How the UK's online safety bill threatens Matrix
1–10 of 165 posts
Re: How the UK's online safety bill threatens Matrix
#2[deleted]
Re: How the UK's online safety bill threatens Matrix
#3> Forcing a “duty of care” responsibility on organisations which operate online will not only drown small and medium sized companies in administrative tasks and costs, it will further accentuate the existing monopolies by Big Tech.
I often wonder about this. I mean, just the other day there was an article[1] here about sending GDPR requests to a health non-profit in order to sequence your genes for free.
The costs of each individual piece of legislation are small, but internet legislation only ever trends in the direction of "more of it". As more small costs are added (GDPR, cookie notifications, right to be forgotten, removal of Safe Harbor etc.) these costs will start to play a factor in who can run a web service and who cannot.
Re: How the UK's online safety bill threatens Matrix
#4> Forcing a “duty of care” responsibility on organisations which operate online will not only drown small and medium sized companies in administrative tasks and costs, it will further accentuate the existing monopolies by Big Tech. I often wonder about this. I mean, just the other day there was an article[1] here about sending GDPR requests to a health non-profit in order to sequence your genes for free. The costs of…
Interesting. I don't send cookies or keep personal data, so why do I need to worry about them?
The only time I've got into issues was with an american firm using an american law (dmca) to attack me (a non-american) and my hosting company (a non-american hosting company)
Re: How the UK's online safety bill threatens Matrix
#5Sad to see UK becoming one of the apologists of internet censorship, closing the gap to the levels of authoritarian countries.
Once you have censorship facility in place, the area of its application will only grow. The term "illegal information" is also widely used in Russia for the same purpose.
Re: How the UK's online safety bill threatens Matrix
#6> Forcing a “duty of care” responsibility on organisations which operate online will not only drown small and medium sized companies in administrative tasks and costs, it will further accentuate the existing monopolies by Big Tech. I often wonder about this. I mean, just the other day there was an article[1] here about sending GDPR requests to a health non-profit in order to sequence your genes for free. The costs of…
Interesting. I don't send cookies or keep personal data, so why do I need to worry about them? The only time I've got into issues was with an american firm using an american law (dmca) to attack me (a non-american) and my hosting company (a non-american hosting company)
> I don't send cookies or keep personal data, so why do I need to worry about them?
Can you share your website/service?
Re: How the UK's online safety bill threatens Matrix
#7> Forcing a “duty of care” responsibility on organisations which operate online will not only drown small and medium sized companies in administrative tasks and costs, it will further accentuate the existing monopolies by Big Tech. I often wonder about this. I mean, just the other day there was an article[1] here about sending GDPR requests to a health non-profit in order to sequence your genes for free. The costs of…
Interesting. I don't send cookies or keep personal data, so why do I need to worry about them? The only time I've got into issues was with an american firm using an american law (dmca) to attack me (a non-american) and my hosting company (a non-american hosting company)
Common CMSs send cookies by default. Even if you are one of those tech-inclined people using a static site generator for your own website, this is not the case for millions and millions of other websites.
Re: How the UK's online safety bill threatens Matrix
#8I wish there was some sort of island or safe haven country setup by cryptographers so they could safely work on crypto without legal issues or crypto being seen as a munition and a threat to government. We could call it `01` and have it in a non fourteen-eyes jurisdiction preferably as an independent nation.
We could export code containing cryptographic algorithms to countries that need it for privacy and safety reasons. Cryptography actually is needed for safety more than it is used by undesirable people to commit crimes!
Re: How the UK's online safety bill threatens Matrix
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting. I don't send cookies or keep personal data, so why do I need to worry about them? The only time I've got into issues was with an american firm using an american law (dmca) to attack me (a non-american) and my hosting company (a non-american hosting company)
Common CMSs send cookies by default. Even if you are one of those tech-inclined people using a static site generator for your own website, this is not the case for millions and millions of other websites.
Then let's replace those CMS's.
[edited with less anger]
Re: How the UK's online safety bill threatens Matrix
#10> Forcing a “duty of care” responsibility on organisations which operate online will not only drown small and medium sized companies in administrative tasks and costs, it will further accentuate the existing monopolies by Big Tech. I often wonder about this. I mean, just the other day there was an article[1] here about sending GDPR requests to a health non-profit in order to sequence your genes for free. The costs of…
Cookie notifications? You have to be actively tracking your users for those to even be relevant. You could literally do less work and avoid the need for them altogether.