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

4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 936 posts

Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

#301

Post by jltsiren »

dijit wrote: post #24
OJFord wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In theory the children are committing a crime yes, but obviously enforcement is extremely low; left mainly to their teachers. I don't think UK law governs foreign companies' overseas operations based on the nationality of the customer though, no.

They’re not breaking any law. Laws apply to actions in the country, they’re not based on citizenship. If you go to Amsterdam and sleep with a hooker, you didn’t break a law by doing that: despite prostitution (specifically purchasing sex) being illegal in many western countries.

Laws apply to whatever they say they apply to. Limiting their scope to actions in the country, or at least giving precedence to similar foreign laws, is at least as much about the practicalities of enforcement as a matter of principle.

For example, Finland claims jurisdiction over crimes where the action itself or its relevant consequences happen in Finland or the victim is a Finnish citizen, permanent resident, or legal entity. Then there are plenty of rules and exceptions detailing what those principles mean in practice.

Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

#302

Post by themafia »

rconti wrote: post #4

> "Companies – wherever they're based – are not allowed to sell unsafe toys to children in the UK. And society has long protected youngsters from things like alcohol, smoking and gambling. The digital world should be no different," she said. So the UK plans to fine Parisian bars that serve alcohol to British under-18s in France on holiday?

They should arrange a book burning too. Since they seem to believe that foreign words are inherently dangerous.

Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

#304

Post by XorNot »

15155 wrote: post #271
markdown wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The U.S. asserts the right to prosecute anyone, anywhere, who provides material support to any group they label as a terrorist organization. Not only is this enforceable, it has been enforced, and people have been assassinated without charge for this crime.

It helps when you spend trillions annually on your military. Might makes right.

Russia spends a lot less and routinely assassinates foreign critics. India has targeted overseas critics as well.

The size of ones military expenditure does not determine whether a foreign government can kill you, specifically.

Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

#305

Post by ImJamal »

markdown wrote: post #277
ImJamal wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump was validly elected. He won the required number of electors in the electoral college in the 2016 and 2024 elections. Maduro on the other hand...

Didn't Trump admit that Musk fixed it for him?

Trump was talking about how Elon campaigned for him for a month in Pennsylvania and said he knows all about the voting counting machines in Pennsylvania.

Even if Musk did something in Pennsylvania, Trump still would have won the electoral college vote.

I think the good faith argument is that Musk confirmed they were secure so that the election wasn't stolen from Trump. But frankly Musk is too much of an idiot to steal an election or make sure it is secure so I don't know how to take it...

Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

#306

Post by fluoridation »

uyzstvqs wrote: post #221
john_strinlai wrote: post #22

> However, a lawyer representing the company - which has previously said it won't pay such fines - has responded to the demand with an AI-generated cartoon image of a hamster. > The latest image is not the first picture of a hamster lawyers for 4chan have sent in reply to Ofcom amazing. same energy as the pirate bay telling dreamworks to sodomize themselves. i cant help but laugh at the absurdness of it.

From last year: > Messages sent to 4chan's press email went unreturned. One of the two dozen or so alleged moderators purportedly exposed in the hack wrote back using their 4chan email address to say that the site had released a "video statement." The user then pointed Reuters to an unrelated, explicit four-minute video montage. A request for further information was followed by a link to a different video with simila…

I really thought it was going to say that they sent them to Never Gonna Give You Up, but a shock video is about as funny.

Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

#307

Post by mattmanser »

ronsor wrote: post #232
mattmanser wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like random tariffs? Imagine this scenario, a major G7 country declares: All bytes sent to a computer on their soil count as a transaction on their soil. And the end client being on a VPN is not a defence UNLESS the website owner attempts to verify the user's identity. Immediately have to pay local taxes, conform to local laws. Unless you keep all your assets in the US and never fly abroad, our shady website operator…

This is basically a mutually assured destruction scenario. The US is not going to let all US companies get fined out of retaliation, so there would be more retaliation from the US against the EU, and everyone else. In the end everyone loses, except for China, which as you mentioned is not stupid enough to play these games and decided to simply pick a lane. China locks down the Internet and blocks foreign players (to…

Like tariffs?

The US are already playing this game. Can you not see that?

Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

#308

Post by FridayoLeary »

ranger_danger wrote: post #168
FridayoLeary wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm moving away from that line of thinking. We can discuss how poorly formulated this law is, and the implications for privacy of internet control bills, and the resulting eroding of our freedom of speech. It's correct to be suspicous of attempts to regulate the internet. But I'm becoming increasingly convinced that "for the sake of the children" such measures are necessary. The reality is that most kids these days h…

Hard disagree. I think the control should stay with the parents where it already is. They can decide whether or not to put protections in place or whether or not to hand them a device at all. We don't put protections on kids walking out the front door, and there's plenty of theoretical dangers there too. Let the parents educate their children.

The evidence shows they don't have sufficient control. Parents these days clearly are unequal to the task, i'm passing no judgement just observing.

>We don't put protections on kids walking out the front door

My view is that we most certainly ban and/or heavily discourage children from entering certain places and talking to random strangers. There are many safeguards in the real world, there is simply not enough in the internet.

I don't say this lightly. I am very firmly against the nanny state, and i feel equally strongly in parental rights. I've made comments in the past against these laws but i feel it's the only way forward. The only question that remains is how to best implement such policies to minimize the inevitable erosion of our privacy.

I don't like it, but that's how it is.

Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

#310

Post by jimnotgym »

oliwarner wrote: post #140
3rodents wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not really true. The Ofcom representative said “not allowed” not “unable to”. Even if cocaine is legal in my country, I’m “not allowed” to sell it to British consumers by the power of the British authorities. The British authorities may not have legal authority in my jurisdiction but they can take action in their own, including issuing penalties and stopping my deliveries at the border.

But if a Brit comes to your country and buys cocaine from you, in person, you wouldn't expect to be convicted as a dealer in the UK. Ofcom has a bad handle on web requests . Clients connect out. 4chan et al aren't pushing their services in anyone in the UK.

Howard Marx was arrested in Spain and extradited to the US on RICO charges by the DEA for something like this. It seemed like extraterritorial action by the US when I read about it.

But US=Good and Europe=Bad on hn

Post reply on HN