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

101–110 of 418 posts

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

#101

Post by patrickmay »

HotGarbage wrote: post #93
mlhpdx wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t agree that choosing to host a website without limiting the audience is innocent. It’s a choice, and has been the default for a long time, but it means one has chosen to speak outside the borders of their own country and that comes with rules, like them or not.

Yeah, nah, the internet is pull not push. If a citizen of country A seeks material from country B that's legal in B but illegal in A that's on them.

This is the key point. No site is sending material to the UK unsolicited. People in the UK are initiating the download of information they find of interest. If the UK government has a problem with that, it's on them to block the downloads on their side. UK laws have no power outside the UK.

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

#102

Post by zamadatix »

mzajc wrote: post #18

> The primary one is that the notion of a “UK based IP” is nonsense. Geolocation databases work by figuring out where people log in from and only after doing a lot of pattern recognition do those addresses get associated with that location. I support the cause, but I don't think that's true. RIPE, the RIR responsible for UK, makes available a list of allocations per country. For UK: https://stat.ripe.net/data/country…

This is only "supposed to be" accurate to some definition of what country the IP is assigned to, it is not an authoritative field for where it is currently being used. Multinational corporations, M&As, georedundant failover, leasing/selling, and other events often result in this field being outdated or plain wrong. Hell, I've been able to advertise part of my ARIN assigned US IP space out of a peer in Europe. This also ignores the EU designation on certain records https://wq.apnic.net/apnic-bin/whois.pl?searchtext=94.102.16...

Edit: RIPE actually has documentation on this fallacy specifically https://docs.db.ripe.net/RPSL-Object-Types/Descriptions-of-P...

> “country:” – Officially Assigned two-letter ISO 3166 country code or "EU" (exceptionally reserved). It has never been specified what this country represents. It could be the location of the head office of a multi-national company, where the server centre is based, or the home of the End User. Therefore, it cannot be used in any reliable way to map IP addresses to countries.

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

#103

Post by gpm »

rootusrootus wrote: post #64
beejiu wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems reasonable. If I committed what is considered a crime on American soil, I wouldn't expect to be able to enter the US without arrest.

Don't most crimes still require mens rea? Or is that only a US thing?

Mens rea usually means intent to do the thing, not intent to commit a crime.

E.g. if I involuntarily swing my arm and hit someone in the face as a result of a medical condition I lacked the appropriate mens rea and am not guilty. If I intentionally punch someone in the face while being somehow unaware that I'm not allowed to do that I am guilty.

Hard to see how mens rea would save anyone from being guilty here.

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

#105

Post by refulgentis »

Hizonner wrote: post #88
N0RMAN wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t understand the IP location criticism at all. At least for my experience across Europe all locations that are being reported by the common databases are within 250km of the actual customer.

The criticism is that it exists, which invites abuse. Being more accurate would be worse.

When you put it that way, well, it made me chuckle. (The irony!)

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

#106

Post by brookst »

beejiu wrote: post #53
sys_64738 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> just don't travel to the UK and you're okay. Pretty much avoid entering Britain or its dependencies or you'll be nabbed on a Commonwealth Warrant and extradited to England.

Seems reasonable. If I committed what is considered a crime on American soil, I wouldn't expect to be able to enter the US without arrest.

Even if it was legal in your own country? That seems odd.

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

#107

Post by owl_vision »

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…

what happens if an IP address is not in the geo db? For example: 2606:4700::6811:

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

#109

Post by Yokolos »

ultra_nick wrote: post #71

[flagged]

This is specific to the UK. What does it have to do with Europe? So, that's a laugh and a fucking half coming from what's likely an American. The US is already as close to a fascist dictatorship as you can get in a democracy with extraordinary rendition and the indiscriminate disappearing of thousands of people without due process. Why is the US so in love with authoritarianism that you embrace it so eagerly and tear apart your own constitution for it? Pot meet kettle.

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

#110

Post by refulgentis »

landl0rd wrote: post #98
gpm wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is having your web server send IP packets with an IP address addressed to an overseas address to your ISP who you have signed a contract with to have them deliver those packets to the designated address if not actively reaching across borders? That's what happens when you respond to a request after all. (Up to very minor nits, e.g. you might be paying a cloud provider instead of an ISP).

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 be a law nerd and got a kick out of reading oral arguments for the first time in years this week, would appreciate more material)

Post reply on HN