381–390 of 480 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In theory yes, in practice the US basically never extradites people to the UK and if they tried you would probably have a good defence (against extradition) under various parts of the constitution.
Weird how it only goes one way, isn't it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's something novel, then: I've lived all over the world, but I wouldn't step foot in post-Brexit, xenophobic Britain if you paid me. I'm reading this gleefully thinking of ways to flout whatever implementation is settled upon, while homegrown British companies rot. I am, in fact, rooting for your economy to utterly collapse.
Out of interest, have you seen the list of potential future PMs. I would say it is far more diverse and less xenophobic than most European countries. But yeah believe what makes you happy. Just don't let the hate get to you to much.
Or - you take a leaf from the pirate's book and throw caution to the wind. Which will be pretty much the only way to get the growth that investors expect, even as investors will refuse to invest without at least the appearance of legal certainty of the first option.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of the countries in the world, the UK ranks sixth in GDP.
Most of that money is bound in the financial industry, though. Unless you're in the sector, the GDP rank doesn't matter much for doing business with the UK.
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…
The truth of cause, it is about control. The kids part is to allow for a moral panic that the government needs to "save the kids" from. It would be profitable if you could charge a monthly fee for a kids specific social network that parents had control over who the kids could chat to and what news they could read. The funny thing is that if I created a phone that had a kids mode lock-down (with kids friendly appstore…
The great triple fallacy. Never wants you to stop for even a moment to think if doing something is a good idea if the some * we must do* is the wrong thing, if children be used for exploitation, and if not doing something could “save” more people long term than the feel good initial change”.
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.
If you want to train your kids to lie and hide things from you, going too far in “their protection” is a good way to get there.
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 m…
This too will remain constant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
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.
Why is obeying idiotic unenforceable laws any different to this when it comes to technology, aside from the obvious of the stakes being much lower? Although the way the world is going, that may not be a given in the future.
I'd argue it may even be worse when it comes to cases of governments who are nominally democracies making idiotic laws for their populaces, because at least theoretically, those populaces could have voted in such a way that said idiotic laws would never come to be, and thus their misery, the stupid laws that they're subject to, etc, are somewhat self inflicted, and for those that do dissent it makes even more sense to feel zero obligation to the greater populace given that. I personally don't really buy this because in my experience, what people want in a democracy has very little with what they end up getting, and the same people that will scream blue murder about the right to self rule when it comes to a national group, will scream just as loud when it comes to an individual in the exact opposite direction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Very few websites comply with GDPR. Based on recent interpretations, it's essentially impossible for any US-owned or US-hosted site to comply with GDPR. The EU is just being extremely selective about its enforcement. If they ever decided to follow the law to the letter, most of the Internet would have to disconnect the EU. Theoretically the EU could make clones of all international sites like China has with Baidu and…
> 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...).