Hacker News Reader

Comment by andrewcooke | Hacker News Reader

is this because it's illegal to work without a permit [edit: no, not needed for 90 days for americans]? or is it just detectives that cannot work there? or is it that they claimed to be local policemen?

if i were a market analyst who flew to iceland (private plane or not - what has that got to do with it?) to study local opinions on some new product, say, would that get a similar reaction? would it be ok as long as i didn't ask to speak to govt officials?

is there some kind of international convention / agreement that says that policemen don't work abroad? is it that the request for cooperation was at too low a level? [edit: ok, i added this just as it was suggested in a reply; thanks]

i'm having a hard time understanding what the problem was here from the article, which seems to assume that something was obviously wrong.

[oh noes - someone asking questions! better downvote! sigh...]

View on HN

In general it's a problem in pretty much every country when official investigators fly in and start investigating without prior notice. The US administration would do the same if the german police sent an investigation team over to collect evidence in a german case. The official procedure is to request help or permission from the local government and only send investigators if granted. Such requests get denied in some cases, for example if the alleged crime is not a crime in the country that you're trying to investigate in.

Note that this is not arbitrary, it actually makes sense: while in a different country, any police force would be expected to follow that country's own laws, including things like what you are allowed to ask, how you can ask, what evidence you can collect or take out of the country, etc etc. A bit of oversight is required, hence they need to ask for permission, and be assisted on the ground.

This, incidentally, is one of the outrageous elements in the raid of Kim Dotcom's house: US authorities pretty much disregarded all local New Zealand laws on the matter (and somebody in NZ let it happen, they were only slammed in court during subsequent appeals).

So you have a pattern: federal US authorities investigating copyright "crimes" will blatantly ignore traditional jurisdiction rules. The Hollywood Empire does not recognise any equal power, so to speak.

How is investigating WikiLeaks, "investigating copyright crimes?"

The problem is that the FBI sent law enforcement officers into another, sovereign country without prior permission.

This could have turned into a major diplomatic incident, it is not something you do no matter how upset you are about people leaking your stuff over the internet. Basic common courtesy - you ask first.

> s there some kind of international convention / agreement that says that policemen don't work abroad?

I think you have got it backwards. There is no agreement saying that they can.

Staying in a foreign country is a privilege not a right. You are only permitted to do whatever your visa says you can do. In case of visa-waiver agreements, you can only do what the agreement states you can do, on top of that the government can pretty much kick you out at its own discretion citing vague reasons like national security.

A market analyst is comparable to a covert FBI operation on foreigh spoil? Really?

Does the US allow foreign agents to arrive quietly unannounced by private plane to disappear in to the US for unknown reasons? I do hope not.

This really is the sort of thing that destroys good will to the US, and feeds the international bully,arrogance and hypocrisy monster. If any one dared to try to pull this on US soil, all hell would break loose. Why then does the US think its allowed to do it? Why even try?

Although, as I type this, in the back of my mind is how the US authorities bully their own citizens in to suicide. So.... <shrug>

I would imagine that SIS officers work in the US under cover as diplomats - and what does the USA broken system for electing electing Law officials have to do with how intelligence agencys are run ?

If you tried to go to Iceland (or any other nation in the world) without having first received permission, then yes you could expect to be given the boot. That's what a "visa" is.

If you're only staying for a short period and your own nation is on friendly terms with the place you're visiting, you can often expect to get a (limited) visa automatically. If you try and sneak in without one, that's called "illegal immigration".

americans don't need a visa for up to 90 days - business or tourist. basic googling would tell you that.

[ooh more downvotes for posting facts. because that's what hn is all about.]

Being granted an automatic visa that allows you to be in the country is not the same as sneaking in while avoiding customs and immigration.

An "automatic visa" is what I get when I visit South Africa. The officials at the airport when I arrive put a paper in my passport which says "temporary visa."

Iceland does not have a visa, automatic or otherwise, for Americans on a short visit. Quoting from the Icelandic Útlendingastofnun at http://utl.is/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&... : "Who does not need a visa to enter Iceland?" ... "Nationals of the following countries are exempted from the obligation to carry a visa on arrival in Iceland for a stay of up to three months in all within the Schengen area." ... "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA."

So no, US citizens visiting Iceland do not need a visa to enter Iceland.

Try saying to a USCBP official that you're going to work for 90 days in the US

"Business travel" precludes several things, including work.

(of course, several duties in a business travel can be considered work, but they're usually spelled out). Basically you can't be compensated by your activities directly by someone in the receiving country.

But I'm sure doing an investigating in another country under government orders does not count as business.

Just sourcing this, because you're right. Basic lack of visa isn't the problem here.

Source: http://www.utl.is/index.php?option=com_content&view=arti...

I haven't downvoted you, but I would hazard a guess that the reason for the downvotes as at least partially due to the combative nature of your tone.

As to your point, I have no idea about the legalities, but it seems to me that if law enforcement officials are going to operate in a foreign country they might want to go through official channels before turning up.

Regarding the private plane, I would imagine that the article mentions it because it (accurately or otherwise) enables me to better visualise a group of brash Americans turning up via the most expensive mode of transport and expecting the little Icelanders to be so awed by the powerful FBI that they won't ask for little things like, you know, governmental authorisation.

I really want to like America. There are so many things to love about it, especially on paper. And then I read about stuff like this and wonder if it really is that much of a mystery why much of the world has such distaste for the country and the people.

Not that I'm claiming the UK is any better, mind. And our teeth are much worse.

FBI on official business doesn't qualify for one, I'm sure.

I don't think this is really the issue, it's more of a diplomatic snafu - these were not businessmen or tourists, they're law enforcement there on official business. You don't send law enforcement officers to other places without them being invited.

Sovereign states do whatever they want. Most countries (if not all) have a legal framework for expelling foreign citizens on grounds of national security or foreign policy (and it's up to them to decide what constitutes that). This is accepted as a perfectly valid thing to do and this is what has happened here.

In this particular case, it is bad manners for a state to send its agents to another sovereign state in any capacity without getting some sort of a permission from the latter.

If somebody is gathering data for a foreign government without the permission of the local government, that's called spying, and most (or all?) countries have laws against that.

An Icelander here The Reykjavik airport is quite popular for private jets since it's right in the middle of the city whereas the KEF international airport is about 1 hour drive from the city.

Security there is also almost non-existent, but customs authorities are notified and dispatched when international flights are expected.

If the agents would have used a regular scheduled flight there would probably have been much more security and scrutiny regarding their arrival.

> Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

> Please don't bait other users by inviting them to downmod you.

http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

No, everything is ok. You can go in any country in the world and do whatever you want.

yeah, that's exactly the level of detail in my question. thanks for the helpful answer.

My guess is that they probably "snuck" into the country, mostly due to lack of proper procedure.

The Reykjavík airport is a domestic airport. International flights are done at Keflavík.

They probably landed, and didn't go through customs or anything.

[parent poster continues...] in case anyone is interested in facts, rather than opinion, this document http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/obtaining_evidence_and_in... is a readable summary of some of the legal issues from a uk perspective.

[edit: argument removed; Nursie is correct, in that it only allows indirect access. sorry.]

Well, Sweden's kind of irrelevant to whether this is permitted in Iceland, and I think it was more the going there and snooping around.

Also please read the options for contact with a witness -

  - Travel to the United Kingdom to make a statement
  - Statement at a British embassy
  - Statement by telephone or email

The entire page you linked there was about formal and informal ways to make requests to law enforcement in other countries, and 'direct' contact still doesn't involve the cops actually going to the other country, just speaking to people who are in another country via one of these methods.

--edit-- thanks for the link, that was informative reading

--edit2-- All that said, even Brit cops do go to other countries for their investigations from time to time, just this week I heard about some going to Libya for continuing investigation into the Lockerbie bombing - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-2128117... Presumably this is with the full knowledge and cooperation of the (new) Libyan government though. I wonder what use it can possibly be after so long.

I'd say the main problem is that the FBI do not have jurisdiction in Iceland

The context clues in the first paragraph should have given it away - "...their plan was interupted when Home Secretary Ögmundur Jónasson learned about the FBI's visit and sent them packing. The Icelandic government then issued a formal protest to United States authorities."

Do you really think that a top government official would have been notified of a market analyst arriving in the country?

But GP's question was, what did the FBI actually do that pissed off Iceland? Just being there? Asking questions? Locking Icelanders in rooms and conducting interrogations? I think the question is a good one.

It sounds like the consensus of the responders here is that it is the fact that they are an arm of the US gov't. So, for example, if the FDA sent somebody to inquire about food processing, say regarding Mad Cow disease, we could also expect that the Icelandic government would be pissed if they weren't in the loop.

Being there and asking questions without prior approval is enough if you're a government employee, even more so if you're an official investigator (part of any police force). You're intruding on foreign jurisdiction and trying to apply your own laws.

"what did the FBI actually do that pissed off Iceland? Just being there?"

Just being there at a time that a member of Iceland's parliament is afraid to step outside Icelandic borders because she might be arrested by the United States seems like a pretty good reason...

Given the way that the Icelandic government has written off the bank accounts of the pensioners who had money there leaving the UK and I presume US governments.

You will have to forgive me as a uk taxpayer who is having to cover icleands debts - I personally don't give a fuck that the wheels came of there ponzie scheme.

Turned up at all.

You don't send law enforcement into someone else's territory without being invited. It's an issue of sovereignty really.

What is the difference between: CIA, US Postal Inspector, Marshall, FBI, ATF, State Trooper, Sheriff, Police Man and a Security guard?

A: Jurisdiction

um if I where a CIA operator id be highly pissed of if you compered me to a sheriff billy bob elected in some rotten borough) let alone some minimum wage security guard

The nature of reality considers no man's ego.

Good luck with that should or do you not understand the class/status system - society defiantly thinks that there is a difference between a minimum wage security guard and say a FBI,CIA,SIS,SS officer who will have an directly equivalent rank to his or her counterpart in the milatery?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com