Facebook described as "morally bankrupt pathological liars" over Christchurch attack live stream

New Zealand’s official privacy watchdog on Monday described Facebook as “morally bankrupt” and suggested his country follow neighbouring Australia’s lead by making laws that could jail executives over streamed violence such as Christchurch mosque shootings.

Privacy Commissioner John Edwards has been critical of Facebook’s response to a gunman using platform to livestream some of slaughter of 50 worshippers and wounding of 50 more at two mosques on March 15.

Edwards made his comments after Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg recently rejected calls to introduce a delay in his livestreaming service Facebook Live, saying it would interfere with interactivity of livestreaming.

“Facebook cant be trusted. y are morally bankrupt pathological liars who enable gecide (Myanmar), facilitate foreign undermining of democratic institutions,” Edwards posted on Twitter.

Facebook has been criticised for t doing eugh to police hate speech in Myanmar, where a government campaign against mirity Rohinyga Muslims has been described by UN as ethnic cleansing. platform has also been at centre of claims that Russia meddled in 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Facebook responded to Edward’s post with a statement that said its chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, had recently shared policy and technical steps company was taking to strengn rules for using Facebook Live, address hate on Facebook platforms and support New Zealand community.

READ | Facebook scrubs 1.5mn Christchurch attack videos but criticism goes viral

“We are deeply committed to strengning our policies, improving our techlogy and working with experts to keep Facebook safe,” statement said.

Edwards, who is tasked with protecting New Zealanders’ personal information according to country’s Privacy Act, said that governments needed to come toger and “force platforms to find a solution” to problem of livestreaming of atrocities like Christchurch slayings as well as suicides and rapes.

“It may be that regulating, as Australia has done just in last week, would be a good interim way to get ir attention and say: ‘Unless you can demonstrate safety of se services, you simply can’t use m,’” Edwards told Radio NZ.

Edwards regards himself as an advocate for Christchurch victims who had ir right to privacy violated by having ir deaths broadcast via Facebook to world in real time.

His office said privacy commissioner had taken to making his criticism of Facebook about its lack of livestreaming safeguards public “because he has few or options.”

“Under current Privacy Act, his office has penalties it can impose on global tech companies like Facebook,” commissioner’s office said in a statement.

“His only resort is to publicly name Facebook for t ensuring its livestreaming service is a safe platform which does t compound original harm caused by Christchurch killings,” statement added.

READ | Facebook to ban posts on white supremacy, white nationalism and white separatism

Australian Parliament on Thursday passed some of most restrictive laws about online communication in democratic world.

It is w a crime in Australia for social media platforms t to quickly remove “abhorrent violent material.” crime would be punishable by three years in prison and a fine of 10.5 million Australian dollars ($7.5 million), or 10% of platform’s annual turver, whichever is larger.

Digital Industry Group Inc. — an association representing digital industry in Australia including Facebook, Google and Twitter — said taking down abhorrent content was a “highly complex problem” that required consultation with a range of experts, which government had t done.

Australia wants to take its law to a Group of 20 countries forum in Japan as a template for holding social media companies to account.

New Zealand’s Justice Minister Andrew Little said last week his government had also made a commitment to review role of social media and obligations of companies that provide platforms. He said he had asked officials to look at effectiveness of current hate speech laws and wher re were gaps that need to be filled.

Facebook last year disregarded Edwards’ ruling that it had breached Privacy Act by t releasing information to a New Zealand man who wanted to kw what ors were saying about him on social network.

Facebook argued that it was t bound by New Zealand’s Privacy Act because it was based overseas, but later agreed to comply with local law.

New Zealand’s Parliament is amending Act to give privacy commissioner more powers and to clarify that offshore companies that hold information about New Zealanders must comply with Act.