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

391–400 of 480 posts

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

#391

Post by caf »

cronix wrote: post #57
mellavora wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I mean that's even more explicit in a parliamentary system, where members are nearly always expected to vote the party line or face consequences. yes, that is a feature (not a bug) of a parliamentary system. A complementary feature is that parliamentary systems tend to have representational seat distribution. So a party that wins 35% of the vote gets 35% of the seats. And those seats are expected to vote as a block…

> So a party that wins 35% of the vote gets 35% of the seats. And those seats are expected to vote as a block unless there is an extreme question of conscience. Yes, essentially we can just keep the main leaders of each party and assign them everyone's votes from their respective parties (35% in your example) that "won" and get rid of everyone else and end up with the exact same outcome, except orders of magnitude ch…

In that scenario you are one of those who chooses the leadership, perhaps running for it yourself, and helps decide what x's position is going to be (through party room / caucus processes).

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

#392

Post by nprateem »

calibas wrote: post #344
muyuu wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have, and he's right also, learn not to overexpose yourself with your real id online, also from 1990s internet 101 the idiotic model of the 2020s with everybody posting their entire private lives with their real names and profiles that have their mugs in circles, and then proceed to broadcast hot takes they're afraid to get feedback on - it doesn't work and it's stupid

I'm not convinced the "solution" to abuse is to remain completely anonymous online.

It's not just a solution to abuse, but also protection from nasty governments and good infosec

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

#393

Post by aahortwwy »

etherael wrote: post #387
aahortwwy wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

While you're absolutely right that this is their attitude, what they will do, etc. The laws of mathematics steadfastly remain consistent despite your latlon and it doesn't matter what random idiot politician thinks about it. This too will remain constant.

That doesn't really matter.

The point Turnbull was making is something along these lines: https://xkcd.com/538/

No, they can't change the laws of mathematics to make all encryption have a government backdoor. They don't have to, though. They can just legislate to make use of non-backdoored encryption criminal. And if they want to make generating random streams of bytes a crime they can probably do that too.

It's not idiotic, it's authoritarian.

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

#394

Post by codedokode »

enlyth wrote: post #349
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…

The problem I see with this is you are disadvantaged from your peers if you're the only kid without access to the internet. You can't just shield your specific kid from the world and then they go to school and their friends all show them tiktok/4chan/porn/gore/whatever. We've crossed this line already, the internet is out there and everyone can access everything. Instead of being regressive and focusing on futile eff…

You can say the same thing about alcohol or cigarettes. Obviously, kids can find a way to buy them illegally but it doesn't mean that we should allow that.

I propose to make it illegal to help kids to obtain access to adult Internet the same way as it is illegal to help them to buy alcohol.

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

#395

Post by codedokode »

MarcScott wrote: post #327
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…

Okay, but what is the age bracket you are using to define a child? In the UK a sixteen year old is considered to be old enough to give consent in a sexual relationship. They're also old enough to enlist in the armed forces. Are you suggesting that sixteen year olds shouldn't be able to look up information about sex and war? What about a fourteen year old that is feeling confused about their gender identity or sexuali…

> but what is the age bracket you are using to define a child?

At least 18, or more if local government considers it reasonable to raise the age.

> Are they not permitted to do some research or reach out to supportive online communities?

They are permitted as long as they use only compliant sites. Talking to random strangers about this is not a good idea.

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

#396

Post by MikePlacid »

> Online Safety Bill, plus amendments as was published on 28 June 2022. Unfortunately, it is only available in PDF (that link opens up the document, which is 230 pages).

The total size of legislation should be constitutionally limited. So that if someone wants to add 230 pages of new legislation, he should point to other 230 pages of the older legislation that should be eliminated.

So I think.

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

#397

Post by codedokode »

doublerabbit wrote: post #305
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 until you discover kids selling "adult phones" in the playground at school. This is as much as a parent problem as content author of a internet website. My parents tried, they installed web filters, everything. I still got round them. I bought a BB gun at school, even a butterfly knife. I feel that it's education on how to use the internet that's missing. As well as finance.

Some kids can find a way to buy alcohol or cigarettes, but it doesn't mean that we should allow that for everyone. Adult phone should be discovered and confiscated by teachers or police if they see it.

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

#398

Post by codedokode »

dingleberry420 wrote: post #332
Thorentis wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You will destroy their social life and make them outcasts. A smartphone is absolutely necessary to stay in touch with friends nowadays, everyone is using various messaging apps.

And a kid phone allows to stay in touch with friends (those approved by parents) without exposing a child to any risks.

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

#399

Post by pie_flavor »

doublerabbit wrote: post #305
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 until you discover kids selling "adult phones" in the playground at school. This is as much as a parent problem as content author of a internet website. My parents tried, they installed web filters, everything. I still got round them. I bought a BB gun at school, even a butterfly knife. I feel that it's education on how to use the internet that's missing. As well as finance.

People posting on HN are both the least likely to be impacted by the stuff they're preventing, and the most likely to be able to find ways around it. I don't think the median child is going to be nearly as capable.

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

#400

Post by raxxorraxor »

mminer237 wrote: post #255
solarkraft wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has been said about the EU, but the market has proven to just be too big to ignore. It could also be the reverse (see authoritarian countries), with international players leaving the market and local ones filling the space.

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…

Well, the EU itself adheres to law very selectively itself. For example for surveillance. They retroactively legalized mass surveillance by European authorities to make the impression that the law is more relevant than it actually is.
Post reply on HN