Asking someone to show up is not an "imposition into the private life of individuals".
You call it a demand, and seem to believe it has some kind of legal force, but it does not. They're asking. They're asking firmly, but they're still just asking. It has no more legal force than if I were to ask.
> Suggestions that "well Parliament can make things very difficult for him" whilst probably true should be given utmost contempt. Parliament should uphold the Rule of Law and not threaten people, even if it can.
Parliament is the source of law in the UK. The way parliament can make things difficult for him is to make law. Nobody is suggesting they should threaten people, but it is their job to e.g. consider the impact of how businesses threat their users and if appropriate to pass laws regulating it. If Facebook when given an opportunity to present their side to parliament decides not to take that opportunity, they should not be surprised if such laws does not take their views into account.
Zuckerberg should be happy to be explicitly given the opportunity to present Facebook's side - they need not extend that courtesy. They could instead simply make their decisions without hearing Facebooks side of the story at all.
> I can't see any reason not to simply demand an officer of Facebook with executive powers be in attendance. Perhaps specified to be the person with management responsibility for data protection.
A very simple reason is that they may not believe said persons would be able to offer the same input.
You call it a demand, and seem to believe it has some kind of legal force, but it does not. They're asking. They're asking firmly, but they're still just asking. It has no more legal force than if I were to ask.
> Suggestions that "well Parliament can make things very difficult for him" whilst probably true should be given utmost contempt. Parliament should uphold the Rule of Law and not threaten people, even if it can.
Parliament is the source of law in the UK. The way parliament can make things difficult for him is to make law. Nobody is suggesting they should threaten people, but it is their job to e.g. consider the impact of how businesses threat their users and if appropriate to pass laws regulating it. If Facebook when given an opportunity to present their side to parliament decides not to take that opportunity, they should not be surprised if such laws does not take their views into account.
Zuckerberg should be happy to be explicitly given the opportunity to present Facebook's side - they need not extend that courtesy. They could instead simply make their decisions without hearing Facebooks side of the story at all.
> I can't see any reason not to simply demand an officer of Facebook with executive powers be in attendance. Perhaps specified to be the person with management responsibility for data protection.
A very simple reason is that they may not believe said persons would be able to offer the same input.