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

221–230 of 480 posts

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

#221

Post by adolph »

causi wrote: post #190
yaseer wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

all ephemeral, leave no trace or context

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

#222

Post by M2Ys4U »

rlpb wrote: post #220

The article says: "Is it possible for your site, service, or app, which allows content to be shared and/or people to communicate with each other, to be accessed by any adult or any child within the UK? Then you’re in scope. NB “accessed” doesn’t necessarily mean that a user can set up an active account on your service. If a British adult can merely download your app on the app store, the app is in scope." However, th…

>However, the draft bill doesn't seem to say that. I found the draft here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-online-safe... (and note that the article doesn't seem to link it, which seems odd).

You're linking to the draft bill. Burns has linked to the actual bill as amended in the Commons: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-03/0121... (it's linked under the heading of "How to read this post")

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

#224

Post by TeeMassive »

fguerraz wrote: post #151
throwaway4aday wrote: post #53

Can someone explain why this won't result in a renaissance for peer to peer and e2e encrypted chat/forums/social media etc.? When government or industry makes it nearly impossible for consumer needs to be met we inevitably see a grey and black market spring up to meet those needs. My prediction is that if legislation like this becomes widespread we'll see a freely distributed application rise to prominence among a ga…

Don't worry, blocking p2p is the next step and is extremely easy to do. China has done it already and it's very effective: * Force every service provider to register their IPs and domains (for CDN use) * Force every ISP to do stateful firewalling and block every attempt to establish a new connection unless the destination IP is on a whilelist maintained by the government. Problem solved.

No post body was provided.

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

#225

Post by jlokier »

root_axis wrote: post #99
ok123456 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> You watched a few confused people mill around the rotunda and take selfies. This characterization is dishonest. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iludfj6Pe7w Please don't bother with equivocations.

Longer video, has more of the event.

https://youtu.be/UdnNIQQOANk

Link that doesn't require YouTube age assertion:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2022/jun/10/unseen...

I agree that the characterization as "people milling around the rotunda taking selfies" is grossly misleading.

At least some of the people were plainly not intending or doing "run of the mill protest".

Listening to Trump on that day, his speech is worse than I'd thought. (I'm not connected to the USA so I don't follow closely.)

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

#226

Post by rlpb »

M2Ys4U wrote: post #222
rlpb wrote: post #220

The article says: "Is it possible for your site, service, or app, which allows content to be shared and/or people to communicate with each other, to be accessed by any adult or any child within the UK? Then you’re in scope. NB “accessed” doesn’t necessarily mean that a user can set up an active account on your service. If a British adult can merely download your app on the app store, the app is in scope." However, th…

>However, the draft bill doesn't seem to say that. I found the draft here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-online-safe ... (and note that the article doesn't seem to link it, which seems odd). You're linking to the draft bill. Burns has linked to the actual bill as amended in the Commons: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-03/0121... (it's linked under the heading of "How to read th…

Ah, thanks. Looks like there's not an actual bill yet, but there is a second draft bill.

However, I looked at the definitions in there and they remain essentially the same. My concerns still stand.

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

#227

Post by zo1 »

metadat wrote: post #174
canadiantim wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I can tell it’s more the progressive wing of most countries who are pushing for authoritarian censorship of the internet. Just look at Canada

Is this common knowledge? It's the first claim I've encountered of Canada attempting Internet censorship.

I googled it and found Bill C-11. Not going to dig deeper into it and confirm details, but maybe you didn't hear about it for a reason?

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

#229

Post by 1991g »

BurningFrog wrote: post #198
worldofmatthew wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU might see that as an act of war...... A large amount (if not the vast majority) of fibre optics from Europe to Americas, go though the UK and cutting them off cuts off the biggest parts of the world from each other.

The EU might also see the UK as an inspiration!

I do not think the European perception of the UK could accurately be described as "inspirational" at the moment.

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

#230

Post by pjc50 »

HeckFeck wrote: post #104
cowtools wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brits don't have freedom of speech AFIK. it was never in their social contract.

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…

Until the Human Rights Act 1998 established it as a positive right.

> _would_ have no laws restricting freedom of speech (libel and incitement excepted)

This is optimistic ahistorical nonsense; the UK had a censorship regime until the Lady Chatterly trial. There has been intelligence service related censorship as long as those have existed, as well (see Spycatcher, Zircon). And let's not get into Northern Ireland. Nobody old enough to remember "Gerry Adams has his voice read by an actor" would claim the UK used to be a bastion of pure free speech.

Post reply on HN