371–380 of 735 posts
How do you "pull out" of the UK if you are not a UK company, you are a US company, hosted in the US, and proxied by Fastly. There's nothing to do? You do not need to abide by UK laws, even if your website is accessible from there.
You are sending data into the UK, hence you have to abide by their laws regarding said data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
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…
Seems like a loophole for arbitrary criminal accusations of a people living abroad who are not affiliated with the country making the accusations. With this kind of logic, adult website operators should be extradited to some middle-eastern country for violating their sharia law online. It's wrong. Site operators living abroad should not be held accountable for not adhering to arbitrary local laws, unless they are conducting business directly in that country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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-foc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It looks like this law (which is unrelated to the Online Safety Act) is concerned with children being subjected to ad-tech tracking and similar indiscriminate data harvesting, so a site like this which doesn't feel the need to share your habits with 2,541 partners is probably out of scope. https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/the-children-s-code-what-i...
I like how it's always "oh just safeguard people's data", oh "just" don't do anything bad with people's data. Then you look up what the actual regulation says and it's hundreds of pages of pure legaleese (over 100 pages for GDPR, over 300 for Online Safety Act), that you'd need to hire a team of lawyers to parse and interpret to make sure you're not breaking any of the regulations therein.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are public comments in a public forum classed as private data under GDPR? for example the only thing that can really be classed as PII is my username. does it count as reasonable to request it be deleted?
Yes and yes. Google “right to be forgotten”
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…
i don't think "compliance" in a micropennies per click market like imgur is a full on "opportunity"
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.
Claiming jurisdiction is one thing, ensuring cooperation of the host state is another, and requires either kowtowing to the US or similar legislation, even if there is an extradition treaty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> What about I sell advertising packages to a US company from my US HQ but someone in the UK views and advert on my site and therefore generates me 0.001¢ - debatable. 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 unec…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The category of civil liability for which the compliance with the DMCA notice and takedown rules offers a safe harbor, first of all, doesn’t overlap with the conduct which constitutes criminal infringement but, more importantly, even if it did the DMCA safe harbor only applies to civil and not criminal liability in the first place. “Following the DMCA” is irrelevant to anything the FBI would be involved in.
The DMCA absolutely applies. If you follow it, which includes no induction or willfull infrigment, you never rise out of civil liability to criminal. The FBI gets involved once you're past that.