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

IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

prestonbyrne.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 418 posts

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#201

Post by hunterpayne »

fukka42 wrote: post #185
vessenes wrote: post #149

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…

[flagged]

No the US doesn't do that. We had to make special international treaties which involved getting other governments to sign up for that (in exchange for other concessions). Stop inventing things that never happened just to excuse your politicians bad behavior.

PS Arresting foreigners for things that happened outside of your territory is an act of war.

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#202

Post by matt-p »

For a particular (suicide related) site I know that it was 'made known' to resi-ISPs here and as far as I know everyone with existing capability to do so blocked it (though for some smaller ISPs just at the DNS level, so essentially superficially). Though that was just on the honour/good will system, I don't think any had to be forced.

I think that essentially this is probably the best way to do it, IF we must go down this route (and I think in some cases we probably have to).

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#203

Post by charcircuit »

landl0rd wrote: post #98
gpm wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is having your web server send IP packets with an IP address addressed to an overseas address to your ISP who you have signed a contract with to have them deliver those packets to the designated address if not actively reaching across borders? That's what happens when you respond to a request after all. (Up to very minor nits, e.g. you might be paying a cloud provider instead of an ISP).

It is a reply. I am not responsible for checking the locality of an IP address. Indeed, I can never do so with one hundred per cent accuracy. It is Not My Problem. Governments that expect some content or other blocked can damn well do it themselves, in their own legal system. They cannot compel someone else to spend his time, talent, or treasure to enforce their petty rules. If they go after one of their own for requ…

You can't but ISPs could if they wanted to. Someone knows the billing or contact information of the person originating the packets.

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#204

Post by Aeolun »

vitus wrote: post #56
crtasm wrote: post #34

>This is demonstrably false. By testing from.. a single VPN IP? And as noted in other comments here he doesn't seem to understand how geo ip databases are maintained. I sure won't be asking this guy to represent me anytime soon.

The combative stance that he's taking really doesn't do him any favors in resolving the issue. Lawyer: "I've confirmed that at least one UK IP address is blocked." Regulators: "We've confirmed that at least one UK IP address is not blocked." In what world is the correct response "Dear regulators, you're incompetent. Pound sand." instead of "Can you share the IP address you used so my client can address this in their…

> In what world is the correct response

Any world in which US citizens in the US aren’t subject to UK laws in any case.

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#205

Post by thayne »

beejiu wrote: post #53
sys_64738 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> just don't travel to the UK and you're okay. Pretty much avoid entering Britain or its dependencies or you'll be nabbed on a Commonwealth Warrant and extradited to England.

Seems reasonable. If I committed what is considered a crime on American soil, I wouldn't expect to be able to enter the US without arrest.

But in this case, they weren't on UK soil when they did something against UK law.

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#207

Post by tbrownaw »

gtrevorjay wrote: post #148

[flagged]

> Not to make this even more political but this sort of thing is exactly why so much of the Republican base is against funding NATO.

Really? The stuff I remember seeing was entirely about countries not spending the required amounts on their own militaries.

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#208

Post by iamnothere »

eertami wrote: post #200
iamnothere wrote: post #161

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.

> Starmer’s government It seems worth pointing out (for any readers unaware) that the Online Safety Act, introduced by Conservative MP Michelle Donelan, was passed in September 2023 during Rishi Sunak's Conservative government.

It was, and yet the current government can still choose to set internal enforcement priorities, issue memos on their current understanding of the law, suspend enforcement pending review, etc. They aren’t bound to helplessly apply terrible interpretations of the law in an aggressive manner. What’s more, they could make even a single statement that signals a lack of agreement with the law and a desire to modify or repeal it. Failure to do so is silent assent, and further evidence that New Labour is just the one-step-to-the-left wing of the Tories.

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#209

Post by Aeolun »

gtrevorjay wrote: post #164
Terr_ wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're saying that the UK's porn laws are "actively attacking the sovereignty" of the US in a way that is comparable to breaking a military alliance. Do I have that right? Further, you're implying this activity is NOT something that the US has historically and regularly done to other countries, including its allies in NATO?

Of course I am. A military alliance is contingent on the other party remaining an ally. Even Democrats would expect NATO to be dissolved if by some shenanigans Putin was elected PM. That the US abuses it's position as the primary military power on earth to violate other nation's sovereignty is wrong and might matter "in the final calculus" but doesn't change how wrong this UK action is in isolation. It does bring up…

> It does bring up another absurdity particular to interactions between the US and UK which is that the US extended an insane amount of courtesy of not "finishing the job" once it was the predominant world power.

I don’t think that’s courtesy. I think that’s just realizing how useless and hard fighting a cross-atlantic war is.

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#210

Post by ubercow13 »

crtasm wrote: post #34

>This is demonstrably false. By testing from.. a single VPN IP? And as noted in other comments here he doesn't seem to understand how geo ip databases are maintained. I sure won't be asking this guy to represent me anytime soon.

He is not claiming being blocked from one IP proves the geoblock is complete, he is claiming it shows that the geoblock in place is also active for the mirror site.

>What appears to have happened is that SaSu had a site mirror and that someone figured out a way to hit the mirror – which was also subject to the geoblock, something which took me under a minute to personally confirm – without using a VPN.

Post reply on HN