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

401–410 of 480 posts

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

#401

Post by pie_flavor »

vorpalhex wrote: post #193
darkhorse222 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're talking like someone who doesn't live in a hyper-connected, hyper-online society. The same poor argument could made to verbal harassment. "Put in some headphones!"

You don't have to be hyper-online or hyper-connected. I spend time with people in person or on the phone usually. We, gasp, _do things_ like go to restaurants or go camping. Sometimes we all sit on the sofa in a big pile and share snacks and watch movies or talk about life. It's nice. Sometimes I'm even alone and get to read a dead tree book or just enjoy nature. What happens "on the internet" is of very low importan…

If you don't engage with the system whose regulation is being discussed at all, and don't care one way or the other, then volunteering this information in a discussion of the regulation and how it relates to the problems you don't have is the lowest effort form of decreasing the signal-to-noise ratio of the conversation.

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

#402

Post by raxxorraxor »

Iv wrote: post #135
zarzavat wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which again, is the point - to turn the internet into the easily regulable cable TV that they already understand. Unless the UK significantly increases its military capacity and sets up world government, they will not be able to shut down the internet. The internet will still exist. The best they can hope for is a great firewall / North Korea type situation which would require a much more authoritarian (moreover fu…

Conservatives all over the world dream of setting up a chinese-style firewall in their countries. They are angry that it was first done by a clearly authoritarian regime which brings some resistance to the idea, but otherwise, in the name of fight against terrorism or child pornography, they would have set it up already.

Progressives currently threaten internet freedom far more and it isn't even a competition here. They demand hate speech laws, people and content to be banned. They are just the new conservatives with their own dogma, sensibilities and aversion to free information exchange.

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

#403

Post by mminer237 »

ryandrake wrote: post #359
mminer237 wrote: post #255

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…

> If they ever decided to follow the law to the letter, most of the Internet would have to disconnect the EU. Or those sites would have to comply with GDPR. Why is that not an option?

Because no US company can exempt itself from complying with US warrants. Thus, the EU always views data as being potentially shared with the US government. The GDPR prohibits even making a log of IP addresses if there's any US control over it.

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

#404

Post by raxxorraxor »

mfincham wrote: post #353
throwaway4aday wrote: post #53

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.

Improving legislation is a dead end strategy. Look at politics in the last 2 decades after 9/11. We have increased surveillance in every part of life. Sure, the largest amount of users doesn't understand or mind surveillance because the dangers are abstract right now. They will understand later when the owners of information use it against them. You could never achieve a success that way. We increase security without there being a problem, it is an intrinsic characteristic of old and aging democracies it seems.

No, the only strategy is to create realities just like the internet did with its inception, just like encryption was established. We would never have it if we tried to legislate it into reality.

Additionally legislation is completely ignored by state actors that put the population under surveillance. The battle for legislation was lost.

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

#405

Post by mathieubordere »

throwaway4aday wrote: post #53

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…

Which appstore is going to allow apps that implement these protocols? They will just be forbidden. Back to square 1.

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

#406

Post by raxxorraxor »

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…

Exactly. But this laissez-faire approach is politically untenable. People would need to be distracted from that while simultaneously be empowered to educated their kids so they are able to deal with such content.

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

#407

Post by aembleton »

mike_hearn wrote: post #27

With respect to the politicians not turning up, it's worth noting that at least some of the candidates for PM are against the Online Safety Bill and want to scrap it. So for them, campaigning to become the next leader may actually be a more useful way to spend time than hearing what they already know. It appears the OSB has become a victim of incoherent requirements specifications. It's grown enormously during its ge…

Badenoch also has a degree in Computer Systems Engineering. She probably has a good understanding of the problems with this bill.

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

#408

Post by raxxorraxor »

LAC-Tech wrote: post #352
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.

What exactly do you feel the need to protect them from?

If there is no obvious answer to such a question, you can always say Russians.

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

#409

Post by etherael »

aahortwwy wrote: post #393
etherael wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sure, they can make thinking of a pink elephant criminal, too. That doesn't mean it will actually be effective.
Post reply on HN