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

IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

prestonbyrne.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 418 posts

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#141

Post by matt-p »

I honestly still cannot believe that a simple blogger needs to potentially comply with the regulations of some ~200 countries. What happens when the law of two countries conflicts? What if the UK say I need to verify everyone's age, but another country rules I cannot collect peoples IDs? Well I could geo fence the best I can and serve two different paths right? Nope, it seems not.

It's all total madness, and it's not just the UK there are even more crazy regulations coming from the EU. China, and others in Asia are well known for regulating too. A mess.

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#142

Post by Hizonner »

aDyslecticCrow wrote: post #118
landl0rd wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, one has chosen to make something available for contact within one country. One is not actively himself reaching across borders to do so. One cannot reasonably be required to take any affirmative action to fulfill the whims of a foreign government. Also, Britain isn't important enough to make this stick against e.g. an American. If someone writes me a letter asking a question about material that is prohibited in h…

If someone writes you a letter than they have your family hostage, and to route 50.000 dollars thorough bitcoin to not have them killed, with a AI generated video as proof; are they scott free because they're not based in the US?

First of all, this is about Web sites, and that's not a valid analogy. Web sites don't spontaneously send you letters, let alone kidnap you. You only get content you actively asked for.

Second, where is the person writing the letter from? Mars? They're going to have a hard time finding a place where kidnapping and extortion are legal.

Third, the letter would in fact presumably be aimed at a specific person in a specific country... as would the kidnapping.

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#144

Post by landl0rd »

refulgentis wrote: post #110
landl0rd wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a reply. I am not responsible for checking the locality of an IP address. Indeed, I can never do so with one hundred per cent accuracy. It is Not My Problem. Governments that expect some content or other blocked can damn well do it themselves, in their own legal system. They cannot compel someone else to spend his time, talent, or treasure to enforce their petty rules. If they go after one of their own for requ…

“ Governments that expect some content or other blocked can damn well do it themselves, in their own legal system” What you are describing is exactly what is going on here. OFCAM’s final action, if taken, is blocking at ISP level. All of the legal stuff is happening in the UK system. I’m just sort of curious for your thoughts after learning that. (Also, I’m curious about the SCOTUS decision, I.e. which one? I used to…

No, it's also able to do things like issue fines, which they have, although American law is not amenable to actually collecting those if their assets are all here. I don't really care if british choose to block something on british soil.

Murthy v. Missouri was generally a loss; 6-3 with Justice Barrett for the majority ruling states lacked standing, which is consistent with the Roberts court's informal policy of dodging. Alito dissented, joined by Thomas and I think Gorsuch, and that is worth a read. The more important one was NRA v. Vullo, a unanimous opinion from Sotomayor. Gorsuch wrote a concurrence as did I believe one other justice.

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#145

Post by cultureulterior »

aDyslecticCrow wrote: post #111
Hizonner wrote: post #55

You shouldn't even be expected to geoblock. If I'm operating a Web site in country A, I should not have to care about country B's laws unless I am taking specific action intended to attract users in country B in particular . That's doesn't mean just to target the whole world, either. If you don't want your citizens to access something in another country, take it up with your citizens. It was obvious from the minute t…

> If I'm operating a Web site in country A, I should not have to care about country B's laws Not defending UK's idiotic laws, but this doesn't hold. If you cannot regulate websites outside of the country of origin, then no internet regulation can hold for any subject. Openly selling stolen personal credentials or botnet usage? Piracy? Reselling personal information without disclosure? So there are effectively three o…

> then no internet regulation can hold for any subject

Good

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#146

Post by nozzlegear »

qball wrote: post #70
zdragnar wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Extradition of a foreign citizen to a third country is not a simple matter, diplomatically speaking. The US might not have the hegemony it enjoyed 20-30 years ago, but it certainly has plenty of sway. When it's a matter of drug charges or other obviously criminal activity, the US embassy and diplomats don't normally raise a fuss, but for something like this where the person made first amendment protected speech in th…

Why would it? Plenty of US citizens would actively cheer the notion of having a foreign government arrest their political opponents as an end-run around the fact they're not allowed to do it at home. After all, 1A/"freeze peach" laws should only protect you from your government, right?

> Plenty of US citizens would actively cheer the notion of having a foreign government arrest their political opponents as an end-run around the fact they're not allowed to do it at home.

I'm not convinced that plenty of US citizens would celebrate a foreign government arresting an American for what would be protected by the 1A in the US. There will always be trolls, of course.

> After all, 1A/"freeze peach" laws should only protect you from your government, right?

If my government has the longest dick of all governments in the world, and knows how to swing it, I'm not so sure.

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#147

Post by sunshine-o »

It is getting really hard to follow their logic.

A some point, if you do not have any relationship with the UK, go as far as blocking its residents but they still want you to abide by their law, aren't they just declaring war on the entire world?

This is something very deranged that have become very common with the world "becoming smaller": somes will go on a rampage for something happening on the other side of the planet. At the same time they will pretend not to notice that their own house in on fire.

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#149

Post by vessenes »

Hizonner wrote: post #55

You shouldn't even be expected to geoblock. If I'm operating a Web site in country A, I should not have to care about country B's laws unless I am taking specific action intended to attract users in country B in particular . That's doesn't mean just to target the whole world, either. If you don't want your citizens to access something in another country, take it up with your citizens. It was obvious from the minute t…

Preston talks about this in an earlier blog post. It's a matter of UK law and, I'd bet, many countries, that they have the sovereign right to legislate about matters in and outside their borders. "If Parliament says smoking in Paris is illegal, it is illegal." What's different today than when that doctrine was conceived of is: data goes everywhere, communications are decentralized, international cooperation around especially data allows nations to enforce their own rules outside their own borders by treaty.

What was known and not said when Parliament might have outlawed smoking in Paris is that there was literally nothing they could do to enforce such a law. Today the governments have options, hence the fight here. And many other places.

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#150

Post by vessenes »

miki123211 wrote: post #138
aDyslecticCrow wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I'm operating a Web site in country A, I should not have to care about country B's laws Not defending UK's idiotic laws, but this doesn't hold. If you cannot regulate websites outside of the country of origin, then no internet regulation can hold for any subject. Openly selling stolen personal credentials or botnet usage? Piracy? Reselling personal information without disclosure? So there are effectively three o…

Another option is an anti-money-laundering like system. It would need to be set up by an extremely powerful country, either the US or an alliance of smaller countries through international treaty. It would work as follows: There'd be a "naughty list." Anybody on the list would be arrested upon entering a participating country. This would include past or current company employees (if employed after the listing date).…

You're aware this exists, yes? It's called the OFAC list. It's not generally used to list technologists or web sites related to speech, though, as far as I know.
Post reply on HN