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

181–190 of 480 posts

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

#181

Post by voxic11 »

ejb999 wrote: post #113
_fat_santa wrote: post #29

If this applies to every site that hosts user generated content then that's nuts. When the internet first started, part of the appeal is that you could just make stuff without people looking over your shoulder, asking for forms, etc. Seems that the internet we created today is technically the same as the one from before, but now with governments throwing up red tape at every corner. Makes me wonder what a site like H…

I'll admit, I haven't read the entire article - but the obvious question to me - using your example of HN - what authority does the UK have over a website hosted in another country at all? They can pass all the rules they want, but how do they propose to enforce them on a company that does not operate in the UK? If that was possible, wouldn't CCP or Russia be ordering websites all over the world to shutdown to contro…

But hackernews does operate in the UK. I have accessed it from there before.

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

#182

Post by jacooper »

anigbrowl wrote: post #56
hyperman1 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it does. Laws like this tend to spill over to other countrys, unless the politicians in question have to tiptoe away from the mess they created. So one way to fight this law is to make clear the rest of the world is not going to play along. So as a person, I of course do care. The UK used to be fairly good concerning human rights, privacy, cooperation, ... This represents another step back. So the best thing to d…

So as the UK left the EU, they are now a small country in the computer world. I'll ignore its laws Laws like this tend to spill over to other countrys, unless the politicians in question have to tiptoe away from the mess Pick a lane.

These are different things.

You can ignore its laws by blocking users, and clearly saying you won't comply with such stupid laws.

Being concerned that this can spread to other countries is a big reason why you have to be clear about not playing along.

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

#183

Post by calibas »

causi wrote: post #166
calibas wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you've really experienced online abuse. If you get in an argument with someone and they start saying nasty things, then it's simple to disengage. You just stop replying and you don't go back to the thread. In this scenario, your comment makes sense, but you should count yourself very lucky if this is the worst you've experienced. Personally, I pissed off a cult leader and she sent her followers to haras…

Not a coordinated campaign like yours but I've been doxxed and had half a dozen death threats. A "professional" abuser knows all about VPNs and will just keep creating new email addresses. You had no luck with keyword filters? You have my sympathy.

Keyword filters simply don't work unless the abuse follows a very specific pattern that legit messages do not. It's not an effective method of curtailing abuse.

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

#184

Post by goodpoint »

Eupraxias wrote: post #172
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.

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.

You are mistaken.

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

#185

Post by rikroots »

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?

Probably the Treaty of Amsterdam - one of the EU's more entertaining reads

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/treaty/pdf/amst-en.pdf

The UK Human Rights Act landed in 1998. Schedule 1 Part I Article 10 covers "freedom of expression"

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part...

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

#186

Post by [deleted] »

Eupraxias wrote: post #172
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.

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.

[deleted]

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

#187

Post by [deleted] »

TheMagicHorsey wrote: post #143

I like how the English write. Maybe it's because it was originally their language and so they teach it well in their schools. As an American, I rarely see young people able to write like this anymore. On the topic: are they trying to kill their startups? Because this is how you drive startups out of the UK.

[deleted]

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

#188

Post by jacooper »

buscoquadnary wrote: post #11

My belief is that the open internet began to pose a threat to those in power, they now seek to divide the internet back up along national boundaries via absurd regulations in order to for the traditional institutions to maintain their power. We are already seeing it with many sites being unwilling to deal with the compliance headache of GDPR and just blocking European users, plus it seems like half the internet is of…

I think its really unfair to compare the GDPR with this, the GDPR is a good law, which is actually possible to comply with and has reasonable limits to where it applies[1]

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

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

#189

Post by adhesive_wombat »

Eupraxias wrote: post #172
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.

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.

> believe we should be conservative in our application of government?

No, they believe "traditional" systems should be retained (i.e. conserved).

> government should be applied liberally?

That is almost diametrically opposite to the use of the word liberal as applied to politics.

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

#190

Post by causi »

yaseer wrote: post #177
causi wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's when you create a new account. The obsession with linking your real life to your online life is the most toxic change to internet culture since the web started.
Post reply on HN