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

361–370 of 418 posts

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

#361

Post by vintermann »

swores wrote: post #299
jen20 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> collect money from UK citizens This is quite obviously incorrect. I am a UK citizen, but live in the US. No company needs a UK presence to collect money from me.

And to be clear, that’s still true for selling services online to UK citizens who are also UK residents, it’s not a quirk of you having moved away from the UK - it’s just not true that you need a legal presence in the UK to serve customers from the UK.

It may become an issue if you expect the British government to help you collect your debts, retrieve your stolen property, enforce your contacts etc. I'm all in favor of governments restricting how the it citizens can make money, or how you can make money on their citizens.

But we're clearly far beyond that here.

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

#362

Post by Danjoe4 »

nathanlied wrote: post #351
anywerds wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can only imagine the storm that would emerge if the morning the UK ever attempted to arrest an American for self-expression inside or outside the USA. That is how you get some Democracy delivered.

Just the UK? Not, say, Iran? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._White_(U.S._veteran... Or maybe China, for a US citizen who posted while on US soil, in a US website? https://www.reuters.com/world/exclusive-american-barred-leav... Seems a little inconsistent, this delivery of Democracy.

Yes, just the UK and other similar countries. We have less influence over China and Iran

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

#363

Post by fukka42 »

tomhow wrote: post #352
fukka42 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> I understand it's difficult for you as an American Can you please not post abusive comments like this to HN? We're looking for curious conversation here. We ban accounts that comment like this repeatedly. Please read the guidelines and make an effort to observe them in future https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Feel free to clarify what you think is abusive about this. It's a simple observation of fact, and if you were to read the rest of this thread objectively you'd see it is accurate.

Why are you not yelling at the people hurling insults at the UK? Is it because you're American and this hurt your feelings so it's bad, but hurting others their feelings is fine?

The Americans are literally threatening violence and war in this thread. It's utterly insane. But I see you didn't bother to talk down to them.

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

#364

Post by morshu9001 »

Spivak wrote: post #286
machomaster wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a grade to crimes. Lesser crimes are only punishable if they were done in a country. Bigger crimes are punishable even if you did them outside of the country. Imagine that your own country finds out that you were a prolific serial killer while on a holiday in another country. Do you think they will just ignore it?

This is because your home country has jurisdiction over you and is more than free to write laws punishing you for whatever they want. This is country B considering something a citizen of country A did while in country A to be a crime. And not that it even matters but in country A that thing is legal. Like country B is a sovereign state and can arrest you for whatever it wants while you're there but the bigger questio…

The idea is that a website in the US can be accessed by UK users, no matter what blocks are put in place on either end. Agree that the US shouldn't be nice about this though.

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

#365

Post by ksec »

Considering All UK Internet user have to use UK ISP one way or another, why not have a list of banned site and force ISP to block it? It really should be the UK side responsibility and not an US company to have to block it. And considering how UK is cosy up to China they might as well ask the Chinese to help them setting up Great Firewall.

I really do think there should be a simple Cloudflare like services that ban all UK user as a form of protest. I say Cloudflare like and not Cloudflare because I am not sure if they are willing to risk supporting this feature.

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

#366

Post by gethly »

beejiu wrote: post #121
gethly wrote: post #95

Sounds like UK problem to me. No one can be expected to know or abide laws of another country. In person or in the digital realm. If UK has some laws, then UK citizens should abide them, not the rest of the world. In other words, say betting is illegal in UK and I as a UK citizen go and make a bet via website that is run by a business in Panama. The Panamanian company should not concern itself with anything but rathe…

> No one can be expected to know or abide laws of another country. If this is your view, do not travel or do business in other countries. It's simple.

You must be an extra special kind of thick. I'm obviously not talking about me travelling to the UK and not abiding by their laws FFS.

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

#367

Post by machomaster »

hunterpayne wrote: post #254
machomaster wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should ask AI go give you a long list of people who were arrested/captured/kidnapped/killed by the USA for the things they did outside of the US. Often, without doing anything illegal (locally, but sometimes even by US law). Guantanamo bay exists outside of the US territory for a reason, so that no legal rules would apply. CIA/USA has been keeping secret prisons and torturing people all around the world (incl. EU…

[flagged]

I am not even from UK.

It is you who conflated the arguments.

My response was to the claim that US does not procecute people, who did outside of the US. I demonstrated that it is not the case. The actual alleged crime doea not matter.

You are trying to move the goal post and you will not succeed.

There are plenty of other cases, also including the freedom of speech. What do you think the procecution of the journalist Assange was all about?

Claiming that the US is not running after people in other countries is the same level of ignorance as claiming that the US is not meddling in election and is not using the hybrid warfare.

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

#369

Post by albedoa »

nathanlied wrote: post #351
anywerds wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can only imagine the storm that would emerge if the morning the UK ever attempted to arrest an American for self-expression inside or outside the USA. That is how you get some Democracy delivered.

Just the UK? Not, say, Iran? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._White_(U.S._veteran... Or maybe China, for a US citizen who posted while on US soil, in a US website? https://www.reuters.com/world/exclusive-american-barred-leav... Seems a little inconsistent, this delivery of Democracy.

> Just the UK?

Well not just the UK, but the comment you are replying to is about the UK.

> Seems a little inconsistent, this delivery of Democracy.

Ya. Also not a claim that the comment is countering. As a reminder of where you are in the thread, we are talking about the UK.

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

#370

Post by machomaster »

Spivak wrote: post #286
machomaster wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a grade to crimes. Lesser crimes are only punishable if they were done in a country. Bigger crimes are punishable even if you did them outside of the country. Imagine that your own country finds out that you were a prolific serial killer while on a holiday in another country. Do you think they will just ignore it?

This is because your home country has jurisdiction over you and is more than free to write laws punishing you for whatever they want. This is country B considering something a citizen of country A did while in country A to be a crime. And not that it even matters but in country A that thing is legal. Like country B is a sovereign state and can arrest you for whatever it wants while you're there but the bigger questio…

There are cases in which refugees were tried in the EU, when there was a suspicion that they committed war crimes in Syria while being citizens of the country.

Or imagine that country X with age of consent of 18 would find out that the citizen of country X while home, married 8yo child and impregnated her.

It's the same principle. So there is nothing special about extending jurisdiction beyond your own borders.

The issue in this case is that Freedom of Speech is such a fundamental right, that it should not be forbidden anywhere in the world. Sadly, it is forbidden in most Western countries, let alone developing.

Post reply on HN