4 ms·

> 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

by 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
  > They can summon people and papers in the jurisdiction of the UK. He was in the jurisdiction of the UK? Being in the jurisdiction is literally a land matter, being in the UK means you're in their jurisdiction. It's not like you can ignore UK laws because you're American. So your own statement says it was legal. They can compel people to give them evidence. That is what they've done. I did this google search. It just says "They have powers to compel people (but not Members of either House) or organisations (but not the Government) to give evidence, but these are rarely invoked: the information asked for is usually provided voluntarily." Basically, Facebook being non-compliant thinking "We're US based and we keep those documents in the US and don't give UK folk access, there is nothing you can do." And they've responded. > 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. He could have gone that route, that would have involved sitting in jail while some judges decided what was what. And it seems like since it was Parliament that did it, it would have to go EU courts or Supreme court which both take a while to get to.
  - DannyBee 8y ago
    "Basically, Facebook being non-compliant thinking "We're US based and we keep those documents in the US and don't give UK folk access, there is nothing you can do." And they've responded." Again, they did not compel facebook. What facebook did or not do is irrelevant since they didn't order facebook to do anything. That would, again, have been perfectly legal.
- Veen 8y ago
  This is just nonsense, and surprising nonsense from a lawyer. Under UK law, parliament and select committees have the power to “send for people, papers, and records.” And they have the power to enforce their decision to send for a person. They rarely do this because people rarely refuse to appear before committees when invited. But it is within their legal power. This person was in the UK, subject to UK laws, and what they did was entirely legal. As for articles, try this: http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06208/SN06208.pdf http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN062...

by Veen 8y ago

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
> They can summon people and papers in the jurisdiction of the UK. He was in the jurisdiction of the UK? Being in the jurisdiction is literally a land matter, being in the UK means you're in their jurisdiction. It's not like you can ignore UK laws because you're American. So your own statement says it was legal. They can compel people to give them evidence. That is what they've done. I did this google search. It just says "They have powers to compel people (but not Members of either House) or organisations (but not the Government) to give evidence, but these are rarely invoked: the information asked for is usually provided voluntarily." Basically, Facebook being non-compliant thinking "We're US based and we keep those documents in the US and don't give UK folk access, there is nothing you can do." And they've responded. > 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. He could have gone that route, that would have involved sitting in jail while some judges decided what was what. And it seems like since it was Parliament that did it, it would have to go EU courts or Supreme court which both take a while to get to.
- DannyBee 8y ago
  "Basically, Facebook being non-compliant thinking "We're US based and we keep those documents in the US and don't give UK folk access, there is nothing you can do." And they've responded." Again, they did not compel facebook. What facebook did or not do is irrelevant since they didn't order facebook to do anything. That would, again, have been perfectly legal.
Veen 8y ago
This is just nonsense, and surprising nonsense from a lawyer. Under UK law, parliament and select committees have the power to “send for people, papers, and records.” And they have the power to enforce their decision to send for a person. They rarely do this because people rarely refuse to appear before committees when invited. But it is within their legal power. This person was in the UK, subject to UK laws, and what they did was entirely legal. As for articles, try this: http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06208/SN06208.pdf http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN062...