Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Online activities to be made impossible by the UK Online Safety Bill

news.ycombinator.com

101–110 of 110 posts

Re: Ask HN: Online activities to be made impossible by the UK Online Safety Bill

#101
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you'll be immune, as the bill specifies "the Internet" UK POTS is switching over to an IP based network, so does the bill specify the internet or ip based network? If you submit a GDPR to your local constabulary, every phone call in the UK has a unique call identify much like a GUID now. Its quite insightful seeing just how much info is given out regarding the phone system capabilities via GDPR requests.

It specifies "the Internet" and doesn't seem to define the term.

Vagaries of law, double entendres, its quite common, when considering things like LiFi which can be used to access and be part of the internet. It alkso gives away their subconscious intent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li-Fi

Re: Ask HN: Online activities to be made impossible by the UK Online Safety Bill

#102
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Individuals running Minecraft and Mastodon servers for their friends needn't worry. Because they're too insignificant to matter, or because they won't be covered by the law? It sounds like the former, but you seem to imply the latter.

It's a bit of both. The law states that Ofcom has to ask you for your risk assessments, and they can't ask you for those if they don't know you exist.

Ah, so “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”, essentially.

When they suddenly do know you exist, for example because you started protesting about human rights, or climate change, or excessive governmental investigatory powers, or whatever, suddenly someone can show on your doorstep saying “Well well well, what have we got here then” and sucking their teeth.

Your argument isn’t only ill informed, it’s actively dangerous. Shame.

Re: Ask HN: Online activities to be made impossible by the UK Online Safety Bill

#103
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you please provide evidence of a 90% tax rate? I don't believe you.

It ended 51 years ago in 1972, but there was indeed a top rate of income tax called "super-tax" or "surtax" (only for very high earners) of 90% for a few decades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_taxation_in_the_Uni... "The highest rate of income tax peaked in the Second World War at 99.25%. It was then slightly reduced and was around 90% through the 1950s and 60s.[citation needed] In 1971 the top rate of inc…

1909 - 1972 UK was a global superpower.

1972 - 2023 UK is powerless and poor.

I don't like 99% tax rates, correlation is not causation, but the decline is real.

Re: Ask HN: Online activities to be made impossible by the UK Online Safety Bill

#104
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It ended 51 years ago in 1972, but there was indeed a top rate of income tax called "super-tax" or "surtax" (only for very high earners) of 90% for a few decades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_taxation_in_the_Uni... "The highest rate of income tax peaked in the Second World War at 99.25%. It was then slightly reduced and was around 90% through the 1950s and 60s.[citation needed] In 1971 the top rate of inc…

1909 - 1972 UK was a global superpower. 1972 - 2023 UK is powerless and poor. I don't like 99% tax rates, correlation is not causation, but the decline is real.

[deleted]

Re: Ask HN: Online activities to be made impossible by the UK Online Safety Bill

#105
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO your analysis has a massive flaw. >Legislation is only as powerful as those enforcing it. While this is generally true, it doesn't necessarily stop the provisions within the bill being used as a political weapon to wield against someone. In other words, just because it's generally not used against small fry, doesn't mean it won't be used as a club against a particular small fry that's a thorn in the side of someo…

You even forget the danger here. Like in France, where they voted in the right to let Macron and the police forces delete someone's French citizenship without judicial oversight. And that's ... kind of OK? I still don't agree with it, but yeah these people have shown that they're not going to abuse it on a large scale. But with 10% more votes, this power will go into the hands of Le Pen ... and everyone, including Ma…

I don't even know what you are referring to. There has been no change in the possibility to remove the French citizenship under Macron, and the last time a change was attended it was supposed to be by a court together with a sentence for terrorism, not by the police, and it was proposed by the left under Hollande, and Macron opposed it.

Also Macron cannot be re-elected in the next elections as there is a term limit.

Re: Ask HN: Online activities to be made impossible by the UK Online Safety Bill

#106
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Individuals running Minecraft and Mastodon servers for their friends needn't worry. Because they're too insignificant to matter, or because they won't be covered by the law? It sounds like the former, but you seem to imply the latter.

It's a bit of both. The law states that Ofcom has to ask you for your risk assessments, and they can't ask you for those if they don't know you exist.

I remember quite similar discussions throughout the 2010s in Russia and now half of the internet is blocked there and people are being jailed every day for “spreading misinformation online”.

Re: Ask HN: Online activities to be made impossible by the UK Online Safety Bill

#107
post #64
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Your Mastodon server or your Gitea server or your corner of the Tildeverse or whatever will never appear on their radar Of course it will when your gitea or mastodon instance is in the right crosshair. Do we just surrender rights on a hope this time we can stay under the radar? If you are not a terrorist or a pedophile you have nothing to worry etc. When you disagree enough you will become a terrorist. That's the re…

I've read the bill, and know what it stipulates. Of course, if you don't want to take my word for it, you can download the 302 pages of legislation and check it yourself: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137

The comment you are replying to isn't discussing the bill but refuting your assertion the powers it affords will be used only in a specific set of circumstances.

Not sure what your deflection is in aid of.

Re: Ask HN: Online activities to be made impossible by the UK Online Safety Bill

#108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the 5 year old’s bimodal criminality distribution is likely more accurate than your posited normal one - unless the spectrum you refer to includes parking tickets, and bylaw infractions.

It includes everything. Fraud, shoplifting, term time holidays (a criminal offence in the UK), pub fights, stealing office equipment, piracy, taking photos of your own naked children, dangerous driving, manslaughter, criminal negligence, insider trading, murder... Just curious, do you support the death penalty?

I see, you are saying there are serious crimes and less serious ones. I agree, but how is this related to government surveillance? Are you suggesting it is worth it?

Re: Ask HN: Online activities to be made impossible by the UK Online Safety Bill

#110
post #76
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, it could be made to work, and it might even be able to keep up with your reading speed. VoIP codecs are heavily optimized for human voice and have just a few kilobits of bandwidth. The analog phone network, before it went entirely digital, had a much higher bandwidth which is why modems were able to reach 56kbps. Phone calls in the 1980s were often crystal clear, almost on par with a broadcast radio station. Ce…

>had a much higher bandwidth which is why modems were able to reach 56kbps That is actually completely false. The way that speed was achieved was by using multiple bits per symbol encoding (bitrate != baudrate), not by having some mysterious unused bandwidth available. This was the case for speeds above 4800bps up to 33kbps (V.34). 56kbps (V.90) was only possible with PCM (digital) modulation, while the actual symbol…

> That is actually completely false.

There is certainly a lot more nuance to reality than my blanket statement was meant to imply but I assumed that went without saying. But I believe the underlying gist is accurate. Fancy encoding techniques got us quite far on analog phone lines, but my point was that attempting to transmit digital information over a highly-compressed audio stream optimized within an inch of its life for a small subset of human vocal sounds is going to be MUCH slower than over the analog phone lines of yesteryear. And at the end of the day, there is no substitute for bandwidth. Take it up with Claude Shannon if you like.

> I am not sure where do you live and what kind landline phones you had but modern digital cell phone codecs are light years ahead of the sound quality we had on land lines in 80s, esp. when calling long distance.

I lived in the Midwest US (and then later the West, with frequent calls across the country) and I quite distinctly remember the audio quality of POTS being quite good overall. Of course, not EVERY call was great. Some exchanges were noisy, some people's local loop or wiring in their house had issues, and some phones themselves were just garbage. But it mostly sounded great.

I'll grant that cell phone audio is more tolerable now than it WAS but it certainly was so bad for a while that from the early 2000's to the early 2010's, I pretty much only used cell phones for emergencies and actively avoided calling people on their cell phones if I could. The resulting audio was so distorted and muddy that I often could not understand the person on the other end. If it was someone I knew, I could often infer what they were saying from their speech patterns. But if it was someone I didn't know, or if they had a thick accent, there was always a lot of, "Can you repeat that again, more slowly this time?". I only cancelled my analog phone line after POTS network providers started switching their internal systems to VoIP (or something like it), bringing along all the same disadvantages of the bandwidth-constrained cell network.

Latency was also terrible, and continues to be. The analog POTS circuit-switched network was (modulo an audio buffer or two) speed of light. Modern digital voice communications buffer like crazy and up to two seconds of latency is extremely common. Maybe I'm an outlier as most people don't seem to notice but for some reason, even a half-second of latency is enough to make a conversation extremely awkward for me.

Post reply on HN