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

321–330 of 480 posts

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

#321

Post by bigfudge »

zarzavat wrote: post #78
commandlinefan wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> won't result in a renaissance for peer to peer This horribly written law can easily be interpreted to apply to ISP's as well - so if the ISP is allowing these peer-to-peer systems that allow "unsafe" content to be shared, they're liable for it too, or they have to shut down the peer-to-peer systems. Which again, is the point - to turn the internet into the easily regulable cable TV that they already understand.

> Which again, is the point - to turn the internet into the easily regulable cable TV that they already understand. Unless the UK significantly increases its military capacity and sets up world government, they will not be able to shut down the internet. The internet will still exist. The best they can hope for is a great firewall / North Korea type situation which would require a much more authoritarian (moreover fu…

It’s kind of you to say ‘even’ the uk could muster, but at this point functioning government seems a forlorn hope here.

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

#322

Post by muyuu »

_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…

over the last 10-15 years there has been an open war on the early, wild internet model - not just from governments (early on it was just the so-called autocracies, now it's pretty much all of them) but also from Silicon Valley/Big Tech themselves

this will set a massive barrier for all but a few whitelisted giant entities to host user-generated content, and then it will be massively censored and used to prosecute people

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

#323

Post by eikenberry »

doublerabbit wrote: post #305
codedokode wrote: post #265

If 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.

Our system for our kids was no smart phone until ~14 and not taking it to bed until senior year. With all computers, each person has their own, in a shared family office. That and answering questions and talking to our kids about the internet, the good and the bad. No filters or other bullshit. So far (oldest is about to head to university) so good.

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

#324

Post by Vespasian »

voxic11 wrote: post #181
ejb999 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll admit, I haven't read the entire article - but the obvious question to me - using your example of HN - what authority does the UK have over a website hosted in another country at all? They can pass all the rules they want, but how do they propose to enforce them on a company that does not operate in the UK? If that was possible, wouldn't CCP or Russia be ordering websites all over the world to shutdown to contro…

But hackernews does operate in the UK. I have accessed it from there before.

The UK government can't influence the US government (or any foreign government at all) to enforce their laws.

So companies can choose to comply or not.

You and I are probably violating several (severely) punished laws from around the world every day but the respective authorities can't do anything about it.

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

#325

Post by Thorentis »

eikenberry wrote: post #323
doublerabbit wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Our system for our kids was no smart phone until ~14 and not taking it to bed until senior year. With all computers, each person has their own, in a shared family office. That and answering questions and talking to our kids about the internet, the good and the bad. No filters or other bullshit. So far (oldest is about to head to university) so good.

I plan to take it further. No smart phones at all until 18, and only a dumb phone (calls, texts, etc) whenever they start high school, or possibly a bit earlier if they're on public transport by themself. I see absolutely no reason for somebody till in school to need a smart phone.

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

#326

Post by 9dev »

yrgulation wrote: post #251
swores wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think (as a Brit myself) you're being overly defensive and inferring insult where there was none. Suggesting that the market size of the UK might not be big enough to make up for the costs of complying with a law like this is not at all the same as saying that people from the UK are not capable of making using industry contributions.

You are right i am overly defensive. The term small used by op can also be read as a pejorative term meant to describe uk’s would be weakness post brexit - often used by a small but vocal number of eu citizens that like myself (a uk person as well) have been against brexit. And i’ve it read as such. The uk market may be small in size in comparison with the whole of the eu, but the uk is by no means a small player in…

That is all well and relatable, yet those „silly laws“ you mention explicitly state that I am committing a crime in the UK, while my business is perfectly legal in most other countries. They even mention these laws being enforced extraterritorially, which I’m sure they’re not going to be able to do, but I’d like to go on vacation in London some time again, so there’s that. Effectively, my choice is to skip on the few potential customers the UK has to offer, or risk legal trouble. I’m not sure why anyone would risk that for the comparatively small market of your country: Banning British IPs seems to be a valid, cheap, and low-risk solution to overreaching legislation from a single, unstable government.

That isn’t righteousness, it’s simply taking the most logical step to protect myself and my company.

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

#327

Post by MarcScott »

codedokode wrote: post #265

If 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…

Okay, but what is the age bracket you are using to define a child? In the UK a sixteen year old is considered to be old enough to give consent in a sexual relationship. They're also old enough to enlist in the armed forces. Are you suggesting that sixteen year olds shouldn't be able to look up information about sex and war?

What about a fourteen year old that is feeling confused about their gender identity or sexuality. Are they not permitted to do some research or reach out to supportive online communities?

I've never blocked, monitored, or filtered my childrens' access to the web. I just parent properly, and try to make sure they are responsible users. You can't regulate your way around this type of problem. Kids will find a way around any barriers that are put in place, and to be honest, good luck to them.

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

#328

Post by drusepth »

stickfigure wrote: post #206
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…

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 definitely seems like a likely outcome, especially considering how the world has responded to GDPR: ignore it if you're out of the EU or throw resources at the problem to meet a bare minimum requirement (and cross your fingers) if you're in a country where it can actually be enforced.

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

#329

Post by synicalx »

TillE wrote: post #7
groffee wrote: post #2

> Or it would have, if the nine MPs across three parties who were scheduled to attend actually showed up. Only one did. Everything else aside, if MPs don't show up for a scheduled meeting they should just be sacked. How many of us can just blow off meetings like that with no consequence?

It just underlines what should be fairly obvious: that such official meetings are not how things are actually decided in representative democracies. I mean that's even more explicit in a parliamentary system, where members are nearly always expected to vote the party line or face consequences.

> members are nearly always expected to vote the party line or face consequences

Reason #2458729349 why political parties should be banned everywhere.

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

#330

Post by Barrin92 »

groffee wrote: post #2

> Or it would have, if the nine MPs across three parties who were scheduled to attend actually showed up. Only one did. Everything else aside, if MPs don't show up for a scheduled meeting they should just be sacked. How many of us can just blow off meetings like that with no consequence?

>How many of us can just blow off meetings like that with no consequence?

Parliamentarians aren't employees, they're elected officials and this meeting is a lobbying effort (the author being 'head of policy' for some web3/crypto startup) and representatives are accountable only to their constituents, who can 'sack them' in elections.

Post reply on HN