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

311–320 of 480 posts

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

#311

Post by jacooper »

connorgurney wrote: post #300
jacooper wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean you can just ban all UK IPs and be done with it. Its clearly not a sensible law, and blocking users will send a clear message to them that they should complains about it.

Realistically, are they going to complain? I don’t ever remember a mass revolt over US websites blocking EU users because of GDPR.

The GDPR is a way way more realistic law, there is no comparison here.

Also the EU is a way bigger user base than the UK, and being complaint with the GDPR is actually possible without needing to pay anyone anything.

I think the affect of this law is going to be way bigger than the GDPR.

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

#312

Post by shadowgovt »

jacooper wrote: post #309
shadowgovt wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's the safest choice given the incentives.

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

#313

Post by jerf »

omginternets wrote: post #278
jerf wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Men with guns. Yeah, they can't 100% win. They don't need to. In fact, even if they did 100% win, they'd still find reasons to need to crush some people just to keep people reminded of who has the guns.

The “men with guns” bit cuts both ways, though.

Not in the UK.

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

#314

Post by orangepurple »

muyuu wrote: post #256
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…

at some point e2e encrypted comms will be grounds for getting swatted don't think this is a bridge too far, covering your face in the presence of public CCTV got you fined/arrested the week before covering your face with feel-good masks was compulsory don't @ me telling me it's stupid, I know it is, but this govt doesn't believe in free and private communications and it's working hard in progressively eradicating wha…

Fortunately, where there is a will, there is a way.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S209044791...

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

#315

Post by flir »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #156
jfk13 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, the familiar HN bubble, where people instinctively think of "simply start using VPNs" as the solution. No; some tiny minority of UK users may do that, but the overwhelming majority will just use whatever services are "approved" (follow whatever rules they have to, to stay in the market) and remain available by default.

Are there any YouTube users who still haven't heard of a VPN? They seem about as niche as TikTok at this point.

Funnily enough I had to explain what a VPN is to one of my kids this weekend.

But... if the need's there, people figure it out (as he's doing right now - for him it's something gaming related).

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

#316

Post by omginternets »

jerf wrote: post #313
omginternets wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The “men with guns” bit cuts both ways, though.

Not in the UK.

I wouldn’t be so sure. Riots don’t require guns to have an effect, as the UK has seen quite recently. Point being: an analysis that draws its conclusion from the presence of state violence is incomplete if it doesn’t also consider violence on the part of citizens/subjects.

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

#317

Post by flir »

__alexs wrote: post #241
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…

Because the bill will never pass. It will be quietly swept away when new Tory leader is elected.

I dunno. There's always a chance it's Braverman.

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

#318

Post by 7952 »

_fat_santa wrote: post #29

If this applies to every site that hosts user generated content then that's nuts. When the internet first started, part of the appeal is that you could just make stuff without people looking over your shoulder, asking for forms, etc. Seems that the internet we created today is technically the same as the one from before, but now with governments throwing up red tape at every corner. Makes me wonder what a site like H…

I wonder if it could apply to internal company systems. Like the corporate SharePoint or file server. And a lot of those kind of systems have external users also. If a client uploads some data do I have to scan it for illegal content?

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

#319

Post by muyuu »

orangepurple wrote: post #314
muyuu wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

at some point e2e encrypted comms will be grounds for getting swatted don't think this is a bridge too far, covering your face in the presence of public CCTV got you fined/arrested the week before covering your face with feel-good masks was compulsory don't @ me telling me it's stupid, I know it is, but this govt doesn't believe in free and private communications and it's working hard in progressively eradicating wha…

Fortunately, where there is a will, there is a way. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S209044791...

only a tiny fraction of the people will bother with the immense overhead of steganography

it would much more practicable to resort to alternative channels outside the internet, like mesh networking using direct comms (typically ad-hoc wifi modes and other radio protocols to avoid the liability/detectability of cabling), sneakernet, IP over Avian Carriers - those are all cumbersome and rather slow typically, but still orders of magnitude better than trying to pass stuff over ISPs using steganography

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

#320

Post by muyuu »

vgel wrote: post #169

If I, a US citizen, started an online service that attracted Ofcom attention, what binds me to following UK regulations? The article mentions "extraterritorial enforcement", but what does that mean? Will the US extradite me to the UK if I don't put monitoring in place? Will I get arrested if I visit the UK? Will they try to sue me in US court? I mean realistically if it became a problem I'd just IP-block all of the U…

as stupid as this sounds the US does the reverse already
Post reply on HN