3 ms·

Yes, but consent is not something that can be universally declared in a credible manner. There are things that remain illegal even after you have consented to t

Yes, but consent is not something that can be universally declared in a credible manner. There are things that remain illegal even after you have consented to them. For instance, having sex with someone below the age of consent is illegal even if they have consented to it (the idea being, of course, that they may be coerced into expressing that consent). > All jurisdictions I'm aware of (not a lawyer) have the concept of agents that may act on your behalf with consent. To what extent such agents can act using your name (with consent) vs. using their own name but on your behalf, varies greatly. They do, but things are not as simple as "can act on your behalf with consent". Around here, for instance (but I'm in Europe), they can only act on your behalf if: a) You have explicitly given them consent to act on your behalf in that specific situation (i.e. you told them "you can go to the bank on this date and cash in this much in my name"), or if you have explicitly given them consent to act on your behalf with that particular party and for a specified period of time (i.e. you can go to this bank and do anything in my name for this period of time), and b) The contract that states this has been validated by a notary and recorded by authorities, and c) The party that they are acting on your behalf with knows about this, has been explicitly informed that they are acting on your behalf, and agrees to work with them under these conditions. If they fail to do any of these, it's flat-out illegal. I think this is covered under civil law here, though, so it can be voided by a contract -- but the idea is that consent is not as trivial as signing a sheet of paper that says yeah, do whatever you want. It's bound by specific terms, too, the breach of which makes the whole thing illegal, even if on the whole the operation was consensual (i.e. if an agent, with my consent, goes to the bank to cash in a deposit, but does not explicitly inform the cashier that they are acting on my behalf so that they record the transaction accordingly (i.e. done by X on behalf of NotALaser), he's breaking the law). (Edit: or, to make it clearer: he can represent me, but he cannot claim he's me. He has to explicitly inform the other party that he's acting on my behalf, declare his identity and present the proper authorization etc.)

vidarh 11y ago
> There are things that remain illegal even after you have consented to them. Yes, I pointed that out. > They do, but things are not as simple as "can act on your behalf with consent" I believe that was exactly the point I was making. > Around here, for instance (but I'm in Europe), they can only act on your behalf if: While I'm sure you're right for your location, "Europe" encompasses not only ~50 distinct legal systems, but also half a dozen or so distinct legal traditions (with e.g. Common law, Germanic law, Napoleonic law and Roman law as the biggest traditions), which is one of the reasons I specifically pointed out that it varies greatly how clear one has to be about whether or not something is signed by an agent. Worldwide it gets even more complicated. To be very clear: I agree that some places the agent will need to specifically sign and state their own name and specify they are acting as an agent. Exactly in line with the examples I gave, a couple of which are from Europe. In others they can stamp or use a machine to "fake" the name of the person they are acting on behalf of -- as long as they have that persons consent to do so. In the US we have perhaps one of the most famous examples of the latter: The office of the US President frequently uses an Autopen [1] to sign documents on behalf of the president, such as autographs or letters to constituents. The purpose of it is to duplicate the signature precisely, making actual pen strokes in order to make the signature seem more authentic than e.g. the use of a stamp or seal. But US presidents have used it for much more important things than letters and autographs, including several times that Obama has had staffers use an Autopen to sign laws on his behalf. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopen
- notalaser 11y ago
  > While I'm sure you're right for your location, "Europe" encompasses not only ~50 distinct legal systems, but also half a dozen or so distinct legal traditions (with e.g. Common law, Germanic law, Napoleonic law and Roman law as the biggest traditions), which is one of the reasons I specifically pointed out that it varies greatly how clear one has to be about whether or not something is signed by an agent. Of course. I mentioned I'm in Europe just to ensure that it's clear I'm not referring to any law that apply in the US, as this is what HN is most familiar with. Europe is, indeed, very diverse when it comes to law.

vidarh 11y ago

> There are things that remain illegal even after you have consented to them. Yes, I pointed that out. > They do, but things are not as simple as "can act on your behalf with consent" I believe that was exactly the point I was making. > Around here, for instance (but I'm in Europe), they can only act on your behalf if: While I'm sure you're right for your location, "Europe" encompasses not only ~50 distinct legal systems, but also half a dozen or so distinct legal traditions (with e.g. Common law, Germanic law, Napoleonic law and Roman law as the biggest traditions), which is one of the reasons I specifically pointed out that it varies greatly how clear one has to be about whether or not something is signed by an agent. Worldwide it gets even more complicated. To be very clear: I agree that some places the agent will need to specifically sign and state their own name and specify they are acting as an agent. Exactly in line with the examples I gave, a couple of which are from Europe. In others they can stamp or use a machine to "fake" the name of the person they are acting on behalf of -- as long as they have that persons consent to do so. In the US we have perhaps one of the most famous examples of the latter: The office of the US President frequently uses an Autopen [1] to sign documents on behalf of the president, such as autographs or letters to constituents. The purpose of it is to duplicate the signature precisely, making actual pen strokes in order to make the signature seem more authentic than e.g. the use of a stamp or seal. But US presidents have used it for much more important things than letters and autographs, including several times that Obama has had staffers use an Autopen to sign laws on his behalf. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopen

notalaser 11y ago
> While I'm sure you're right for your location, "Europe" encompasses not only ~50 distinct legal systems, but also half a dozen or so distinct legal traditions (with e.g. Common law, Germanic law, Napoleonic law and Roman law as the biggest traditions), which is one of the reasons I specifically pointed out that it varies greatly how clear one has to be about whether or not something is signed by an agent. Of course. I mentioned I'm in Europe just to ensure that it's clear I'm not referring to any law that apply in the US, as this is what HN is most familiar with. Europe is, indeed, very diverse when it comes to law.