Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

alecmuffett.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 817 posts

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#391

Post by mothballed »

Nevermark wrote: post #381
mothballed wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Free speech doesn't include the freedom to use speech to do illegal harms (that are themselves, not speech). In other words, "Speech + Offense" is prosecutable, for illegal "Offense". You don't get a hall pass to use speech to commit a crime, and not be culpable for the crime. Fraud, libel, harassment, giving false testimony in court, colluding with competitors to artificially increase prices, broadcasting a copyrigh…

I don't think that's the case in the US. For instance, if you take a picture of a patient you are treating, go home and send that picture to your wife and say "treated this lady for syphilis today" you are violating HIPAA despite the fact you're telling 100% truth, conveying it privately with no expectation or desire it will ever impact the victim, and literally are only conveying it as information to be consumed and not acted on then it is still illegal.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#392

Post by dragonwriter »

wannadingo wrote: post #331
tremon wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are saying that when US citizens engage in illegal gambling in other parts of the world, the US sues and threatens the foreign gambling venues? That South Korea sues marihuana dispensaries in the US when they sell to visiting Koreans?

I think he is saying that once US citizens return to the US, then they will be arrested.

The US has seized non-US citizens, abroad, for acts committed abroad, over which the US asserts (and exerts) extraterritorial jurisdiction, not just US citizens, and not just waiting until they enter the US on their own.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#393

Post by zettabomb »

James_K wrote: post #342
zettabomb wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tough luck, if you don't like it, then you (or your government) should block those websites. It's not job of the US businesses nor US government to enforce another country's laws.

Let me put this very simply to you: if I go to a country where the age of consent is 14 and start a business streaming child porn to America, I should be stopped from doing that. This is the same principle with a lesser offence.

I don't disagree at all. But it would then be the American government's job and responsibility to block this.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#394

Post by HDThoreaun »

flumpcakes wrote: post #352

I think the premise of this is simple, and a lot of people seem to not be understanding this... The UK can make a law and apply it however they see fit. 4Chan is providing a service to UK people (a website you can access) and is not implementing the law. Ultimately the UK cannot enforce this law until money destined to/from 4Chan passes through the UK or people associated with the site visit UK territories. In practi…

> why wouldn't it have the power to hold that entity accountable?

Literally because the entity is not under the jurisdiction of the UK. The UK can force domestic companies to block the website but they cant force the website itself to do anything. The claims of fines against 4chan are therefore nonsensical. Probably just part of the legal proceedings prior to blocking the site I guess but still strange to see.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#395

Post by mjr00 »

mrguyorama wrote: post #335
martin-t wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The evolution of governance of online communities mirrors that of the real-world. First, everyone did what they wanted. As conflict became more common, power hierarchies started to emerge. we're now at a stage where every place needs to be governed, yet its members have no influence over who does it. I have online communities will transition into something resembling democracy where moderators are elected from member…

>While HN is fairly lenient HN is NOT fairly lenient. HN has a very strict set of rules (applied with infinite discretion) and absolute bunches of tiny rules and quirks that are completely hidden and no real transparency of any kind. HN has basically an official party line for heavens sake! This is a site for disseminating information about VC things and driving engagement about things that VCs want people to talk ab…

Yes this is absolutely correct. I can think of more content that's disallowed on HN than content that's allowed: no politics (for the most part), no flamewars/aggressiveness/name-calling, no self-promoting links to your OnlyFans, nothing hugely offtopic, etc. And that's on top of very aggressive moderation of things other social media sites are filled with but are de facto banned here: shitty puns or jokes, one-line zingers, meaningless affirmation comments like "So much this" or "This is the way", nitpicks about submitted articles or personal swipes at the authors' politics...

HN has incredibly strict moderation, and to be clear, that's a good thing. It keeps discussion in line and useful, for the most part.

> It's funny, the same exact people on here who insist they can't ride the bus or walk around cities because they freak out if a homeless person accosts them seem to be blind to the concept of how other people's free expression can have a chilling effect.

I've seen that the term "gatekeeping" is recently starting to be reclaimed as people realize this, to emphasize that while anyone is welcome to participate, the community is not required to bend its rules or standards to accommodate new people. i.e. anyone is welcome to use the bus, but openly shooting heroin while you're on it won't be tolerated.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#396

Post by ninalanyon »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #378
jay_kyburz wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think its unreasonable for a government to ask company to abide by its laws if it want to do business with its citizens. Where I think they are going wrong is that they are trying to levy fines rather than just blocking the business. Oh, and the whole age verification thing is bonkers. I'm a parent of 2 teenagers, I don't think its asking too much for a parent to be responsible for what children see and do on…

It is not possible to censor the internet when VPNs are freely available. The more you try the more it backfires. By telling your kids they cant see a website they are sure to visit it, all they have to do is google for a free vpn.

> It is not possible to censor the internet when VPNs are freely available.

The obvious next step is to ban VPNs too or to block connections to their servers.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#397

Post by noAnswer »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #373
PaulRobinson wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not quite. Ofcom in their reply make their point clear: "The [Online Safety] Act explicitly grants Ofcom the legal authority to regulate online safety for individuals in the United Kingdom [...]" They are stating that companies operating in the UK and providing services to UK individuals, are required to conform with UK regulations in relation to those services, under UK law. As an American business, you can choose t…

4Chan operates out of the US. The UK can ban it if it wants but it can not unilaterally make demands of 4chan and expect courts to enforce them, because it has no jurisdiction over 4chan's activities.

[flagged]

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#398

Post by flumpcakes »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #394
flumpcakes wrote: post #352

I think the premise of this is simple, and a lot of people seem to not be understanding this... The UK can make a law and apply it however they see fit. 4Chan is providing a service to UK people (a website you can access) and is not implementing the law. Ultimately the UK cannot enforce this law until money destined to/from 4Chan passes through the UK or people associated with the site visit UK territories. In practi…

> why wouldn't it have the power to hold that entity accountable? Literally because the entity is not under the jurisdiction of the UK. The UK can force domestic companies to block the website but they cant force the website itself to do anything. The claims of fines against 4chan are therefore nonsensical. Probably just part of the legal proceedings prior to blocking the site I guess but still strange to see.

It does have 'jurisdiction' because it applies to the citizens: it is offering a service to UK citizens.

If I had a website operated outside of the US, where you can download US citizens private medical records and phone conversations, I would be liable to breaking US law.

If you do not want to be held accountable to a regions laws, then you do not offer a service to or deal with data that relates to that regions citizens.

I don't think this is a hard concept to grasp.

Jurisdiction does not imply enforceability. There are laws from your country that you can break while not even being in that country and be held accountable.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#399

Post by HDThoreaun »

ninalanyon wrote: post #396
HDThoreaun wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not possible to censor the internet when VPNs are freely available. The more you try the more it backfires. By telling your kids they cant see a website they are sure to visit it, all they have to do is google for a free vpn.

> It is not possible to censor the internet when VPNs are freely available. The obvious next step is to ban VPNs too or to block connections to their servers.

There are ways around this too. When the VPN entrance point is a static IP a ban may work but what happens when a product shows up that spins up dynamic VPSs in the public cloud? All the cloud providers have free trials that let people do this for free forever. Sounds difficult but surely people will come up with a streamlined approach if push comes to shove. Even in china where using a VPN is a major crime they are unable to stop people from using them.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#400

Post by pclmulqdq »

jolmg wrote: post #389
pclmulqdq wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America won't go after you. America will go after Americans who access your site and American ISPs will block your site. That's not America regulating your behavior. You're still free to do whatever you want. If you enter America, there may also be consequences, but you don't need to enter America.

> If you enter America, there may also be consequences That isn't much different. Say an adult American drinks alcohol in America; then they travel to a country where alcohol is illegal. Should they be prosecuted in that country for having drank in America?

> That isn't much different

There's a world of difference here. Ofcom is claiming to be able to shut down an American website for content generated in America, stored in America, and shown only to Americans. There are no UK citizens in this chain at all. This sets up Ofcom as having global censorship authority even over content seen elsewhere.

> Should they be prosecuted in that country for having drank in America?

In my opinion, no, but some countries are hardasses about this. If you want to do things that are illegal in certain places, you should not plan on traveling to those places. Usually, they will just refuse you entry but you kind of do put yourself at their mercy if you touch their soil. This is how the world works.

Post reply on HN