361–370 of 735 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Paper is so wasteful, prone to the vagaries of time, and also to forgery. It could be written into blockchain to avoid this, as I hear that is quite popular nowadays.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, what is absurd is everyone having their data tracked and sold, including minors.
And the notion that if you reject all tracking, these scummy companies will not actually track you
But would you at that, this is a discussion started by a news article where one of the scummy companies is discovering what those consequences are. So something must be working.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The following paragraph might shed some light on what that means (emphasis mine): > We have been clear that exiting the UK does not allow an organisation to avoid responsibility for any prior infringement of data protection law In that context it's completely fair to say "leaving doesn't absolve you of past transgressions". Edit. If Imgur made any revenue from UK users then it becomes impossible to claim plausible de…
how can you be charged after you leave if you leave before the law goes into effect? doesn't the UK have ex post facto protections?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The following paragraph might shed some light on what that means (emphasis mine): > We have been clear that exiting the UK does not allow an organisation to avoid responsibility for any prior infringement of data protection law In that context it's completely fair to say "leaving doesn't absolve you of past transgressions". Edit. If Imgur made any revenue from UK users then it becomes impossible to claim plausible de…
Definition of 'Revenue in the UK' is a bit debatable though isn't it? I sell a advertising package from my US HQ based self serve advertising portal to a British company who use the service to advertise to customers in the UK. Ok - kinda UK revenue. How about 'To advertise to customers in the US' well it's getting highly debatable. What about I sell advertising packages to a US company from my US HQ but someone in th…
Not entirely sure what is debatable about this situation. You quite unambiguously derived revenue from a UK citizen here, although not much. If you didn’t want that revenue, then don’t display ads in the UK. If that makes serving traffic to the UK uneconomical, then don’t serve traffic to the UK, problem solved.
In practical terms, nobody’s give a crap about you making a couple of dollars here and there incidentally from UK citizens. It quite another matter when your business is clearly dependent on deriving revenue from UK citizens, and you take zero steps to try and comply with UK law.
It’s pretty simple, if you want the revenue, the you have to follow the law of the countries your deriving that revenue from. Don’t want to follow the law, then simply don’t try and derive revenue from putting adverts in front of citizens from that country, or by collecting and selling their data.
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…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "It will be of no loss if it were to fail entirely." That's decades of the public internet that would be permanently erased; billions of dead links pointing nowhere. HN alone would lose ~32,000 images from its archives, https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... Is it not hubris to call it "no loss" if, say, 3 hours ago, "Design of a LISP-based microprocessor / Page 22 has a map of the processo…
As already pointed out that link is already gone, except for the IA. That's part of why it's "no loss" -- it's not actually lost. Personally even if the IA didn't have a copy, I'd still say "marginal loss" and "inconvenient". imgur is just another in the line of image hosting sites that have come and gone. Much of what it hosts isn't actually high value, and isn't actually the sole copy. Not sure what you're pining f…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Read the question you're replying to again. Its a question about jurisdiction.
If it affects UK citizens, living in the UK, then there's jurisdiction. Either the entities comply, remove their services to the UK, or they risk sanctions/being arrested when abroad/etc. Why should a US company harm UK citizens just because they're in the US? If you want to serve a market in another country you have to follow their rules. In this case, Imgur have been misusing UK children's information. Considering…
That's the OP's question. Bluntly: if I'm here, and they're bloviating over there, what can they actually do about it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The standard you are proposing here ultimately boils down to "you can do business in a country without being subject to its laws, as long as your commercial transactions with the customers in that country are laundered through a sufficiently convoluted network of international companies like payment processors and ad exchanges". I don't think it should be terribly surprising that states don't subscribe to this view o…
> I don't think it should be terribly surprising that states don't subscribe to this view of sovereignty and jurisdiction. Well they will have to put up with it, as they have done over the past few decades. Or, alternatively, they can engage in aggressive China-style site blocking. Only the US has significant extraterritorial legal reach. IMHO, this policy is a transparent effort to forcefully alter the content polic…
To be clear, you think the UKs data regulator, going after Imgur for not properly handling data collected from minors, which is a pretty big GDPR violation (a 7 year old law) is secretly about influencing US content policies?
I mean, maybe, but that one very convoluted approach. I’m not sure why the UK would be trying to use fines for the mishandling of data collected from minors, notably, nothing related to content on Imgur, to get Imgur to change its content policies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
…but how enforceable would the fine be? They pull out and have no UK assets to seize.
Why does it have to be immediately enforceable? Now Imgur have thrown the baby out with the bath water and cannot serve the UK and it leaves a big market for another company to come along and capitalise on that. American companies are too use to being able to bully their way in America. Some countries do have better consumer protection laws.