Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

alecmuffett.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 817 posts

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#311

Post by alt227 »

paxiongmap wrote: post #54

"The least bad thing that Ofcom and the Government could do is to quietly let the matter drop whilst focusing on education." This generalises very well for all Government. Shame we're a couple of generations into education being about producing pliant workers over independent, thinking human beings.

> education being about producing pliant workers over independent, thinking human beings.

You cant have things like computers and smart phones if you dont have millions of pliant workers mass producing them for you. If you want the technological world that we live in to be possible then you should accept that it requires this concept. If everybody is a creative independant free thinking individual, then nobody is a worker drone in a factory churning out phones, laptops, or the materials and components that go into them.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#312

Post by ok123456 »

pixl97 wrote: post #310
ok123456 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a very simple problem to solve. Free speech is absolute. Anyone who claims otherwise is a temporarily embarrassed hall monitor.

You're right, speech should not be limited... in fact I am telling everybody about the time you beat your wife and abused your kids. And I'm putting $100,000 in to advertising this all over the place and ensuring every forum is littered with this fact along with your name and address... Hopefully you see simple solutions come with their own complex problems.

That falls under libel laws, which is a civil tort. There isn't an administrative or ministerial apparatus fining you based on the presumption that you violated a speech code.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#313

Post by jay_kyburz »

SunshineTheCat wrote: post #222
riazrizvi wrote: post #175

More odious nannying by silly civil servants. If Britain is to restore cultural leadership it needs to move policy away from this horrible trend of policing what people say and think, and focus its energy on better policing what people do.

I don't mean this to be as insulting as it may, but the UK government trying to police US businesses has always felt like a toddler trying to ground his mom.

I don't think its unreasonable for a government to ask company to abide by its laws if it want to do business with its citizens.

Where I think they are going wrong is that they are trying to levy fines rather than just blocking the business.

Oh, and the whole age verification thing is bonkers. I'm a parent of 2 teenagers, I don't think its asking too much for a parent to be responsible for what children see and do on the internet.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#314

Post by busterarm »

mikkupikku wrote: post #231
SunshineTheCat wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mean this to be as insulting as it may, but the UK government trying to police US businesses has always felt like a toddler trying to ground his mom.

Maybe a very elderly parent, trying to ground their adult child who they are now dependent on.

As an adult child in such a situation, it's actually worse than a toddler...

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#315

Post by Mountain_Skies »

lesuorac wrote: post #291
throwaway48476 wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They likely do not have a flag state and could be considered pirates. Fisherman dont have 100k worth of outboard motors either.

Which law allows the death penalty for allegedly transporting drugs? Shooting first and asking questions later is how we got into this mess of deporting us citizens.

Sections 105 and 108 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea allows any country to go after drug smugglers in international waters but it does require that a court in that country approve of the action. It's certainly worth questioning if a court can issue a preemptive ruling on a proposed action against alleged drug smugglers. There's also the issue that Maritime Law is weird, convoluted, and probably sanctions most state actions if you dig around enough.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#316

Post by array_key_first »

ceejayoz wrote: post #264
array_key_first wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's not a joke at all. When you buy wifi, they already make sure you're an adult. They ask for proof of residence, you sign a contract. Children cannot buy wifi. Go ahead and try - no ISP is going to write a contract with a child. Wifi, like tobacco and alcohol, is already age restricted. The problem is the adults buying it then turn around and just... Hand it to children. That's not the fault of the law or socie…

> But if I just go home and hand my kid the pack of menthols, all bets are off. That's not the store clerks problem, he can't and won't get in trouble for that. But it is society's problem, and within society's capacity to attempt to manage. https://www.childline.org.uk/info-advice/you-your-body/drugs... says it's illegal to give a child cigarettes, and the cops can confiscate them if you're 16 or below. > The law ca…

> But it is society's problem, and within society's capacity to attempt to manage.

Sure, to an extent, but not really: we give parents a lot of freedom here.

> Sure, but reality also often means smart, caring parents still can't stop kids from... being kids. I've lived in places where half a dozen public wifi hotspots were available; even if I didn't, chances are I'd have to let my kids on wifi for homework, on computers I don't have admin rights to because they come from the school.

Okay, then lock down those networks. We don't need to lockdown the Internet as a whole.

In reality, most of those networks already are locked down.

Try searching up porn on, say, hotel wifi, it won't work.

We already have the solution.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#317

Post by jjangkke »

arresin wrote: post #101

Oi, ‘av you got yer internet loisence?

Jokes aside, what on earth is going on with the UK?

It seems to have serious demographic issues and actual ethnic English are understandably angry at having been largely vilified as Nazis and far-right for wanting to protect their heritage and identity.

To reach into draconian surveillance and censorship to quell its own natives of the land who has lived there for thousands of years at the behest of those that have arrived from far away lands with a drastically incompatible culture with the British is a recipe for civil war.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#319

Post by [deleted] »

tremon wrote: post #297
morkalork wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The United States (eg. illegal gambling, hacking), South Korea (smoking cannabis abroad) and many other countries operate the same way.

You are saying that when US citizens engage in illegal gambling in other parts of the world, the US sues and threatens the foreign gambling venues? That South Korea sues marihuana dispensaries in the US when they sell to visiting Koreans?

[deleted]

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#320

Post by Mountain_Skies »

tgv wrote: post #181
ibejoeb wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not exactly. It's like if a brit goes to paris to buy cigarettes, the UK is stating that it's the tabac's job to refuse the transaction. They can say whatever they want, but the UK can't conduct an extra-territorial police action in france. They can bar subject from traveling to france instead. The onus is on the UK.

They're not going to Paris, are they? 4chan brings their services into the UK. The US does the same thing: Kim Dotcom comes to mind.

From what I've heard, their servers are in the US, so UK residents are connecting to the US to access the site and not the other way around. 4chan sells memberships that allow users to bypass some of the rules. If they accept payment from UK banks (no idea if they do or not), then perhaps the UK can make a claim they're doing business in the UK.
Post reply on HN