
Zuckerberg's Hawaii estate: battle's latest turn 'devastates' local family - Jerry2
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/06/zuckerbergs-hawaii-estate-battles-latest-turn-devastates-local-family
======
soapdog
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
... 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).

------
seanalltogether
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
that's the consequence of most rules and regulations supposed to "protect the
weak"

~~~
EliRivers
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.

~~~
pmontra
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-...](https://truthonthemarket.com/2019/05/24/gdpr-after-one-year-costs-
and-unintended-consequences/)

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
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
did you not get any requests for DPAs, additional certifications, etc?

~~~
fyfy18
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
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
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.

------
Maro
"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
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
He bought the land for more than fair value. He didn't seize anything.

~~~
krustyburger
I seized a really nice dinner tonight. Don’t worry, my server seized 20% of
the total bill from me.

------
jimnotgym
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
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.

~~~
EpicEng
>...judging from some of his comments) Mr. Zuckerberg himself don’t believe in
such a thing as meaningful privacy in the first place.

>Having said all that, I think it’s important to separate Facebook’s corporate
actions from Zuckerberg’s private life.

Those two statements don't jive. If he doesn't believe in meaningful personal
privacy then your argument is just a distinction without a difference.

I think the reality is that he cares about his privacy and also likes to make
money by monetizing the personal details of other people.

~~~
krustyburger
As a serious advocate of online user privacy I hesitate to point this out, but
on a really important level there’s a difference between one’s privacy when it
comes to one’s online browsing habits and one’s privacy when it comes to
paparazzi photographs taken from the neighbor’s house and sold to the highest
bidder.

~~~
whenchamenia
I would strongly disagree. Most people have something revealed about them in a
fb post that would likely be more damaging than some ugly half-naked photos
floating around.

------
rasz
“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
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
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-...](https://www.transparency.org.uk/press-releases/bbc-panorama-
exposes-dirty-money/)

There is a good amount of brexit supporters that want to make these
regulations even laxer.

