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

Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

webdevlaw.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 480 posts

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#171

Post by hedora »

hyperman1 wrote: post #15

As someone from the EU, with no money or anuthing coming in from the UK, why would I even care about this? The GDPR has teeth only because the EU is big enough to make companies care. It is a watered down version from some privacy rights compared to the old laws in my country. But the old laws were ignorde by US tech because why wouldn't they. So as the UK left the EU, they are now a small country in the computer wor…

If the article is to be believed, then simply ignoring this law would open your company's leadership up to criminal liability in the UK. This probably doesn't matter too much, assuming they never fly through Heathrow or something.

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#172

Post by Eupraxias »

Iv wrote: post #135
zarzavat wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which again, is the point - to turn the internet into the easily regulable cable TV that they already understand. Unless the UK significantly increases its military capacity and sets up world government, they will not be able to shut down the internet. The internet will still exist. The best they can hope for is a great firewall / North Korea type situation which would require a much more authoritarian (moreover fu…

Conservatives all over the world dream of setting up a chinese-style firewall in their countries. They are angry that it was first done by a clearly authoritarian regime which brings some resistance to the idea, but otherwise, in the name of fight against terrorism or child pornography, they would have set it up already.

By conservatives, do you mean the same people who believe we should be conservative in our application of government?

Are you sure you are not speaking of liberals, who believe government should be applied liberally?

Not like any of them act as they speak, but if I am not mistaken, that's what the words mean.

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#173

Post by Sakos »

andai wrote: post #142
HeckFeck wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We had it through negative liberty, opposed to positive liberty. The approach was that everything was permitted except that which is forbidden. So, instead of a 'right to' free speech, rather we _would_ have no laws restricting freedom of speech (libel and incitement excepted). This was the understanding that would've permeated Parliament, the courts, the palace, and the hearts and minds of everyone who understood it…

What happened in 1997?

I assume he means the McLibel case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_case).

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#174

Post by metadat »

canadiantim wrote: post #153
Iv wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conservatives all over the world dream of setting up a chinese-style firewall in their countries. They are angry that it was first done by a clearly authoritarian regime which brings some resistance to the idea, but otherwise, in the name of fight against terrorism or child pornography, they would have set it up already.

From what I can tell it’s more the progressive wing of most countries who are pushing for authoritarian censorship of the internet. Just look at Canada

Is this common knowledge? It's the first claim I've encountered of Canada attempting Internet censorship.

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#175

Post by metadat »

tgv wrote: post #79
commandlinefan wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> won't result in a renaissance for peer to peer This horribly written law can easily be interpreted to apply to ISP's as well - so if the ISP is allowing these peer-to-peer systems that allow "unsafe" content to be shared, they're liable for it too, or they have to shut down the peer-to-peer systems. Which again, is the point - to turn the internet into the easily regulable cable TV that they already understand.

> Which again, is the point - to turn the internet into the easily regulable cable TV It's a tad more nefarious. Say what you want about cable tv, but it doesn't track your every move.

Actually the cable providers can and do track everything about what you watch. There are also no rules or regulations about how they can use the data they harvest from you.

https://www.quora.com/Does-the-cable-company-know-what-I-am-...

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#176

Post by HeckFeck »

nickmyersdt wrote: post #139
HeckFeck wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We had it through negative liberty, opposed to positive liberty. The approach was that everything was permitted except that which is forbidden. So, instead of a 'right to' free speech, rather we _would_ have no laws restricting freedom of speech (libel and incitement excepted). This was the understanding that would've permeated Parliament, the courts, the palace, and the hearts and minds of everyone who understood it…

What happened in 1997?

The onset of Blairism, which accelerated all previous statist trends with a smiling face and suave media personality.

So we ended up with the Communications Act (2003) and its dreadful Section 127. As well as admission to PRISM, and making ourselves one of the CCTV capitals of the world.

And he's still taking aim at freedom from beyond the grave: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/does-tony-blair-think-fr...

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#177

Post by yaseer »

causi wrote: post #161
yaseer wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An adult getting abused online is like getting third degree burns because you laid your hand on a hot burner and refused to take it off This analogy is broken on quite a few levels. When did the internet become a hot burner? The internet is not designed to get hot - it's not a cooking device. If your laptop consistently got so hot it burned your lap, you'd try to fix it, not say "of course it does that". > If peopl…

Why would you expect the internet to be governed by different laws to in-person behaviour? Because you can't instantly erase someone from your perception in person to person interaction. Online you can even proactively protect yourself, such as by adding words and phrases you don't like to your blocklist. Suppose I decide I don't ever want to interact with someone who still uses the word "retard". My computer can pre…

> instantly erase someone from your perception in person to person interaction.

As easily as you can block a message, so too can abuser create a new account.

Online harassment can be as persistent as in-person harassment - there's countless stories of people being continuously harassed. If it were so easy to block people online 'cyberstalking' wouldn't be such a big problem in the same area.

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#178

Post by bencollier49 »

notnotjake wrote: post #138
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #130

The extra-territoriality part is interesting. It's still part of the post-Brexit hangover. GDPR got enforced globally because a) it covered 500 million rich europeans so you could not ignore that market b) it was the first and not insane. This is insane - and worse the UK is just, just small enough that you could if you wanted, turn off the service to those geo-IPs and carry on. I wonder. If any non-English speaking…

What is the mechanism that allows it to apply extraterritorially? How can they make me comply?

Arrest you when you change planes at Heathrow. It's nuts; most of the Internet will be locked off from UK users.

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#179

Post by jacooper »

kmeisthax wrote: post #73
sterlind wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this UK bill passes, I'd simply return HTTP 451 with a note that although the UK is blocked from my site, VPNs are not.

Promoting VPN usage could be construed by the UK courts as an attempt to commit subterfuge or dodge jurisdiction. They will not take kindly to this. You really want to make it perfectly clear that you want nothing to do with Britain as long as they have crazy laws on the books. Related point: if you're intending to get out of GDPR, blocking the EU doesn't really help, because the law applies on the basis of citizensh…

However, the GDPR doesn't really apply if you don't intend to target Europeans(2)

And the GDPR is a way way more sensible law than whatever the UK is trying to do here, nobody will comply and no body will care, its only going to Hurt UK citizens and The UK's economy.

I care about privacy and really like what the EU has passed with the GDPR and DSA, but unfortunately we will have countries that does stupid things like this. Hopefully they aren't that important so no one complies.

2. https://gdpr.eu/companies-outside-of-europe/

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#180

Post by jacooper »

shadowgovt wrote: post #103
xdfgh1112 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, this already happens to some extent with American and Asian sites blocking Europe and the UK because they don't want to deal with GPDR.

As an American visiting the UK and the EU, I got to see what the GDPR has done to the online experience over there for the first time. Wow, does that suck. I see about 20% of the "cookie track consent" popups Stateside that I saw browsing from the EU.

Well that's the websites problem, no body told them to include 50 trackers. And there are many filters to kill cookies banners. Also AFAIK now there is an enforced Reject All button.
Post reply on HN