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

471–480 of 936 posts

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

#471

Post by andersa »

epolanski wrote: post #397
sippeangelo wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4chan is clearly operating in the US. The UK can easily cut the overseas cables and fix the problem!

It doesn't matter where 4Chan is incorporated if it offers a service available to other countries. If I offer a service in US I still have to respect US law, it doesn't matter that I'm based in Luxembourg or New Zealand. The same applies in reverse. E.g. many US news outlets never cared to implement gdpr and geoblocked European users from accessing their websites.

Thinking that you are operating in the UK because a UK user can theoretically send packets to you, is similar to thinking a corner store in Japan is operating in the UK because a brit can theoretically get on a plane and fly there to shop.

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

#472

Post by [deleted] »

2postsperday wrote: post #411
guelo wrote: post #43

There's always people that say it's the parents responsibility to monitor their kids. But as a parent, you either give your kids full access to the internet or nothing. The fault lies with the OS companies Google, Microsoft, Apple. They do a terrible job with parental controls. They make it very hard to setup, they're confusing and hard to use plus they barely work. I think they just do it as a checkbox for marketing…

[dead]

[deleted]

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

#473

Post by nozzlegear »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #433
gerdesj wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China's wot?

I don't personally like their government but at this point they certainly have the appearance of long term social and political stability. More than most western countries for the time being.

> they certainly have the appearance of long term social and political stability

You could've said that exact same thing about the US just 10 years ago when Obama was president.

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

#474

Post by testing22321 »

jimnotgym wrote: post #300
ronsor wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is relevant. There's a material difference between shipping material overseas and shipping it (and handling it) within the destination country. If someone mails $ProhibitedItem at a USPS to the UK, then it's the job of local UK police and/or customs to reject the parcel if it is prohibited. It's the UK's problem, de facto if not de jure, because the sender is out of reach. If someone with a UK subsidiary and local…

And on an electronic delivery, is a great firewall the equivalent of customs? And therfore the only way to enforce sovereignty?

Absolutely yes. If a government thinks there is stuff for sale its citizens should not be allowed to buy, they don’t stop county x making it or selling it. They block the thing from entering their country.

If the government thinks there are ones and zeros on the internet it’s citizens should not be allowed to see, they should block them from entering the country.

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

#475

Post by testing22321 »

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.

Interestingly if you go to Canada and legally smoke weed then try to go to the US a month later, you can get denied because you did something that is perfectly legal in Canada, but not the US

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

#476

Post by icehawk »

RadiozRadioz wrote: post #55
cyberclimb wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about the EU imposing GDPR restrictions on non-eu companies?

I think that's different because I have a positive personal opinion of the GDPR and a negative personal opinion about what the UK is doing. Therefore the GDPR is good and this is bad. It's really quite objective.

I may have a positive personal opinion of the GDPR, but I ignore all GDPR requests for the website I have that you can just visit, because I don't want to be seen as doing business that makes me subject to GDPR

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

#477

Post by testing22321 »

tacticalturtle wrote: post #349
dijit wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 actions in the country, they’re not based on citizenship. According to what? Laws can be whatever a country says, so long as they have the mechanism to enforce it. See: the US using special forces to kidnap Maduro

> See: the US using special forces to kidnap Maduro

That was very clearly illegal and has nothing to do with laws.

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

#478

Post by betaby »

InvertedRhodium wrote: post #417
themafia wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A court issued that ruling. Not an administrative agency. Pretty big difference.

So if the UK gets a court to ratify these orders then you’re on board with them being globally enforced?

The article above is about US ISP ordered to block sites for US customer. Not 'globally' enforced. Important difference.

Ofcourse, everybody ( well, outside the UK ) are OK if UK orders UK ISPs blocks sites for their customers.

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

#479

Post by betaby »

NicuCalcea wrote: post #464
ronsor wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Hollywood is mad, but piracy sites are still up and unblocked. Book publishers are mad, but Anna's Archive persists on CCTLDs. The US by and large doesn't censor websites even if the content is illegal in the US. They'll get a warrant and seize servers or domains if it's in the country, or maybe poke international law enforcement for cooperation, but it doesn't really extend beyond that.

> It is further ordered that all ISPs (including without limitation those set forth in Exhibit B hereto) and any other ISPs providing services in the United States shall block access to the Website at any domain address known today (including but not limited to those set forth in Exhibit A hereto) or to be used in the future by the Defendants (“Newly Detected Websites”) by any technological means available on the ISP…

ISPs just ignored that order.

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

#480

Post by fghj888999 »

abcde666777 wrote: post #279
internet2000 wrote: post #25

Let kids go to 4chan. I frequented it and turned out fine.

Still do to be honest. Always a good place for a little catharsis.

I honestly only go there for the same reason and directly after big news. DLSS5's announcement was the first time I went in nearly a year. I wanted to find trolls and I did, and the whole flamewar was the best digital popcorn I had in months.
Post reply on HN