181–190 of 418 posts
[flagged]
Starmer’s government may have also forgotten that its nuclear deterrent is on lease from the US. Something about this feels off. It’s clearly not in the interest of the UK diplomatically given the current US admin. Are the people on the UK side of the cross-Atlantic CISA/State/Ofcom “counter-misinformation” op still blindly running their scripts as if the US elections never happened? It sure feels that way.
Thank you
It is getting really hard to follow their logic. A some point, if you do not have any relationship with the UK, go as far as blocking its residents but they still want you to abide by their law, aren't they just declaring war on the entire world? This is something very deranged that have become very common with the world "becoming smaller": somes will go on a rampage for something happening on the other side of the p…
Ofcom appears to agree that geoblocking UK residents would satisfy the requirements of this law. They also however appear to believe the OPs clients are simply lying about actually geoblocking UK residents - and Ofcom appear's to be the quasi-judicial entity which decides (at least as a first step).
I can't imagine OP's response to Ofcom that "we aren't doing that, but we won't explain what we were doing when we created the domain you think we created to do that" was particularly convincing.
> aren't they just declaring war on the entire world?
No, that would only happen if they started attempting to enforce the law by going into "the entire world" by force. Just declaring that some foreign entity broke your laws and owes you money and maybe that you'll arrest them if they come to your country isn't an act of war. Acts of war look like drone striking alleged drug smugglers in some other countries territorial waters without that other countries permission.
You 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> It is the firm will of the Irish nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island. Until then, the laws enacted by the Parliament established by this Constitution shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws enacted by the Parliament that existed immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution.
(Which means the territory of what is now called the Republic of Ireland, that is, explicitly excluding any claim to Northern Ireland in order to comply with the Good Friday agreement)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I this is exactly how you should respond to outrageous demands. The UK should pound sand.
I get that it's satisfying to tell them to go away because they're being unreasonable. But what's the legal strategy here? Piss off the regulators such that they really won't drop this case, and give them fodder to be able to paint the lawyer and his client as uncooperative? Is the strategy really just "get new federal laws passed so UK can't shove these regulations down our throats"? Is that going to happen on a tim…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it not possible that there is concern for individuals well beings in the midst of a mental health crisis? It’s one thing to be talking about suicide or assisted suicide because you’ve decided it’s right for you and your situation. It’s another to be dealing with depression from trauma, unable to get help and have no support system, and then be coerced by individuals on forums with ulterior motives. I’m not saying…
I doubt Ofcom are motivated by "concern for individuals well beings in the midst of a mental health crisis", but even then, it is clear in the context of the current discussion that they should be concerned with enforcing their legislation in their own country. The UK is free to build The Great Firewall of the United Kingdom and block half of the internet if their concern is so great. What they cannot be allowed to d…
Do you have evidence for that? Because when I search I do see them doing investigations concerned with abuse of people including mentioning coercive and controlling behaviors
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-c...
> If all of them followed a policy like UK's Ofcom, the internet would be gone in no time and world-wide user-to-user communication would become impossible for legal reasons.
Sounds like a slippery slope fallacy to me. Again, not necessarily supporting the policy, but when such arguments are used against it, it’s not convincing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Starmer’s government may have also forgotten that its nuclear deterrent is on lease from the US. Something about this feels off. It’s clearly not in the interest of the UK diplomatically given the current US admin. Are the people on the UK side of the cross-Atlantic CISA/State/Ofcom “counter-misinformation” op still blindly running their scripts as if the US elections never happened? It sure feels that way.
[flagged]
Sounds like UK problem to me. No one can be expected to know or abide laws of another country. In person or in the digital realm. If UK has some laws, then UK citizens should abide them, not the rest of the world. In other words, say betting is illegal in UK and I as a UK citizen go and make a bet via website that is run by a business in Panama. The Panamanian company should not concern itself with anything but rathe…
> No one can be expected to know or abide laws of another country. If this is your view, do not travel or do business in other countries. It's simple.