151–160 of 735 posts
I suppose this is a serious question - does this mean that in theory HN should ban UK users? Or is HN likely compliant with this law? It is hard to pierce through the Orwellian language in the article (does "safeguarding children’s personal information" mean retaining or deleting the data?).
HN is already non-compliant with several data privacy laws
> Mr Capel said: “We have been clear that exiting the UK does not allow an organisation to avoid responsibility for any prior infringement of data protection law, and our investigation remains ongoing. Block UK access now just in case.
That's the funny or hypocritical thing: Both laws have the same reach but people here tend to praise the GDPR for it while being furious about the Online Safety Act.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you do business in a country you have to operate under that country's laws and regulations, regardless of where you are registered. Most commonly it's the EU fining American tech for GDPR violations and related privacy shenanigans.
Right, but the UK is saying they'll fine Imgur even after Imgur blocked access. At that point, what tooth does the fine have? "You must pay this fine if you want to, err, nothing I guess"?
after they have infringed the data protection laws.
For example, if I get a parking fine, and then move my car. I can't claim that now that I've moved my car, I'm not liable for the previous fine. This is no different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>There's no action they can legally take against Imgur. This is a very, very dangerous game to play. This is how employees of your business on vacation in the UK end up in jail.
Imgur recently fired all of their employees, and no longer has any actual staff. No developers, no moderators, no IT guys. An ongoing protest over the state of Imgur has been going on since the first of this month. So, uh, _what_ employees on vacation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, but the UK is saying they'll fine Imgur even after Imgur blocked access. At that point, what tooth does the fine have? "You must pay this fine if you want to, err, nothing I guess"?
Pay this fine if you don't want to be arrested when entering the UK? Not that they plan to after this...
The whole point of corporations is that the company is liable, not its employees. also the shareholders are only liable for the money they put in, and not anything else.
Convictions in the UK are non-transferable. you can't convict a company, then transfer guilt onto its employees, they need to be tried at the same time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are sending data into the UK, hence you have to abide by their laws regarding said data.
As the owner of a U.S. based website, I am not sending data anywhere. Some people in the U.K. might request data and download it from my site. I'm not forcing it on them.
If they get hold of you your interpretation of who sent what doesn't matter but theirs does. They can absolutely hold you until your fine is paid or you spend and equivalent amount of time in prison.
Many people like to vacation in the UK or Europe (one diverted flight away) and they might decide that it's better to just block users and be done with it. Some people may even happily pay a small fine incurred before the block.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>There's no action they can legally take against Imgur. This is a very, very dangerous game to play. This is how employees of your business on vacation in the UK end up in jail.
> This is how employees of your business on vacation in the UK end up in jail. I mean its not. Because this is data protection laws, the company is liable, not its employees. ( https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-re... ) Even in cases where a company causes death, or destruction and the company is found liable, employees are not allowed to be used as standins, employees need to be convicted as w…
In the US for example if you happen to bring gambling funds to some other country from us citizens you will be arrested in very creative ways while not even getting close to the US.
At the end of the day all law is what the government wants to do and can get away with. When it comes to not actual citizens of the country they tend to get away with a whole lot more. Or another more simple way to put it, "You can beat the wrap, but you can't beat the ride".
If a country wants to enforce some kind of rules, they will have to apply them to the countries residents, because its the resident that go out on the net and conduct the behavior, not the other way around.
This has been common sense for a long time now. Everybody is going crazy/mad. Must be some seriously narcissistic people running the UK.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They pull out and have no UK assets to seize. How do you expect the "pull out" to happen? They must have had a UK bank account or similar, whose transfers won't get approved as they're trying to escape from criminal prosecution. Or they'll work with the US to ensure responsible individuals are held responsible. It isn't exactly the first time someone/something commits crime in a country then try to escape, there is…
> They must have had a UK bank account or similar How so? None is needed to take revenue from UK-seen ads.
> Mr Capel said: “We have been clear that exiting the UK does not allow an organisation to avoid responsibility for any prior infringement of data protection law, and our investigation remains ongoing. Block UK access now just in case.
As somebody from the UK, I think this is a great form of protest against the government.