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

371–380 of 480 posts

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

#371

Post by int_19h »

throwaway4aday wrote: post #119
guerrilla wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can someone explain why this won't result in a renaissance for peer to peer and e2e encrypted chat/forums/social media etc.? Simple, because if that because popular, new laws will be drafted to ban all of that from all app stores for circumventing this or some other reason.

There are other methods of distribution than app stores. People didn't buy their copy of Napster from GameStop back in the day, they downloaded it from a website.

The logical next step would be to require devices sold in the country to only be able to use legal app stores, where "legal" is defined as "complying with the requirement to block any E2E apps without backdoors".

Everything is already in place for this, both hardware- and software-wise.

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

#372

Post by jhugo »

crmd wrote: post #216
swayvil wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wifi mesh nets in the city. Sneaker nets in between

Matrix over avian carrier

Haha, how many bird roundtrips just to carry the protocol overhead? Might want to use something a bit more efficient...

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

#373

Post by int_19h »

pjc50 wrote: post #230
HeckFeck wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We had it through negative liberty, opposed to positive liberty. The approach was that everything was permitted except that which is forbidden. So, instead of a 'right to' free speech, rather we _would_ have no laws restricting freedom of speech (libel and incitement excepted). This was the understanding that would've permeated Parliament, the courts, the palace, and the hearts and minds of everyone who understood it…

Until the Human Rights Act 1998 established it as a positive right. > _would_ have no laws restricting freedom of speech (libel and incitement excepted) This is optimistic ahistorical nonsense; the UK had a censorship regime until the Lady Chatterly trial. There has been intelligence service related censorship as long as those have existed, as well (see Spycatcher, Zircon). And let's not get into Northern Ireland. No…

Since HRA is just a bill, it can be trivially overridden entirely or on a case-by-case basis by any other bill, requiring only a simple majority in the Parliament, thanks to parliamentary sovereignty. So it doesn't really meaningfully protect anything.

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

#374

Post by bruce511 »

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.

Good luck with that.

I'm reminded of my own childhood years, where most families had television, but some didn't (because it would be bad for the children.)

Annecdotally the kids with no TV would visit, and all they wanted to do was watch TV. The ones who had tvs at home played outside.

In reality in environments where kids have phones, it's more important for your kid to have a phone, and learn how to use it, than see it as a forbidden fruit.

Plus of course the fact that you think your 17 year old doesn't have a phone is delusional. They have one. The only question is whether they share that fact with you.

I get where you are coming from, but scary as it seems children don't magically become adults, making good decisions, on the day they turn 18. They become adults by slowly learning how to handle the world, by being guided with each new step, by making lots (and lots) of mistakes.

The areas that you block off completely are the areas where they will be the least mature, the least able to exercise good judgement.

That's typically why "bans" lead ultimately to worse outcomes not better ones.

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

#375

Post by bruce511 »

kodah wrote: post #242
Thiez wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you see this work in practice, and wouldn't it just lead to calculating the deltas between three evils, the third being abstention? How would this be better than getting rid of the first-past-the-post system? We saw this is the Netherlands a while ago. There was a referendum about whether there should be closer relations between the Netherlands and Ukraine, and the options were "agree" and "disagree", but many…

Your example isn't quite the same thing. More or less, I want my lack of voting to be a signal to the Democratic party that, "Your vision is out of whack and does not serve me". Today, when someone doesn't vote the party and constituents try some mental gymnastics to put fault on people who don't vote as if they don't care.

Some % of people don't vote because it's too much hassle. Not voting doesn't send a message, or more accurately it sends whatever message the receiver wants to hear.

I think voting is too hard, so it tells me that voting is too hard.

I'm a Conservative so it tells me the liberals aren't turning out because (as I know) their message is weak.

I'm a Liberal, so it tells me the exact opposite.

I think all politicians are bad, so frankly I don't care who wins.

You get the point. Not voting doesn't send a message. It sends every message.

Incidentally, if you care about the nuances within a party, then voting in primaries is where the real difference is made (traditionally also the voting with the lowest turnout.)

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

#376

Post by iudqnolq »

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…

Only if you don't believe kids should have significant liberties (even in opposition to their parent's wishes) and also that a fundamental part of liberty is the right to make a bad decision that only harms yourself.

Should kids have the right to "ruin" their future by gaming instead of studying? Yes, and I think the solution should instead be to make it harder for anyone, kid or adult, to "ruin" their future by making it easier to get back on track at any point in life.

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

#377

Post by Agamus »

goodpoint wrote: post #184
Eupraxias wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By conservatives, do you mean the same people who believe we should be conservative in our application of government? Are you sure you are not speaking of liberals, who believe government should be applied liberally? Not like any of them act as they speak, but if I am not mistaken, that's what the words mean.

You are mistaken.

No, I am not.

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

#378

Post by [deleted] »

jfk13 wrote: post #97
antonymy wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My immediate thought as well. As this law will apply to ANY service available to UK users the only feasible solution for smaller websites and app developers will be exclusion to avoid liability. So UK users will simply start using VPNs to by pass region blocks.

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.

[deleted]

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

#379

Post by weq »

jfk13 wrote: post #97
antonymy wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My immediate thought as well. As this law will apply to ANY service available to UK users the only feasible solution for smaller websites and app developers will be exclusion to avoid liability. So UK users will simply start using VPNs to by pass region blocks.

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.

Are you living under a rock? Do you not see whats happening in China? Go checkout youtube... You can see clearly what happens when the gov finally has total control... (after a few years of everyone bypassing, they will make using a VPN the punishable by death). First they did it with illicit drugs, created a wide wide laws to control the social classes, now the socail classes are easier to target more wholistically via the internet because everyone is dependant on it.

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

#380

Post by dodobirdlord »

rsstack wrote: post #276
Shuang1 wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The US extradites people, including US citizens. That is required from the federal government by extradition treaties that are signed voluntarily by the US (in exchange for extradition _to_ the US). It is uncommon because they require escalations through the Department of State and not many crimes are serious enough to justify extradition.

The US does not allow extradition to other countries for crimes, or the enforcement of civil judgements originating in other countries, that stem from conduct that would be constitutionally protected in the US. For example, a US citizen cannot be extradited to face a charge of blasphemy.
Post reply on HN