231–240 of 418 posts
This is how the UK government, faced with pressing issues, chooses to waste its time and destroy its remaining reputation for competence. There was never any chance that this would fly outside the country, least of all in the USA. Whoever gave Ofcom the extraterritorial power it has to pursue these goals clearly intended to ensure its failure, and for this I am grateful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That sounds like the same thing, with extra steps.
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…
If you operate a website outside UK and that's it, you may not care. But if you offer paid servies, collect money from UK citizens, you must have a business representation in the UK, which is bound by UK laws, can be fined, dragged to a court, etc. If you have this vulnerability, or you don't but your holding company has other web properties that do, the UK government has a way to make you listen and comply.
This is quite obviously incorrect. I am a UK citizen, but live in the US. No company needs a UK presence to collect money from me.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you operate a website outside UK and that's it, you may not care. But if you offer paid servies, collect money from UK citizens, you must have a business representation in the UK, which is bound by UK laws, can be fined, dragged to a court, etc. If you have this vulnerability, or you don't but your holding company has other web properties that do, the UK government has a way to make you listen and comply.
Why don't people just build decentralized smart contracts these days? Why worry about all these liabilities?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The USA has been doing this with VISA and MC since about forever.
Do you have a source for the USA pressuring VISA and MC?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[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.
Guantanamo bay exists outside of the US territory for a reason, so that no legal rules would apply. CIA/USA has been keeping secret prisons and torturing people all around the world (incl. EU).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t agree that choosing to host a website without limiting the audience is innocent. It’s a choice, and has been the default for a long time, but it means one has chosen to speak outside the borders of their own country and that comes with rules, like them or not.
are your websites compliant with Russian, Chinese, and Iranian laws and online regulations?
If I'm not afraid of violating NK law — because I'll never, ever be there — then the same logic holds for the laws of every other country I won't be visiting.
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…
> If I'm operating a Web site in country A, I should not have to care about country B's laws Not defending UK's idiotic laws, but this doesn't hold. If you cannot regulate websites outside of the country of origin, then no internet regulation can hold for any subject. Openly selling stolen personal credentials or botnet usage? Piracy? Reselling personal information without disclosure? So there are effectively three o…
It can, but instead of forcing other people to follow your laws, you have to block your country's residents from accessing the sites that break your laws.
I'm not saying I love this method either (China is famously very good at it, and I don't think their methods foster a healthy society), but I believe it should be the only lever you have. Forcing people outside your jurisdiction to follow your laws is a violation of another country's sovereignty.
As an aside, should I take pains to ensure any website I operate follows the laws of North Korea? Iran? China? Russia? Should we be complacent and accepting if HN were to be targeted by any of those governments because people here have undoubtedly said unflattering things about the leaders of those countries?
Of course not. But even though we're talking about a "friend"-type country here, it's not any different.
> The primary one is that the notion of a “UK based IP” is nonsense. Geolocation databases work by figuring out where people log in from and only after doing a lot of pattern recognition do those addresses get associated with that location. I support the cause, but I don't think that's true. RIPE, the RIR responsible for UK, makes available a list of allocations per country. For UK: https://stat.ripe.net/data/country…
Yeah, geo-IP is not perfect, but it's not built on pure guessing like the author implies.
No edge cases, it is a matter of law.