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

Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law

texasattorneygeneral.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 323 posts

Re: Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law

#211

Post by harshreality »

jmclnx wrote: post #68

Well the site does not present Texas in a good light. Their .gov site presents me with this. Looks like they need to worry about their own site instead of worrying about out of state sites. >Warning: Potential Security Risk Ahead > Firefox detected a potential security threat and did not continue to www.texasattorneygeneral.gov. If you visit this site, attackers could try to steal information like your passwords, ema…

It's being served by cloudflare and gets A+ from ssllabs. Maybe there's something going on with your network or your browser's TLS support.

Re: Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law

#213

Post by linzhangrun »

inigyou wrote: post #87
tamimio wrote: post #18

So, what’s the safest domain tld that’s safe from all that craziness out there?

Your local country, provided that it is not crazy. Then you are only accountable to one country's jurisdiction.

Hard to say. .cn is of course always strictly regulated: every website needs to be reviewed and registered with the police, and open its data to them. But we can also see that .uk from the supposedly "free west" is moving closer to this.

Re: Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law

#214

Post by squigz »

tzs wrote: post #203
walrus01 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even better would be for a trusted non-profit to run this, like the EFF or the ACLU. You're seriously proposing that organizations along the same general lines as the EFF or ACLU would be okay with being the implementing partner of a "papers, please" identify verification regime? I highly doubt their leadership would entertain the idea for even the briefest moment.

I'm proposing that organizations like that recognize that age verification is going to happen, and try to ensure that when that happens there will be at lease some age verification services that do it in a way that doesn't subject you to a "papers, please" situation every time you go to a website that has to check age. It can be done with either 0 or 1 "papers, please" events per device rather than 1 per website or w…

I hate how quickly some people have just accepted age verification is inevitable.

Re: Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law

#216

Post by inigyou »

walrus01 wrote: post #159
inigyou wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The USA controls ICANN and IANA, who together control the DNS root, as well as controlling all so-called "generic" TLDs through ICANN. Only some country TLDs are actually outside of US jurisdiction, as many of the delegate to USA-based registry providers. ICANN/IANA still control whether or not those countries even get to have domains, so the USA could decide that if the Netherlands wouldn't block motherless-dot-nl t…

ARIN is also a US non-profit corporation, located in Virginia, but the people who run RIPE and APNIC and AFRINIC might disagree that the Internet is entirely "controlled" by Americans.

RIPE, APNIC and AfriNIC (you forgot LACNIC or deliberately excluded it because South America is technically America) don't control the DNS.

Re: Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law

#217

Post by inigyou »

otterley wrote: post #153
inigyou wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the current precedent is that porn is not speech.

Wrong. Porn is considered protected speech unless it is considered “obscene” (which is an incredibly difficult bar to meet), and even possession of obscene material in one’s home is protected. C’mon, people, these issues are trivial to look up the facts about. There’s no excuse for ignorance here. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/obscenity-and-pornog...

So nobody has ever gone to jail for possessing child porn?

Re: Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law

#218

Post by inigyou »

linzhangrun wrote: post #213
inigyou wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your local country, provided that it is not crazy. Then you are only accountable to one country's jurisdiction.

Hard to say. .cn is of course always strictly regulated: every website needs to be reviewed and registered with the police, and open its data to them. But we can also see that .uk from the supposedly "free west" is moving closer to this.

If you're in China or in the UK, this is already true for your business, whether you have the domain or not.

Re: Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law

#219

Post by applfanboysbgon »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #193
sitharus wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GDPR Article 17 expressly requires the removal _of your personal data_ from the internet _upon your request_, which is very different from a US state trying to remove a website hosted in and run by a company incorporated in another country. And geo blocking may be functionally impossible but the law cares about intent and actions, not if you prevented someone who used a VPN or lied about their location from using you…

> .. which is very different from ... And yet still an attempt at extraterritorial overreach. Regardless, I imagine that the rest of us who don't do business in the EU will continue to disregard its very existence. (Except in principle when we write negative comments about it on the internet that don't in practice matter whatsoever, such as this one that you're reading right now.)

How is it extraterritorial overreach when you acknowledge in the same comment that you can ignore it because you aren't in the EU? Unlike the site that is the subject of the thread, which has actually been subjected to extraterritorial overreach. This criticism and false equivalency is ridiculous.

Re: Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law

#220

Post by ndsipa_pomu »

inigyou wrote: post #129
bmelton wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The GDPR doesn't try to remove anything from the global internet GDPR Article 17 expressly requires the removal of things from the global internet > You're free to not serve your site in the EU Geoblocking is functionally impossible

HN ignores GDPR, in particular Article 17, and it hasn't been taken down from the internet or even blocked in the EU.

I'm curious - what kind of PII does HN make available and has it ever refused to remove it when asked by the individual concerned?

I can't recall HN asking/requiring PII from me in any fashion, so I don't see the relevance. If a commenter published some PII about me, then I wonder if HN would remove the comment if I complained to them about it. As I see it, HN isn't acting as a data controller.

Post reply on HN