2 ms·

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 admi

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...
- DannyBee 8y ago
  Except it's not. If you find someone else's nonsense surprising, maybe you should consider whether it's really nonsense. (I also checked with a few colleagues in the UK) The last case this really came to bear was around rupert murdoch, and the conclusion was "they could not actually compel him". I do not believe you read the publications or articles you are citing, so here's a shorter one for you: https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/contempt-witnesses-select-committees https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/contempt-witn... "If he does disregard the summons, the committee will have the option of making a report to the House arguing that he has committed ‘a contempt’" Note that unlike what you say (the committee cannot enforce it itself), the committee's power is actually limited to making a report and asking the broader body to find them in contempt. "What is more, if any committee were to report to the House that it believed a contempt had been committed, and the House agreed, it remains unclear what sanctions it would have at its disposal. Historically, those found guilty of contempts could be fined or imprisoned, but those sanctions have not been used by the Commons since 1666 and 1880 respectively. For all sorts of practical, legal and constitutional reasons, it is highly doubtful that the modern House would seriously consider this." Also note: It's almost certain they didn't release the documents to the public because they didn't feel their legal position was very good. They would definitely be immune from any repercussions from the publication itself due to privilege, so the only reason not to publish is to avoid legal embarrassment over how they acquired them in the first place.

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...

DannyBee 8y ago
Except it's not. If you find someone else's nonsense surprising, maybe you should consider whether it's really nonsense. (I also checked with a few colleagues in the UK) The last case this really came to bear was around rupert murdoch, and the conclusion was "they could not actually compel him". I do not believe you read the publications or articles you are citing, so here's a shorter one for you: https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/contempt-witnesses-select-committees https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/contempt-witn... "If he does disregard the summons, the committee will have the option of making a report to the House arguing that he has committed ‘a contempt’" Note that unlike what you say (the committee cannot enforce it itself), the committee's power is actually limited to making a report and asking the broader body to find them in contempt. "What is more, if any committee were to report to the House that it believed a contempt had been committed, and the House agreed, it remains unclear what sanctions it would have at its disposal. Historically, those found guilty of contempts could be fined or imprisoned, but those sanctions have not been used by the Commons since 1666 and 1880 respectively. For all sorts of practical, legal and constitutional reasons, it is highly doubtful that the modern House would seriously consider this." Also note: It's almost certain they didn't release the documents to the public because they didn't feel their legal position was very good. They would definitely be immune from any repercussions from the publication itself due to privilege, so the only reason not to publish is to avoid legal embarrassment over how they acquired them in the first place.