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

361–370 of 480 posts

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

#361

Post by Terry_Roll »

worldofmatthew wrote: post #125
sbierwagen wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) The point isn't to regulate the internet, it's to regulate what UK citizens can see. 2) The great firewall was complicated by the design goal of accessing some, but not all, foreign websites. The UK could accomplish their goals in a day or two by just cutting all the underwater cables. That sounds like an impossible crazy thing, but so did Brexit a couple years ago.

The EU might see that as an act of war...... A large amount (if not the vast majority) of fibre optics from Europe to Americas, go though the UK and cutting them off cuts off the biggest parts of the world from each other.

Piggie in the middle submarine cables, not all go through the UK, but it is good to point out the covert politics & nationalism of entities providing tech services or infrastructure, strangely dominated by the US mil funded US tech sector. I wonder why?

https://cryptome.org/fiber-weak.htm

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

#362

Post by sircastor »

mfincham wrote: post #353
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…

"We will just use technology to bypass this bad law" is a very convenient position for a technology-focused group to take. It feels weirdly privileged to just say "ah we will abdicate ourselves from the problem by using ever more complicated technology" rather than working to improve the legislation to benefit everyone.

I don't think this sounds weirdly privileged at all. The trouble is people will solve problems typically through the path of least resistance. It's much easier to find legal loopholes than it is to try and comply. And contrary to the rhetoric, it's expensive and uncertain to simply buy law-making through lobbying.

Consider how hard it is in the United States to lay new fiber (and this is an imperfect metaphor). The ideal solution would be to get legislative branches to solve the telcos oligopoly problem. That has not and is not working. So what's happening? Wireless internet over LTE, and 5G being deployed everywhere. Route around.

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

#363

Post by spinny »

zo1 wrote: post #227
metadat wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this common knowledge? It's the first claim I've encountered of Canada attempting Internet censorship.

I googled it and found Bill C-11. Not going to dig deeper into it and confirm details, but maybe you didn't hear about it for a reason?

Yup. massive media black out on this. only know about it because a canadian youtuber/lawyer (runkle of the bailey) was talking about it

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

#364

Post by skybrian »

HeckFeck wrote: post #59

I dread to think what this will mean for the free and open Internet - the source of much mirth, yes, and much dread. But that's just a reflection of the human condition. It should be just left be. Another case of myopic, joyless stodges ruining what they don't understand. I've paid enough taxes to this worthless, bloated institution that claims to 'protect my liberties' - is it too late to get a refund? Don't they ow…

I expect it means more "feudalism" in the sense of relying on frontends that handle things like age verification for you, in those jurisdictions that require it. Perhaps Cloudflare and Netlify will someday offer services.

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

#365

Post by aahortwwy »

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…

"Well, the laws of Australia prevail in Australia, I can assure you of that. The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia." - Malcolm Turnbull, Former Australian Prime Minister.

This is their attitude.

They will legislate to achieve the outcome they want. If that means making it criminal to use encryption without backdoors, they will do that. If it means making it criminal to use P2P technology, they will do that.

They have and will use control over mainstream infrastructure (Internet traffic, software distribution channels, etc.). Use of non-mainstream infrastructure will be made increasingly difficult and used as an indicator of guilt.

The more sophisticated the technical workarounds required, the fewer people will be capable of using those workarounds, and even fewer people will be capable of building those workarounds. Fewer people are easier to control.

TrueCrypt, Lavabit, etc.

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

#366

Post by eikenberry »

LAC-Tech wrote: post #352
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.

What exactly do you feel the need to protect them from?

Not protecting them from anything in particular, or maybe I guess you could say from themselves. Kids commonly have issues with impulse control and general irresponsibility. By 14 they seemed old enough to not immediately lose or break their phones. Not in bed is to try to lay a foundation of good sleep habits. Having the common computer room keeps the sense of 'being in public', which helps the impulse control part as your motivations work differently when you're alone.

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

#367

Post by dymk »

stickfigure wrote: post #247
solarkraft wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has been said about the EU, but the market has proven to just be too big to ignore. It could also be the reverse (see authoritarian countries), with international players leaving the market and local ones filling the space.

By "ignore it" I mean "ignore the law", not ignore the UK market. At some point the idea that countries can regulate the internet outside their borders falls apart. The US succeeds in enforcing its gambling laws WRT Americans, but that only works because other nations agree to do the enforcement. I just don't see that happening here. So maybe the UK becomes a no-travel zone for anyone in the worldwide tech industry?…

The US can enforce it for Americans because it's comparatively easy to see that somebody is making money from gambling, compared to visiting a website.

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

#369

Post by lmm »

unmole wrote: post #356
lmm wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Theoretically the EU could make clones of all international sites like China has with Baidu and Weibo, but it's hard to see how that would be good for them. We would have real privacy protection, and presumably in the very long term we'd see the benefits of that (more creative new ideas coming out of the EU, wealthy people preferring to live in the EU...).

> wealthy people preferring to live in the EU Wealthy people care a lot more about taxes than vague notions of privacy protection .

> Wealthy people care a lot more about taxes than vague notions of privacy protection.

Wealthy people are already willing to pay a premium for the sake of privacy. Look at Zuck buying his neighbours' houses.

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

#370

Post by int_19h »

canadiantim wrote: post #153
Iv wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conservatives all over the world dream of setting up a chinese-style firewall in their countries. They are angry that it was first done by a clearly authoritarian regime which brings some resistance to the idea, but otherwise, in the name of fight against terrorism or child pornography, they would have set it up already.

From what I can tell it’s more the progressive wing of most countries who are pushing for authoritarian censorship of the internet. Just look at Canada

Both big government conservatives and big government progressives are pushing for more censorship. The only difference is the topics that they want to be censored.

(Side note: the American Republican party is big government conservatives. Their rhetoric is irrelevant - look at what they do, not at what they say they want to do.)

Post reply on HN