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

321–330 of 418 posts

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

#321

Post by alecmuffett »

hexbin010 wrote: post #310
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…

> "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…

What did Hart say about comity?

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

#322

Post by hexbin010 »

alecmuffett wrote: post #321
hexbin010 wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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…

What did Hart say about comity?

Why don't you tell us?

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

#323

Post by hexbin010 »

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…

> I know of no government that thinks it can enforce their law outside of their borders against foreigners.

Really, not a single one? Like, a really big obvious one? LOL!

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

#324

Post by inemesitaffia »

owl_vision wrote: post #107
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…

what happens if an IP address is not in the geo db? For example: 2606:4700::6811:

SOFTNET EUROPE CORP. 6811 Ayala Avenue, Makaty City, Metro Manila, Philippines

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

#325

Post by scott_w »

kassner wrote: post #314
scott_w wrote: post #304

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 t…

I guess the case he’s making is that not even Ofcom knows, because it has nothing to do with the block itself. They want to make a scene, however possible.

You can’t infer that from the statement posted. In fact, all Ofcom have done is say they’re investigating. Do you expect a regulatory body to not investigate a report from a serious suicide prevention charity?

In addition, such an inference flies in the face of the fact that Ofcom have sent staff to conferences for pornographic websites to talk to them about compliance: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/sep/21/were-here-to...

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

#326

Post by Arch-TK »

mrlonglong wrote: post #85

I don't understand this. You're perfectly free to run these websites from the US. We just exercise our right to block these at our UK shores. Where's the problem?

But Ofcom is in fact saying that you are _not_ free to run those websites from the UK and they expect _you_ to implement a perfect blockade of UK IP addresses. On the other hand, if Ofcom receive a tip-off from a random charity claiming they found a UK IP address which doesn't get blocked for 10 minutes or whatever the hell happened here then they will try to extrajudicially internationally fine you for it.

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

#327

Post by frm88 »

3rodents wrote: post #38
garaetjjte wrote: post #13

He seems very confused about what First Amendment is about. How it would be even possible for UK government to violate it?

That’s because he’s barely a lawyer. He’s a blogger with a legal education. His legal practice is pro bono because nobody would pay for him to LARP as someone with credibility on the subject of free speech. Edit: I appreciate the down votes but research him, he has never participated in a real case. He is not a practicing lawyer by any real measure.

This guy really is something. From asserting that hate speech is protected by the 1st amendment to suing Australia over Internet policies to suggesting the US dominate all Internet rules: https://tradersunion.com/news/tag/prestonjbyrne/

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

#328

Post by eertami »

iamnothere wrote: post #208
eertami wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Starmer’s government It seems worth pointing out (for any readers unaware) that the Online Safety Act, introduced by Conservative MP Michelle Donelan, was passed in September 2023 during Rishi Sunak's Conservative government.

It was, and yet the current government can still choose to set internal enforcement priorities, issue memos on their current understanding of the law, suspend enforcement pending review, etc. They aren’t bound to helplessly apply terrible interpretations of the law in an aggressive manner. What’s more, they could make even a single statement that signals a lack of agreement with the law and a desire to modify or repe…

I don't disagree but things would've been same under any of the major parties that could possibly get elected under FPTP.

None of them have the political capital to really oppose it even if they did want to. Plus there is a media absolutely overflowing with hysteria around the topic (Brass Eye's Paedogeddon is just as relevant today.)

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

#329

Post by Arch-TK »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #90

So the author repeats that the SaSu site was geoblocked but simultaneously note that all UK are idiots that don't realise a geoblock is imperfect and claim... >The UK regulator has now publicly confirmed that the “mirror” site for my client’s site is not accessible in the UK. The writer then proceeds to describe the way in which the spinning up of a mirror lead to the site becoming available for people in the UK. And…

If SaSu is voluntarily implementing a UK geoblock instead of fighting Ofcom. Ofcom is claiming it's everyone on the planet's responsibility to implement their own geoblocks of the UK rather than for the UK to set up a GFW. If SaSu was trying to circumvent some UK originated blockade of their website, your comment would make sense, but they weren't.

Even if you hate how this guy writes, which I can agree is questionably professional at times. There's no real way to read this other than that Ofcom, instead of simply complaining that an IP wasn't geoblocked correctly, took the first opportunity they could find to restart their extraterritorial attack on SaSu. All that to avoid the presumably incredibly bad optics of implementing a GFW. Although honestly I would be the least surprised if the UK implemented a GFW soon.

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

#330

Post by exe34 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #298
hilbert42 wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Extraterritorial regulation of Web sites is unfortunately in the process of being established as normal, but it's a bad norm." Perhaps "Extraterritorial regulation" is bad wording. A country can regulate whether an extraterritorial website is distributed and or viewed within its borders but it has no legal authority force another country to close down a website that's operating legally within its jurisdiction. The o…

> Perhaps "Extraterritorial regulation" is bad wording. A country can regulate whether an extraterritorial website is distributed and or viewed within its borders but it has no legal authority force another country to close down a website that's operating legally within its jurisdiction. The issue is they're doing this through might makes right rather than jurisdictional authority. You have a website in one country,…

> You now have a country censoring a post world-wide because they leveraged every company within their jurisdiction to enforce a law against one that isn't. That's extraterritorial regulation.

Hopefully this will break up the cartel of websites/distributors back into a decentralised web eventually.

Post reply on HN