[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act
171–180 of 418 posts
Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "If country B doesn’t like it, block the mail in question" That’s actually how it works? Unless you have an extradition agreement, or military overmatch, or you are willing to expend some diplomatic leverage, you are typically not getting a citizen out of a foreign country. The government complains about this all the time with goods from SE Asia, and sometimes they seize fake designer goods and make a lot of noise…
just because a law is difficult to enforce doesn't make it not exist. There are laws for this, and they are enforced. If you aint caught its not illegal?
Typically one-sided laws are not enforced against citizens of foreign countries except in rare cases, because it creates diplomatic friction. Countries really don’t like it when you arrest their citizens for things that aren’t illegal at home. And when one country has enormous leverage over another, it’s a bad idea for the less powerful country to attempt enforcement. A visa ban would usually be a more appropriate tactic.
Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act
#173You 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…
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.
It actually doesn't lmao.
Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act
#174I don't really understand the concern. The UK objects to suicide forums and American operators of suicide forums are protected by the First Amendment of extradition to the UK. So if you want to operate a suicide forum from America, just don't travel to the UK and you're okay.
[deleted]
Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act
#175Lets all point and laugh
Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
If someone writes you a letter than they have your family hostage, and to route 50.000 dollars thorough bitcoin to not have them killed, with a AI generated video as proof; are they scott free because they're not based in the US?
First of all, this is about Web sites, and that's not a valid analogy. Web sites don't spontaneously send you letters, let alone kidnap you. You only get content you actively asked for. Second, where is the person writing the letter from? Mars? They're going to have a hard time finding a place where kidnapping and extortion are legal. Third, the letter would in fact presumably be aimed at a specific person in a speci…
Websites absolutely spontaneously send letters, or advertising flyers.
The company could be from china or Russia with little interest in diplomatic pandering for such a small incident.
Providing a user a service in exchange for payment is also aimed at a specific person in a specific country.
heck, if no laws can be applied across borders, it could be a website selling the service of fake extortion letters.
And don't mix up "difficult to enforce" with "legal". Constantly changing domains and hiding who is behind the service are efforts to avoid being caught by very real and enforced laws.
Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act
#177When a country transitions from manufacturing to services, it ends up trying to export its legal system.
One of the big things I've been wondering about the decision of the Anglosphere to all switch to a service economy: why would you do that when your population is both smaller and dumber than the populations of other countries? The UK (nor the US) has no advantage in providing services, all it can do is demand that other people be prevented from providing them.
It wasn't a decision to switch to services - I'm in the UK - it's just left to the market and that's where the money is mostly. It's kind of irrelevant if your population is large or small etc.
Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act
#178the bravado makes for some great irony. worrying and feeling ultra-superior about the UK government, while letting the tiktok ban and forced sale go through unchallenged. altogether, if you dont care about following this UK law, whats the need to carr what the UK government does? just dont go there or do business with people who care about the UK government. same as US sanctions and secondary sanctions. the UK at lea…
> worrying and feeling ultra-superior about the UK government, while letting the tiktok ban and forced sale go through unchallenged. And more to the point, many US states passing or attempting to pass laws which aren't all that different to the UKs OSA. Mississippi's version is in some ways even more onerous to enforce as it requires social networks to age-check all of their users, not just those who want to access a…
> And more to the point
What's the point exactly? That some US states also did something similar re porn so therefore it's a nothingburger and we shouldn't care about this lawyers campaign to protect the internet from censorship?
Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act
#179You 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…
Preston talks about this in an earlier blog post. It's a matter of UK law and, I'd bet, many countries, that they have the sovereign right to legislate about matters in and outside their borders. "If Parliament says smoking in Paris is illegal, it is illegal." What's different today than when that doctrine was conceived of is: data goes everywhere, communications are decentralized, international cooperation around es…
> It's a matter of UK law and, I'd bet, many countries, that they have the sovereign right to legislate about matters in and outside their borders.
Basically all countries take that position legally. But there are norms and customs about how often you exercise it (as well as practical questions of power).
Extraterritorial regulation of Web sites is unfortunately in the process of being established as normal, but it's a bad norm. Not as bad as drone striking anybody who lights a cigarette in Paris (which could be made legal), but a bad norm nonetheless.