One of the candidates for the Tory party leadership has already spoken out against it. I get the impression its not that popular and might well be scrapped or dropped.
Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill
301–310 of 480 posts
Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill
#302Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you see this work in practice, and wouldn't it just lead to calculating the deltas between three evils, the third being abstention? How would this be better than getting rid of the first-past-the-post system? We saw this is the Netherlands a while ago. There was a referendum about whether there should be closer relations between the Netherlands and Ukraine, and the options were "agree" and "disagree", but many…
Your example isn't quite the same thing. More or less, I want my lack of voting to be a signal to the Democratic party that, "Your vision is out of whack and does not serve me". Today, when someone doesn't vote the party and constituents try some mental gymnastics to put fault on people who don't vote as if they don't care.
Vote for an independent. Any one. Just to show you did bother to vote. If enough people do that, the major parties will try to win those "stolen" votes back by offering you what you want.
Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
What happened in 1997?
The onset of Blairism, which accelerated all previous statist trends with a smiling face and suave media personality. So we ended up with the Communications Act (2003) and its dreadful Section 127. As well as admission to PRISM, and making ourselves one of the CCTV capitals of the world. And he's still taking aim at freedom from beyond the grave: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/does-tony-blair-think-fr...
The Communications Act Section 127 was based on the existing Malicious Communications Act (1988) passed by the Thatcher government. And the UK has had plenty of other speech restrictions like blasphemy laws (abolished by Blair) to suspiciously broad offences against obscenity existing since time immemorial.
The Online Safety Bill is the brainchild of a Conservative government, included as a flagship commitment in a Conservative manifesto aiming to appeal to conservatively minded voters, a successor administration to the Conservative government who brought us the national porn block. Nothing makes it easier for such legislation to be passed more than revisionist nonsense about how the wonders of negative liberty meant we never needed any of the positive protections this law specifically supersedes and it's all the left's fault anyway.
Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill
#304Earlier quoted context omitted.
More likely it will result in crippling the domestic UK tech industry while everyone else in the world ignores it. I really don't see most countries extraditing someone for the high crime of "let british users access a website without verifying their age".
This has been said about the EU, but the market has proven to just be too big to ignore. It could also be the reverse (see authoritarian countries), with international players leaving the market and local ones filling the space.
I don't see how these multinational companies like Apple, etc don't end up with their own armies again like age old.
Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill
#305If UK government really cared about children, and not about surveillance and censorship, they would solve the problem another way. The only way protect children online is to ban them from Internet. Children should not have access to normal laptops and smartphones, instead they should use "kid phones". Such phones would allow children to communicate only with people approved by parents or teachers and visit only appro…
Only until you discover kids selling "adult phones" in the playground at school. This is as much as a parent problem as content author of a internet website. My parents tried, they installed web filters, everything. I still got round them.
I bought a BB gun at school, even a butterfly knife. I feel that it's education on how to use the internet that's missing. As well as finance.
Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill
#306Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regarding GDPR, citation needed - do you have actual links you can share to those claimed "recent interpretations", and whose in particular they are? I'd be quite interested to see them, if true ,which I seriously doubt - for the time being, as an EU citizen, my understanding is, and continues to be, that it's totally possible for US corpos to adhere to GDPR; it would just require some money and effort to be spent by…
They're decisions by the governments of Germany, France, and Italy: * https://rewis.io/urteile/urteil/lhm-20-01-2022-3-o-1749320/ * https://www.cnil.fr/en/use-google-analytics-and-data-transfe... * https://www.gpdp.it/web/guest/home/docweb/-/docweb-display/d... So far they've just been enforced against companies that use Google Analytics, but the reasoning behind it has been that having users connect to a US server e…
I don't really think being a good 'worldwide' business can exist when longterm there are conflicting views held by governments about what is right. The fact is some governments and societies values are objectively better than others
Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill
#307Do you think non-giant non-UK websites will be just ignoring this, even though theoretically if their website is accessible to those in the UK, the UK wants their compliance?
Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill
#308If UK government really cared about children, and not about surveillance and censorship, they would solve the problem another way. The only way protect children online is to ban them from Internet. Children should not have access to normal laptops and smartphones, instead they should use "kid phones". Such phones would allow children to communicate only with people approved by parents or teachers and visit only appro…
Only until you discover kids selling "adult phones" in the playground at school. This is as much as a parent problem as content author of a internet website. My parents tried, they installed web filters, everything. I still got round them. I bought a BB gun at school, even a butterfly knife. I feel that it's education on how to use the internet that's missing. As well as finance.
We're actively discussing this at the moment, and the only solution we have is judicious bugging of a real 'adult' phone for the kid. If they're old enough to know Santa Claus doesn't exist, they'll also be old enough to know the phone company wasn't reporting on their naughtiness to their parents, it was just the phone that was rigged by their parents before they ever got a hold of it all along
Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well that's the websites problem, no body told them to include 50 trackers. And there are many filters to kill cookies banners. Also AFAIK now there is an enforced Reject All button.
It's also the user's problem because there aren't websites to go to that aren't showing those banners. Well, except the big, commonly-used ones where you've already consented (or not). Facebook, for instance. It's like this law was hand-tuned to consolidate users into only visiting a few commonly-accessed sites to save themselves the UX annoyance at the cost of the broader Internet's discoverability.
I don't agree, many websites don't have it.
Its a choice that these we sites that they want to still track everyone, and they are paying for it in bad UX.
Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill
#310If UK government really cared about children, and not about surveillance and censorship, they would solve the problem another way. The only way protect children online is to ban them from Internet. Children should not have access to normal laptops and smartphones, instead they should use "kid phones". Such phones would allow children to communicate only with people approved by parents or teachers and visit only appro…
You just came up with a better idea than the entire UK government ever has.