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

4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

alecmuffett.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 817 posts

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#181

Post by tgv »

ibejoeb wrote: post #139
beardyw wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes if the Parisian tabaconist sells in the UK. What happens in France is a French concern.

Not exactly. It's like if a brit goes to paris to buy cigarettes, the UK is stating that it's the tabac's job to refuse the transaction. They can say whatever they want, but the UK can't conduct an extra-territorial police action in france. They can bar subject from traveling to france instead. The onus is on the UK.

They're not going to Paris, are they? 4chan brings their services into the UK. The US does the same thing: Kim Dotcom comes to mind.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#182

Post by lazide »

CaptainOfCoit wrote: post #127
littlestymaar wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which doesn't sounds so absurd if you replace “tobacco” with “cocaine” and “Parisian” with “Colombian”.

Still sounds absurd to me. > UK bans selling cocaine in the UK and tries going after a Colombian cocaine dealer in Columbia.

That is the war on drugs yes?

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#183

Post by nairboon »

thinkingtoilet wrote: post #156
ekjhgkejhgk wrote: post #155

I hate the Ofcom and the clowns that pass for British government. But I can see how this argument would make sense in the retarded mind of a lawyer. The first amendment doesn't give people rights: people already have those rights. Instead, the first amendment constrains the power of the US government to infringe upon those rights. It doesn't constrain the power of any other government.

>The first amendment doesn't give people rights: people already have those rights. Says who? Prove it. Go to Russia and say something bad about the government and see how well this right you think you magically get holds up.

Says the amendment: "Congress shall make no law...."

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/

Why would an US constitution amendment have any effect in Russia?

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#184

Post by array_key_first »

energy123 wrote: post #128
probably_wrong wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right now you're downvoted for expressing an opinion that I believe deserves a deeper discussion. I don't want the government to decide which thoughts I can access and which ones I can't, but I also understand that allowing a foreign power (let's say Russia, although "the US" works just as fine) to freely run undercover propaganda and/or destabilization campaigns without any recourse doesn't look good either. And whi…

Something needs to be done. The outcomes are manifestly bad. I can't take the pro-freedom intellectual argument seriously unless it's coupled with a suite of pragmatic solutions to the negative side effects I am observing with my own senses. The intellectual walls of text just aren't papering over that reality.

Propaganda campaigns are one thing, but the reality is these laws target stupid ass shit like porn.

Is that a made up problem? IMO: yes. That's a PARENT'S responsibility, not mine.

There are legitimate arguments in favor of a national firewall. Nobody is making them.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#185

Post by GoblinSlayer »

CaptainOfCoit wrote: post #123
tasuki wrote: post #35

> The Act explicitly grants Ofcom the legal authority to regulate online safety for individuals in the United Kingdom, and this expressly includes conducting investigations into, and imposing penalties for, non-compliance by providers of online services with their duties under the Act. […] The Act expressly anticipates that it will have extra-territorial effect I don't see anything wrong here: Sure, Ofcom can have th…

> The Act expressly anticipates that it will have extra-territorial effect It also continues like this: > This does not mean that the Act extends to all use of in-scope services globally. […] “The duties extend only to the design, operation and use of the service in the UK and, for duties expressed to apply in relation to ‘users’, as it affects the UK users of the service” Wouldn't this mean that the Act only applies…

That's not what the text means, but even if it did, you cornered yourself, since if you have no particular care for UK users, you won't care if they are blocked from your general service.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#186

Post by array_key_first »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #17
vkazanov wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same problem. Tried to balance some kind of freedom with limitations but it just didn't work. Then I found discord, read through some chats... Now it's just outright forbidden to have anything with a chat. And no Internet. The problem is that other 10 year old have mobiles, free PC access, etc, so there constant peer pressure.

Exactly, plus there's free, mostly unrestricted wifi everywhere. If your child has some pocket or birthday money they can freely spend, they can walk into an electronics store, buy a cheap smartphone or tablet and have unrestricted access. At home measures are at best a delay, not a fix. What you also have to do is actually communicate with your child. If you're strict about what they can and cannot do on the interne…

You don't need a perfect fix.

I'm sorry, but if you're threat model is your kid getting a fucking burner phone, I don't know what to tell you.

Even this law won't fix it! Why, couldnt your kid just save up and buy a plane ticket to the US?? Oh no .. we need a global law don't we?

Or, maybe, we throw away that thinking and acknowledge that the problem is not that big and solving 99% of it is MORE than good enough.

Your kid is way more likely to die in a car wreck. Focus on that or something.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#187

Post by reorder9695 »

aveao wrote: post #75
mnmalst wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or the website owner doesn't want to take the risk and ads a banner even if the site strictly doesn't need one.

that seems like an issue with the website owner to me

A lot of websites for smaller businesses will not be run by technical people, they'll be run by business people or otherwise who don't understand cookies beyond "I see cookie banners on every website I visit, therefore to avoid legal trouble I need one too", you can't expect someone like that to understand the difference between tracking cookies and technical cookies.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#188

Post by ibejoeb »

tgv wrote: post #181
ibejoeb wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not exactly. It's like if a brit goes to paris to buy cigarettes, the UK is stating that it's the tabac's job to refuse the transaction. They can say whatever they want, but the UK can't conduct an extra-territorial police action in france. They can bar subject from traveling to france instead. The onus is on the UK.

They're not going to Paris, are they? 4chan brings their services into the UK. The US does the same thing: Kim Dotcom comes to mind.

You can argue that either way. It's not the best analogy. I extrapolate in another comment in this thread.

NZ agreed to cooperate with the US request. That made all the difference. If the US agrees to allow UK to proceed, then that's trouble for 4chan.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#189

Post by james_in_the_uk »

GardenLetter27 wrote: post #50
epanchin wrote: post #11

Is there a solution where we can compel parental control to be enabled by default on kids phones? That would seem to be least intrusive option. Using the internet in the UK/EU is such a horrible experience, every cookie pop-up is a reminder how badly thought out these rules are.

The cookie popups is such a painful representation of Europe tech in general. Like you can configure your browser to do whatever you want with cookies - blocking them all, blocking only third party ones, etc. - there is no need for government regulation here. But the legislators are completely tech illiterate and even the general public supports more interference and regulation.

It’s a bit of both.

It’s not possible to rely on browser controls as-is, because they do not differentiate between necessary and optional cookies.

Browser vendors could agree standards and implement them, exposing these to users and advertisers in a friendly way.

But they haven’t shown any interest in doing this.

I wonder why?

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#190

Post by i_am_jl »

johndhi wrote: post #174

I'd think it would be allowed for UK to: 1. Tell 4chan or its registrar l to take down .co.uk urls (maybe?) 2. Tell UK ISPs to ban UK visitors from viewing 4chan

They can, but they have to ask a court to enforce any sort of block. I imagine that's coming soon.
Post reply on HN