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

301–310 of 418 posts

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

#301

Post by AnthonyMouse »

mike_hearn wrote: post #255
hunterpayne wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but I feel like the UK government hasn't thought this matter through. Think about what happens if the US decides it can enforce US law on UK soil against UK citizens. The main industry of the UK is questionable international finance using legal fictions on various islands. What happens when the US decides that that shouldn't be happening anymore? Its the same logic OfCom is using here. And unlike the UK governmen…

> PPS I know of no government that thinks it can enforce their law outside of their borders against foreigners. The USA does this quite regularly. Look at FATCA as one example.

> The USA does this quite regularly. Look at FATCA as one example.

The problem here is that some twits did something like this once and since then everyone is saying "but look, they're doing it, why shouldn't we?" when they ought to be saying "we're all going to be imposing sanctions on that country until they stop doing that".

If someone is doing something, that's precedent -- but the precedent can either be "someone who does that can get away with it" or "someone who does that is not going to get away with it". And when making the decision, think through the consequences of everybody doing it to you if you allow it to be the first one.

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

#302

Post by dragonwriter »

hunterpayne wrote: post #197
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…

Ok, but I feel like the UK government hasn't thought this matter through. Think about what happens if the US decides it can enforce US law on UK soil against UK citizens. The main industry of the UK is questionable international finance using legal fictions on various islands. What happens when the US decides that that shouldn't be happening anymore? Its the same logic OfCom is using here. And unlike the UK governmen…

> Think about what happens if the US decides it can enforce US law on UK soil against UK citizens.

The US has asserted that right globally for quite some time, and literally threatened force against other countries to get them to actively support (not merely tacitly permit) such enforcement, even when it directly violated the constitutions of the countries involved (as well as simply doing armed enforcement without consent of the government iinvolved in other cases.)

This has been particularly notable since the outset of the “Global War on Terror”, but didn’t start there (it was a big part of US counter-narcotics policy long before the GWoT.)

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

#303

Post by tempodox »

gerdesj wrote: post #199
fukka42 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

American companies were appropriating IP or trade secrets as they were called when Birmingham was known as Brummagen. Nowadays we have China, int al, doing the same sort of job. Nothing changes.

Who is “int al”?

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

#304

Post by scott_w »

This post is really mixed up which, for a lawyer, is really disappointing to read.

He can’t seem to decide if Ofcom’s position is that the geo blocking was disabled or that it’s not sufficient. He seems to flip flop between the two positions throughout the post.

This is really strange because he cites Ofcom’s statement! How can he not know what they’re investigating after he’s been told!

In addition, he seems under the impression that Samaritans (a suicide prevention charity) are either a part of Ofcom or if they’re a pro censorship pressure group.

Lesser issues are that he doesn’t understand the government operates out of Whitehall, not Westminster (which is Parliament) and that Parliament can put pressure on government organisations but ultimately it’s independent so Parliament and the government can only ask Ofcom to investigate (outside of passing legislation).

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

#305

Post by whatsupdog »

jmward01 wrote: post #279

Let's start with a bang. Passports and strictly enforced borders are dumb and this is a clear example of exactly why. Increasingly the digital world -is- the world and arbitrary geographical boundaries are causing nothing but problems. We are taking the ideas of physical borders and passports and, badly, applying that broken idea to a virtual space with typical results. It blows me away that the real problem with str…

There's at least 2 billion people in the world that would move to North America and Europe in the blink of an eye if all the borders were opened! Can your countries support all of them without collapsing your systems?

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

#306

Post by zamadatix »

sleepybrett wrote: post #252

The UK should build a national 'firewall' and prosecute anyone who gets around it via vpn. I'm sure the citizenry will fucking love that and then they can proceed to repeal the law.

Public sentiment in the Uk is actually pretty supportive of this law. I wouldn't be surprised if the firewall did happen eventually, but with support from the public instead of outcry.

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

#308

Post by Svip »

jmward01 wrote: post #279

Let's start with a bang. Passports and strictly enforced borders are dumb and this is a clear example of exactly why. Increasingly the digital world -is- the world and arbitrary geographical boundaries are causing nothing but problems. We are taking the ideas of physical borders and passports and, badly, applying that broken idea to a virtual space with typical results. It blows me away that the real problem with str…

With the invention of steam ships, railways, aeroplanes and the automobile; travel became almost trivial. In conjunction with those inventions, states also became a lot more involved in people's lives; culminating in large welfare states. 3-4 centuries ago, a state did not care much about who lived in in their territory; these days, they are likely to provide them benefits, and have certain obligations according to international treaties about how to treat people within their own borders. These state operations, along with obligations, makes states care a great deal about who enters or leave their territory.

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

#309

Post by 1over137 »

tempodox wrote: post #303
gerdesj wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

American companies were appropriating IP or trade secrets as they were called when Birmingham was known as Brummagen. Nowadays we have China, int al, doing the same sort of job. Nothing changes.

Who is “int al”?

Probably meant “et al”, Latin for “and others”.

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

#310

Post by hexbin010 »

vessenes wrote: post #149
Hizonner wrote: post #55

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…

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…

> "If Parliament says smoking in Paris is illegal, it is illegal."

I'm not entirely sure if you yourself understand the context or real meaning of that phrase, but for others at least, it was NOT meant to highlight that Parliament has a burning desire or real ability to legislate outside of its jurisdiction!

Just that it has the legal authority to create any such law, and that the legitimacy of a law is not dependent on its moral content. It's merely a paraphrasing/summary of H.L.A. Hart's legal positivism.

Post reply on HN