Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How the UK's online safety bill threatens Matrix

matrix.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 165 posts

Re: How the UK's online safety bill threatens Matrix

#91

Post by 3np »

buro9 wrote: post #74

This appears to be the thing that will finally take my sites offline. I'm an individual who runs 300 forums. I do this because I believe that forums organised around an interest bring people together and help address loneliness. Further I believe that if you do that, you also help minimise the impact of depression and things like the suicide rate for middle aged men. The forums are things like this: https://www.lfgss…

I think you should contact the press. Maybe The Guardian? You seem like the kind of person that could help bring light and counterweight to this

Re: How the UK's online safety bill threatens Matrix

#92

Post by 908B64B197 »

buro9 wrote: post #74

This appears to be the thing that will finally take my sites offline. I'm an individual who runs 300 forums. I do this because I believe that forums organised around an interest bring people together and help address loneliness. Further I believe that if you do that, you also help minimise the impact of depression and things like the suicide rate for middle aged men. The forums are things like this: https://www.lfgss…

Transfer them to the United States and simply ban European members?

Re: How the UK's online safety bill threatens Matrix

#93

Post by 3np »

anshorei wrote: post #68
daenney wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GDPR, or CCPA, isn't all that costly as long as you stop thinking of user data as something for you to harvest, mine, resell and profit from. If you instead treat user data like a security liability, system designs and trade-offs will flow from there. They'll help ensure you design systems that minimise collection and anonymise things early, remove data promptly when no longer needed, and make it easy to audit what d…

It's possible for you to be in violation of GDPR without "thinking of user data as something for you to harvest, mine, resell and profit from". If it's "killing a few companies" and "a startup doesn't end up seeing the light" then "GDPR is doing what I'd like it to do." That's a pretty shitty opinion to hold. What did those companies and startups do wrong? I'm as tired of stupid startups as the next person, but I won…

How about adding third-party analytics integrations that compromise your visitors, tracks them around the web, and fail to protect that data properly as the analytics company gets acquired by another entity?

Stop saving PII for profit/exploitation reasons and you're in the clear.

Re: How the UK's online safety bill threatens Matrix

#94

Post by majewsky »

hrktb wrote: post #82
kjakm wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A US company can be compliant. They just have to host EU user data in the EU.

Judging from this > Mailchimp may in principle be subject to data access by US intelligence services on the basis of the US legal provision FISA702 (50 U.S.C. § 1881) It might not be just a matter of where the data is stored, but also who can get access to it. From my reading, any US based conpany would be affected. This feels like a super huge impact that would have made more waves, but the ruling also seems recent.…

There was a contract between the US and EU that was supposed to address this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU%E2%80%93US_Privacy_Shield

As described in the Wikipedia article, the contract has been thrown out by the European Court of Justice for exactly the reasons stated by the parent comment.

> [Standard contractual clauses] do not necessarily protect data in countries where the law is fundamentally incompatible with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and the GDPR, like the US.

Re: How the UK's online safety bill threatens Matrix

#95

Post by palestine-tree »

cyrksoft wrote: post #69
ipaddr wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is referring to the camera network in London.

The government's camera network in London is very small, only 23708 cameras (15516 of which are from Transport of London across the tube network)[0]. It's a fairly small network for an authoritarian government. [0] https://www.cctv.co.uk/how-many-cctv-cameras-are-there-in-lo... .

In what way is that a "very small" network?

In fact, given how small London is that's a huge network.

Re: How the UK's online safety bill threatens Matrix

#96

Post by 908B64B197 »

Arathorn wrote: post #18

One of the most frustrating things about this legislation is that it's set up so that the only outfits with the resources to do the requested censorship would be a GAFAM. Which is utterly perverse, as on one hand the UK govt is despairing about the extent to which the UK is dependent on Big Tech social media and the control they exert on society... whilst simultaneously pushing through legislation which effectively e…

Something to wonder: How will these laws affect the current brain flow in the UK [0]?

> whilst simultaneously pushing through legislation which effectively ensures that GAFAM are the only people who can operate!

Considering they can get UK-based employees at a discount, that's a win for the US tech sector!

[0] https://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/tech-careers/the-global-br...

Re: How the UK's online safety bill threatens Matrix

#97

Post by Permit »

daenney wrote: post #12
Permit wrote: post #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…

GDPR, or CCPA, isn't all that costly as long as you stop thinking of user data as something for you to harvest, mine, resell and profit from. If you instead treat user data like a security liability, system designs and trade-offs will flow from there. They'll help ensure you design systems that minimise collection and anonymise things early, remove data promptly when no longer needed, and make it easy to audit what d…

> If you instead treat user data like a security liability

> minimise collection

> anonymise things early

> remove data promptly when no longer needed,

> make it easy to audit what data you do hold

These (and others) are the costs I am speaking of. The vast majority of HN commenters will tell you that these costs are worth the upside in user privacy (which is totally fine!).

My point here is that the costs are not fixed. Over the decades we will see other, often sensible costs added to this list. While each individual cost may be small, they do accumulate and they influence who can and cannot start a business (or even personal website!) that deals with individuals from the EU.

Large companies will always be able to pay these costs. Some small companies may not. What you make of this is up to your personal interpretation, but I will miss the web of 00's where it felt like anyone could build a website or online business with next to no overhead.

Re: How the UK's online safety bill threatens Matrix

#98

Post by Anthony-G »

pessimizer wrote: post #59
viktorcode wrote: post #5

Sad 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.

The UK has never not been eager to censor to a sometimes comical extent. Just look at the "Video Nasty" moral panic, or the hilarious dubbing of Northern Irish people on television. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_nasty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988%E2%80%931994_British_broa...

Now that you mention Ireland, it occurs to me the UK plays second fiddle compared to its former colony. After achieving independence, the Irish Free State and its successor, the Republic of Ireland were dominated by right-wing, conservative, Papist and authoritarian nationalists.

Modern art and music – particularly “evil” jazz – were all banned. Our best writers had to leave the country. The writers that didn’t leave had to apply to the Department of Justice for permission to possess a copy of their own book. The video nasties of the eighties didn’t even have a chance to become a problem in Ireland.

The UK’s censorship of the Irish Republican movement paled in comparison to that of Ireland. Enforcement of Section 31 of the Broadcasting act began in the early seventies and lasted until the mid-nineties. And it was often interpreted to prevent Sinn Féin members from speaking about non-political issues. We didn’t even get to have Stephen Rae’s voice standing in for Gerry Adams.

As a young adult in the mid-nineties, censorship was still an issue: I only ever saw Oliver Stone’s “Natural Born Killers” on a very crap video in a student centre. I remember watching Robert Rodriguez’ “From Dusk Till Dawn” in a cinema in the Netherlands knowing that it was banned back at home and around the same time, I remember it being a big deal when the ban was lifted on Playboy magazine.

Re: How the UK's online safety bill threatens Matrix

#99

Post by Barrin92 »

t-writescode wrote: post #11
viktorcode wrote: post #5

Sad 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.

The cameras tracking everything everywhere in UK would say that it's long been an authoritarian country. Authoritarianism is a sliding scale. From what I can gather, lots of humans that have any political pull at all tend to be authoritarian (against the kinds of people they don't like, of course).

If your definition of authoritarianism is ubiquitous video surveillance you'll have to come to terms with the fact that not only every politician is authoritarian but just about every citizen, because there's pretty strong support for these security measures.

The word authoritarianism appears to have lost all meaning in internet circles. What authoritarianism actually is, is a people being governed without their consent by a government they did not elect. If British citizens, or their representatives decide they put significant value on public safety rather than privacy that's a choice.

Re: How the UK's online safety bill threatens Matrix

#100

Post by BLKNSLVR »

pharmakom wrote: post #70
HeckFeck wrote: post #58

> Whilst we sympathise with the government’s desire to show action in this space and to do something about children’s safety (everyone’s safety really), we cannot possibly agree with the methods. Respectfully, stop sympathising with authoritarians who want to take away your freedom. They are not good people. Good people aren't nosey. Good people don't deprive others of liberty. Neither do they class a whole group (In…

Indeed. We know exactly how much the UK conservatives care about child safety by their decisions around funding for child protection, schooling, health and so on. The child protection argument is a smoke screen.

Ex-fucking-actly right.

Various legislation around internet-related activities cleaning to be to "protect children" only shifts government resources and funding away from the departments that actually do something real and tangible to protect children.

Child protection where I'm from only has the resources to attend to reports in which the child is in immediate, life-threatening danger.

If a politician is talking about protecting children and it doesn't include increased funding for the actual child protection agencies and education of the bottom end of society, then they're actually working against protecting children. It's gross politics and should be called out.

Post reply on HN