5 ms·

Isn't all the information held within the US, therefore, a UK judge wouldn't be able to grant access? Also, one minute you're talking about the law and order a

Isn't all the information held within the US, therefore, a UK judge wouldn't be able to grant access? Also, one minute you're talking about the law and order approach then you're complaining that they used the law as it exists. The lesson of the day, don't go playing funny buggers with governments.

DannyBee 8y ago
The UK can still compel them, by compelling Facebook's relevant country director. The method used here (physically detaining a non Facebook actor who is not a UK citizen who had access to the docs under a protective order and threatening them until they caved) is so far beyond unacceptable it's hard to fathom. As I said in the other thread, the only reason this could ever be acceptable of because of hate of Facebook, seen quite well I'm this thread. (As I also said in the other thread it is also hard to believe it was anything other than a deliberate deal between the UK land and sixfourthree)
- throwaway2048 8y ago
  I doubt anyone is going to get voted out over this, which is ultimately the only standard that has ever applied to the UK parliment's actions.
- Doctor_Fegg 8y ago
  Don't travel to the UK or offer your business to UK citizens if you don't like UK laws. It's not that hard.
  - dlor 8y ago
    I think you might be missing the point. DannyBee says that requesting documents from Facebook in the UK would have been a fine option. But that's not what happened here! The documents were obtained from someone who was essentially a third party, that just happened to have access to them. Facebook was not willingly doing business with this person.
- Veen 8y ago
  > the only reason this could ever be acceptable of because of hate of Facebook It's acceptable because it's perfectly legal in the UK. The world is not America. Other countries have different laws and systems of government.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > It's acceptable because it's perfectly legal in the UK. The world is not America. While the world is not America, Congress has the legal power to do the exact same thing to a UK executive traveling in the US with information sealed by a UK court. Each House or Congress has its own Sergeants-at-Arms, with deputies, and the authority to deploy them the same way, and even, IIRC, it's own (long disused) detention facility should it elect to use it's arrewt powers.
  - DannyBee 8y ago
    Based on what? (Let's please go beyond the hacker news slapback and cite a real source) It's not actually legal in the UK, and even the person who did it admits it is "uncharted territory". The parliament's own publications state what I told you. A simple google about what the UK parliament has the power to compel will give you these results. They can summon people and papers in the jurisdiction of the UK. So it would totally be legal to summon them and do what you want if the person was a UK citizen, or compel the papers if they were in the UK. However, the person in question is not. They were certainly under the jurisdiction of the UK, so you theoretically could compel them to a hearing (though even this is arguable if you read parliament's own publications. They've addressed it before, and the answer is "probably not") Also, since they are a US citizen traveling abroad, international treaties/law between US and UK would have given him the right to refuse and be compelled through legal process. In any case, the compulsion was to produce the papers, and there is simply no viable argument i've seen that the papers were under the jurisdiction of the UK. So if you believe there is some power that makes it magically legal, please, by all means, cite it! All articles, advice, etc, i can find suggests precisely the opposite - they knew this was not okay to do.
    - johnnyfaehell 8y ago
- DannyBee 8y ago
  FWIW: The court filings by kramer suggest strongly this was a secret deal: 1. He claims he "panicked" 2. He never asked for, consulted, etc, his lawyers when he was detained 3. He was there to meet with a reporter about the case 4. Various members of parliament somehow knew exactly where he was at what times. 5. It all magically goes down a few days before facebook is about to be questioned. ... https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/26/tech/uk-parliament-facebook-six4three-documents/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/26/tech/uk-parliament-facebook-s...
  - johnnyfaehell 8y ago
    > 4. Various members of parliament somehow knew exactly where he was at what times. It's like the British government have some sort of organisation to find things out.

DannyBee 8y ago

The UK can still compel them, by compelling Facebook's relevant country director. The method used here (physically detaining a non Facebook actor who is not a UK citizen who had access to the docs under a protective order and threatening them until they caved) is so far beyond unacceptable it's hard to fathom. As I said in the other thread, the only reason this could ever be acceptable of because of hate of Facebook, seen quite well I'm this thread. (As I also said in the other thread it is also hard to believe it was anything other than a deliberate deal between the UK land and sixfourthree)

throwaway2048 8y ago
I doubt anyone is going to get voted out over this, which is ultimately the only standard that has ever applied to the UK parliment's actions.
Doctor_Fegg 8y ago
Don't travel to the UK or offer your business to UK citizens if you don't like UK laws. It's not that hard.
- dlor 8y ago
  I think you might be missing the point. DannyBee says that requesting documents from Facebook in the UK would have been a fine option. But that's not what happened here! The documents were obtained from someone who was essentially a third party, that just happened to have access to them. Facebook was not willingly doing business with this person.
Veen 8y ago
> the only reason this could ever be acceptable of because of hate of Facebook It's acceptable because it's perfectly legal in the UK. The world is not America. Other countries have different laws and systems of government.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > It's acceptable because it's perfectly legal in the UK. The world is not America. While the world is not America, Congress has the legal power to do the exact same thing to a UK executive traveling in the US with information sealed by a UK court. Each House or Congress has its own Sergeants-at-Arms, with deputies, and the authority to deploy them the same way, and even, IIRC, it's own (long disused) detention facility should it elect to use it's arrewt powers.
- DannyBee 8y ago
  Based on what? (Let's please go beyond the hacker news slapback and cite a real source) It's not actually legal in the UK, and even the person who did it admits it is "uncharted territory". The parliament's own publications state what I told you. A simple google about what the UK parliament has the power to compel will give you these results. They can summon people and papers in the jurisdiction of the UK. So it would totally be legal to summon them and do what you want if the person was a UK citizen, or compel the papers if they were in the UK. However, the person in question is not. They were certainly under the jurisdiction of the UK, so you theoretically could compel them to a hearing (though even this is arguable if you read parliament's own publications. They've addressed it before, and the answer is "probably not") Also, since they are a US citizen traveling abroad, international treaties/law between US and UK would have given him the right to refuse and be compelled through legal process. In any case, the compulsion was to produce the papers, and there is simply no viable argument i've seen that the papers were under the jurisdiction of the UK. So if you believe there is some power that makes it magically legal, please, by all means, cite it! All articles, advice, etc, i can find suggests precisely the opposite - they knew this was not okay to do.
  - johnnyfaehell 8y ago
DannyBee 8y ago
FWIW: The court filings by kramer suggest strongly this was a secret deal: 1. He claims he "panicked" 2. He never asked for, consulted, etc, his lawyers when he was detained 3. He was there to meet with a reporter about the case 4. Various members of parliament somehow knew exactly where he was at what times. 5. It all magically goes down a few days before facebook is about to be questioned. ... https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/26/tech/uk-parliament-facebook-six4three-documents/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/26/tech/uk-parliament-facebook-s...
- johnnyfaehell 8y ago
  > 4. Various members of parliament somehow knew exactly where he was at what times. It's like the British government have some sort of organisation to find things out.