do they have over me?
They could find you in contempt, which would matter if you ever visited the UK.
The risk for Facebook is that the public are increasingly frustrated with big companies not paying their fair share of tax. Some people will say "but they're only paying what the law says they have to pay". Those people are failing to understand the British cultural value of "not taking the piss". Not attending would be saying "FU", and that's likely to add to the pressure to make these large companies pay more tax.
They may summon you, but would have no means/authority by which to compel attendance or impose punishment. Further, it's seen as more of a soft power:
> [I]t remains unclear what sanctions it would have at its disposal. Historically, those found guilty of contempts could be fined or imprisoned, but those sanctions have not been used by the Commons since 1666 and 1880 respectively. For all sorts of practical, legal and constitutional reasons, it is highly doubtful that the modern House would seriously consider this.
Facebook and Zuckerberg are often called upon, or even accused, especially in countries with limits to free speech (lèse-majesté & others). They generally disregard the posturing that the court order represent and negotiate when the situation is alarming -- but truth is, the vast majority of regulation is done by other local users.
The only real impact a government can have, cutting Facebook access, even in the direst circumstances, is rarely a smart option.
The UK is still an influential country, and data protection laws here have teeth. The risk for Facebook is that stronger regulations adopted in the UK may spread to other countries.
Is this accurate? The House of Commons briefing paper on Select committees: evidence and witnesses[1] describes the power as:
> In general a select committee with the power to send for persons, papers and records may summon any person within the United Kingdom jurisdiction as a witness.
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.