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

Imgur pulls out of UK as data watchdog threatens fine

express.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 735 posts

Re: Imgur pulls out of UK as data watchdog threatens fine

#351

Post by Aurornis »

JimDabell wrote: post #347
kimixa wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has always claimed jurisdiction on foreign-hosted but US-accessible content. Do people forget the owner of Megaupload being extradited? In many ways this is just catching up to the current US state. And there's a lot of confusion here between basic consumer data protection laws and (IMHO massively overreaching) "Online Safety" laws. This isn't Imgur making a stand for free speech, this is Imgur wanting to trac…

> The US has always claimed jurisdiction on foreign-hosted but US-accessible content. There’s been multiple cases where non-US gambling websites have had their domains confiscated by the American government because they have American users, going back about 20 years.

Doing business in the United States (by having customers there and examining money) will subject you to their laws.

Re: Imgur pulls out of UK as data watchdog threatens fine

#352

Post by Aurornis »

nadermx wrote: post #246
kimixa wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has always claimed jurisdiction on foreign-hosted but US-accessible content. Do people forget the owner of Megaupload being extradited? In many ways this is just catching up to the current US state. And there's a lot of confusion here between basic consumer data protection laws and (IMHO massively overreaching) "Online Safety" laws. This isn't Imgur making a stand for free speech, this is Imgur wanting to trac…

Megaupload is a weird one. He hosted in it the USA, giving USA jurisidction. Also it's still going through the courts in New Zeland and USA and hasn't been proven hes guilty. And if I recall he did alledge he followed the DMCA, which if he ever is extradited might save him if it is in fact true.

> And if I recall he did alledge he followed the DMCA,

They didn’t even completely follow the DMCA, though. They had active features to detect duplicate uploads via file hash and link them together via deduplication, but a DMCA takedown request would only remove one link to the file rather than actually remove the content.

They claimed a lot of things and tried to ride a wave of internet populism, but their case wasn’t really as controversial as they tried to make it.

Re: Imgur pulls out of UK as data watchdog threatens fine

#353

Post by josephg »

zerocrates wrote: post #253
josephg wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. We had a chance to invent our own governance on the internet. But we abdicated, and made the internet a free for all. As a result, national governments have stepped in to provide the governance we didn’t program in. And they do it - of course - in an inconsistent, ad hoc way. There was a period a couple hundred years ago when it was all the rage internationally to write constitutions. Lots of countries got cons…

I don't think it would make much difference; an internet constitution would be worth about as much as the paper it's not written on.

Yeah; you need an enforcement system too. And some way to amend rules and adjudicate. But we could implement all that if we actually wanted to. Eg, have broad rules to refuse to peer with anyone who doesn’t agree with the rules of the internet.

That is in essence already in place just for CSAM. We just pretend the internet is a free for all in all other cases.

Re: Imgur pulls out of UK as data watchdog threatens fine

#354

Post by iamnothere »

Ray20 wrote: post #348
thewebguyd wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On what basis should you be allowed to violate British law when interacting with a British resident? If all I do is host a website that serves images, and I'm not hosting nor operating out of the UK, why would I be subject to their laws? Just because it's accessible globally means I now have to factor in every possible regulation from around the world? The burden shouldn't fall on me, the website operator, to block…

> why would I be subject to their laws? For the same reason that a person under British jurisdiction is subject to its laws. I mean, laws, including British ones, exist for a reason. And usually, that reason isn't "because they're British," and this reason makes sense regarding to non-residents as much as it does to residents. > Just because it's accessible globally means I now have to factor in every possible regula…

> Unfortunately, international laws and international cooperation are not yet sufficiently developed, and extradition requests for such reasons are not a common occurrence yet.

Unfortunately? You’d prefer that the owner of a UK pro-LGBT site could be extradited to Uganda over some anti-gay law? Should BBC reporters be sent to the gulag for writing an unfavorable article about Russia?

The fantasy world you’re imagining will literally never happen. You are either absolutely blind to the reality of international relations or you’re trolling. This sort of extraterritorial reach over internet content would be impossible even within the EU (good luck getting Hungary to extradite over UK hate speech laws). It’s simply a non-starter no matter how much you try to claim that it’s “obviously” how things work.

(Edit: I looked at your comment history and found my answer.)

Re: Imgur pulls out of UK as data watchdog threatens fine

#355

Post by kimixa »

Aurornis wrote: post #350
kimixa wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has always claimed jurisdiction on foreign-hosted but US-accessible content. Do people forget the owner of Megaupload being extradited? In many ways this is just catching up to the current US state. And there's a lot of confusion here between basic consumer data protection laws and (IMHO massively overreaching) "Online Safety" laws. This isn't Imgur making a stand for free speech, this is Imgur wanting to trac…

> The US has always claimed jurisdiction on foreign-hosted but US-accessible content. Committing crimes remotely from another country was never a loophole to escape the laws of that country. When a country requests extradition they’re not claiming jurisdiction over another country. They’re saying that a crime was committed in their country by the person and they’re asking the foreign country for cooperation in prosec…

Imgur offers services to UK-based customers, allowing them to view and host images in return for viewing ads. You used to be able to optionally pay for a pro account, though the vast majority of users use the free ad-supported option, and that is now the only option.

Megaupload's business model was pretty much exactly the same - but with "any" file instead of just images.

If the UK version didn't have ads, and UK-focused ads at that, they might have a point - but I don't see any "false equivalence" here.

And playing games about "indirectly" monetizing people (through ads or similar) doesn't mean they aren't /customers/. Otherwise every consumer law would be trivially worked around.

Re: Imgur pulls out of UK as data watchdog threatens fine

#356

Post by colechristensen »

thewebguyd wrote: post #328
zmmmmm wrote: post #267

There's an opportunity for a service like CloudFlare here give people a simple toggle that manages geoblocks on legal liability factors. It's way too much for every organisation to individually track every country's laws day by day in case just by being accessible there you incur a liability. And it sounds like the UK would have just self-selected out of the list of "safe" countries. If something like this was in wid…

> in case just by being accessible there you incur a liability. This is a dangerous precedent though that IMO everyone should fight against. It's how we get the balkanization of the internet, and the death of it as a global network. TBH we also shouldn't put the onus on blocking "unsafe" countries on the website owners, nor an intermediary like CloudFlare. If a nation wants to block certain content, let the nation de…

It depends on the kind of website. If you're not advertising, selling anything, or otherwise doing any business through your website you're much more emboldened to not care about every jurisdiction.

But if you're trying to make money through your website... well sorry you're doing business in those countries and I don't have a ton of objection to you needing to follow foreign laws.

I'm fine with "balkanization" (I know some people from the Balkan countries... maybe they'd object to the use of that word) if it means a freedom divide and actual consequences for countries ever eroding freedoms.

Re: Imgur pulls out of UK as data watchdog threatens fine

#357

Post by gerdesj »

lurk2 wrote: post #322
ljm wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So a service like CloudFlare is the Great firewall of the world and CloudFlare can shut you down if you go against their interests as a supranational gatekeeper. Smart thinking Batman.

> CloudFlare can shut you down if you go against their interests as a supranational gatekeeper They already can. > Smart thinking Batman. “Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.” https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

“Be kind. Don't be snarky."

Sometimes I think you can ignore the "rules" a bit - they are really guidelines. Your parent was clearly expressing exasperation and engaging effectively and intelligently.

Re: Imgur pulls out of UK as data watchdog threatens fine

#358

Post by avianlyric »

Aurornis wrote: post #350
kimixa wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has always claimed jurisdiction on foreign-hosted but US-accessible content. Do people forget the owner of Megaupload being extradited? In many ways this is just catching up to the current US state. And there's a lot of confusion here between basic consumer data protection laws and (IMHO massively overreaching) "Online Safety" laws. This isn't Imgur making a stand for free speech, this is Imgur wanting to trac…

> The US has always claimed jurisdiction on foreign-hosted but US-accessible content. Committing crimes remotely from another country was never a loophole to escape the laws of that country. When a country requests extradition they’re not claiming jurisdiction over another country. They’re saying that a crime was committed in their country by the person and they’re asking the foreign country for cooperation in prosec…

> The MegaUpload case is not equivalent to what the UK is doing. MegaUpload was operating as a business, taking payments, and exchanging money. Once you start doing explicit paid business in a country you can’t claim you’re not involved with that country.

I’m not entirely sure the argument that the MegaUpload case and this Imgur case aren’t equivalent really holds up here. Imgur are collecting data from minors in the UK, and presumably selling that data (otherwise, why bother collecting it). Which is a crime in the UK (and the EU). You’re not allowed to collect people’s data and sell it without consent, and minors can’t provide consent (that’s basically what makes them minors).

Presumably Imgur sells adverts, and likely sells adverts to UK buyers. So for pretty much all the reasons you outline that the US should have jurisdiction over MegaUpload, the UK should have jurisdiction over Imgur.

I also take issue with the idea that being paid for something is the bar that we should be assessing a companies involvement in a country by. Obviously conducting monetary business transactions in a country is a very strong argument for jurisdiction. But it’s less obvious to me that breaking local laws, without making a profit, should somehow exempt a company from that countries laws. Particularly when the laws in question deal with how a company directly interacts with the citizens of that country.

Re: Imgur pulls out of UK as data watchdog threatens fine

#359

Post by marcus_holmes »

jobs_throwaway wrote: post #260
kimixa wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has always claimed jurisdiction on foreign-hosted but US-accessible content. Do people forget the owner of Megaupload being extradited? In many ways this is just catching up to the current US state. And there's a lot of confusion here between basic consumer data protection laws and (IMHO massively overreaching) "Online Safety" laws. This isn't Imgur making a stand for free speech, this is Imgur wanting to trac…

The notion that a 17 year old cannot consent to user tracking is absurd

But the notion that a five-year-old is able to consent to anything is absurd. So we have to draw the line somewhere. The UK has chosen to draw the line at 18, which for some kids will be absurd, yes. But for others it will be appropriate. And yet others will still not be emotionally mature at 18 and capable of making that kind of decision properly.

Re: Imgur pulls out of UK as data watchdog threatens fine

#360

Post by avianlyric »

jobs_throwaway wrote: post #260
kimixa wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has always claimed jurisdiction on foreign-hosted but US-accessible content. Do people forget the owner of Megaupload being extradited? In many ways this is just catching up to the current US state. And there's a lot of confusion here between basic consumer data protection laws and (IMHO massively overreaching) "Online Safety" laws. This isn't Imgur making a stand for free speech, this is Imgur wanting to trac…

The notion that a 17 year old cannot consent to user tracking is absurd

That’s because you’re looking at this ass backwards. The law determines an age at which a person is considered capable of making legally binding agreements, like providing consent. In the UK that’s 18, with some exceptions.

It would be absurd for the UK to create a special exception to allow underage youths to consent to user tracking at an age lower than the standard age for legal consent in any other context.

Post reply on HN