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

331–340 of 480 posts

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

#331

Post by muyuu »

calibas wrote: post #160
causi wrote: post #132

who also has skin in the game about being on the receiving end of the most horrific online abuse Do people just not get educated in online literacy anymore? An adult getting abused online is like getting third degree burns because you laid your hand on a hot burner and refused to take it off. If people saying mean things to you is disturbing your groove so much you're calling it "abuse" maybe you should stop reading…

I don't think you've really experienced online abuse. If you get in an argument with someone and they start saying nasty things, then it's simple to disengage. You just stop replying and you don't go back to the thread. In this scenario, your comment makes sense, but you should count yourself very lucky if this is the worst you've experienced. Personally, I pissed off a cult leader and she sent her followers to haras…

I have, and he's right

also, learn not to overexpose yourself with your real id online, also from 1990s internet 101

the idiotic model of the 2020s with everybody posting their entire private lives with their real names and profiles that have their mugs in circles, and then proceed to broadcast hot takes they're afraid to get feedback on - it doesn't work and it's stupid

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

#332

Post by dingleberry420 »

Thorentis wrote: post #325
eikenberry wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You will destroy their social life and make them outcasts. A smartphone is absolutely necessary to stay in touch with friends nowadays, everyone is using various messaging apps.

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

#333

Post by systems_glitch »

oxfordmale wrote: post #249
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.

My twelve year old son told me very casually a few months ago that he had installed a VPN to bypass the schools internet filters. It was clearly no big deal to him, it sounds like that is what all his friends are doing. At home they are of course doing this to bypass any parent filters to allow them to look at certain content.

I suppose this is the new "google dorking for open CGI proxies."

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

#334

Post by zugi »

rlpb wrote: post #220

The article says: "Is it possible for your site, service, or app, which allows content to be shared and/or people to communicate with each other, to be accessed by any adult or any child within the UK? Then you’re in scope. NB “accessed” doesn’t necessarily mean that a user can set up an active account on your service. If a British adult can merely download your app on the app store, the app is in scope." However, th…

Perhaps you missed the "which allows content to be shared and/or people to communicate with each other" phrase? That seems to be the author's phrasing of the bill's wording "content that is generated by a user of the service... may be encountered by another user."

A site or app that doesn't allow user content isn't in scope. But just add a comment section and suddenly you have this world of regulatory requirements with mandates to age-verify all users, which bars anonymity.

In practice this will end discussion and comment sections from all but the largest sites that can afford all the regulatory compliance.

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

#335

Post by sjtgraham »

MarcScott wrote: post #327
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 sexuali…

> In the UK a sixteen year old is considered to be old enough to give consent in a sexual relationship.

Not quite. It's 16 unless with someone in a position of trust, e.g. your school teacher, social worker, doctor or care worker. A person under 18 cannot legally consent to that in UK.

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

#336

Post by louloulou »

Shuang1 wrote: post #271
solarkraft wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weird how it only goes one way, isn't it?

It's not really weird. We have rights guaranteed to us in the United States that no other country has, so it makes sense we would not extradite.

LOL.

- Julian Assange

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

#338

Post by Aeolun »

verytrivial wrote: post #13
Aeolun wrote: post #5

It seems to me that the solution to all the woes of this bill is to just not allow any content to be shared . That basically eliminates this being a problem for 95% of all companies.

Content presumably includes prose.

Yes? Aside from some explicit videos, explicit prose is probably the most dangerous.

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

#340

Post by KptMarchewa »

akavel wrote: post #269
mminer237 wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very few websites comply with GDPR. Based on recent interpretations, it's essentially impossible for any US-owned or US-hosted site to comply with GDPR. The EU is just being extremely selective about its enforcement. If they ever decided to follow the law to the letter, most of the Internet would have to disconnect the EU. Theoretically the EU could make clones of all international sites like China has with Baidu and…

Regarding GDPR, citation needed - do you have actual links you can share to those claimed "recent interpretations", and whose in particular they are? I'd be quite interested to see them, if true ,which I seriously doubt - for the time being, as an EU citizen, my understanding is, and continues to be, that it's totally possible for US corpos to adhere to GDPR; it would just require some money and effort to be spent by…

US cloud act makes it impossible for any US company to both collect any personal data and be fully compliant with GDPR.
Post reply on HN