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

I read the article and I remain confused.

I've just come to this story after seeing it on HN so I might have misunderstandings from being unaware of the background. Also, I neither reside in the US nor UK so I'd have not seen local media reports.

In short, I gather UK's Ofcom is threatening a US web site for online content that is lawful within the US's jurisdiction and unlawful in the UK as it contravenes the UK's Online Safety Act.

I am bewildered that Preston Byrne has even bothered to acknowledge Ofcom's correspondence let alone respond to it as the UK (Ofcom) has no jurisdiction over actions of any entity or person within the continental US—or for that matter the actions of those outside its borders unless, say, covered by treaty, etc.

That Preston Byrne responded to Ofcom seems strange given the fact that he is not only a lawyer but also head of legal and compliance at Arkham law firm, thus he ought to be aware that is client is shielded from UK law by virtue that the UK has no jurisdiction on US territory.

If I'd been Byrne I'd not have even acknowledged Ofcom's correspondence with a 'fuck off/cease and desist' reply but filed it in the trash can. (If there's some mitigating matter I've missed here let me know.)

It's clear to me the the UK's Online Safety Act stops at its borders so the UK has full responsibility for blocking websites that are physically outside its jurisdiction, similarly blocking or stopping its citizens from accessing accessing them.

It seems to me many of the younger internet fraternity are unaware that there's longstanding precedent for how such matters are handled. Back in the days of the Cold War before the internet some countries used to broadcast propaganda on HF/shortwave radio bands to those that were their political enemies and recipient countries would attempt to jam the broadcasts so their citizens would not be able to listen to them. For example, Communist USSR, China etc. would jam the BBC or the US's VOA (Voice of America).

Simply, if a country did not want its citizens to listen to the broadcasts of another country it was its responsibility to jam the incoming signals. It seems to me all that has actually changed since then is that nowady the unwanted broadcasts come via internet circuits.

Frankly, Ofcom has an unmitigated hide to threaten people who are acting lawfully within the US. That said, it's not unexpected, in recent decades the UK's been acting like a petulant bully, it seems to have forgotten that without it's empire it can no longer enforce its bullyboy tactics.

BTW, the matter of what content is or is not acceptable online is completely separate issue from Ofcom's behavior. Personally, from what I've gathered I'd find content on the SaSu website unacceptable and I can understand why many in the UK want it blocked but bypassing another country's sovereign authority is not the correct way to go about it.

Not sure I see how your logic has led you there. If a company (regardless of where they are headquartered) is operating in your country, then you necessarily have some sort of jurisdiction over it:

- If they are using servers or domain names hosted in your country, you can seize them.

- If they are making use of your country's financial system, you can ban them from that system.

- If they are shipping physical products to your country's residents, you can intercept those packages at customs.

- If any employees (or, better, officers) of that company are physically present in your country, you can fine or arrest them if they don't comply.

- If you have an extradition treaty with the country where they're operating, you can ask that country for help. If they decline, that's unfortunate for you, but that's life.

And right, in the end, if there's no "presence" aside from people in your country accessing foreign websites, then you can (given the right legal mechanisms) order ISPs in your country to block those sites. I don't see why any foreign-operated website should have any obligation to examine your laws and pro-actively block your residents from their site if needed; if you want your laws enforced on your residents, then... enforce them on your residents.

> But saying the internet should be a fully unregulated hellscape is not a sensible position here.

While I do see a few low-effort comments to that effect, I don't think that's a common opinion here. I don't even think the person you're replying to holds that opinion.

English became the language of international trade, of course, because we’re all just so adorably stupid, and our countries are tiny and harmless. Plus it is such an easy language to pick up…

If the government of their country believes that accessing my website is a problem for their residents, then the onus is on them to sort it out on their own, without my involvement. They are perfectly capable of ordering ISPs that operate inside their borders to block my website from their customers.

The fact that Ofcom hasn't just done something like this in the case of SaSu, 4chan, etc., shows that they are not actually interested in "online safety"; they're making political statements and are trying to throw their weight around like the bullies they clearly are.