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

421–430 of 480 posts

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

#421

Post by concordDance »

darkhorse222 wrote: post #147
causi wrote: post #132

who also has skin in the game about being on the receiving end of the most horrific online abuse Do people just not get educated in online literacy anymore? An adult getting abused online is like getting third degree burns because you laid your hand on a hot burner and refused to take it off. If people saying mean things to you is disturbing your groove so much you're calling it "abuse" maybe you should stop reading…

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!"

Unfortunately headphones don't work that well. If it were possible to have whitelists and blacklists of people you could see and hear in real life then yes, headphones would be a solution.

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

#422

Post by concordDance »

yaseer wrote: post #148
causi wrote: post #132

who also has skin in the game about being on the receiving end of the most horrific online abuse Do people just not get educated in online literacy anymore? An adult getting abused online is like getting third degree burns because you laid your hand on a hot burner and refused to take it off. If people saying mean things to you is disturbing your groove so much you're calling it "abuse" maybe you should stop reading…

> An adult getting abused online is like getting third degree burns because you laid your hand on a hot burner and refused to take it off This analogy is broken on quite a few levels. When did the internet become a hot burner? The internet is not designed to get hot - it's not a cooking device. If your laptop consistently got so hot it burned your lap, you'd try to fix it, not say "of course it does that". > If peopl…

> If your laptop consistently got so hot it burned your lap, you'd try to fix it, not say "of course it does that".

Not if the fix isn't worth the price and will be abused to stiffle competition and for governments and companies to get control over interpersonal communication.

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

#423

Post by Akronymus »

guerrilla wrote: post #87
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…

> Can someone explain why this won't result in a renaissance for peer to peer and e2e encrypted chat/forums/social media etc.? Simple, because if that because popular, new laws will be drafted to ban all of that from all app stores for circumventing this or some other reason.

Which would be an absolute nightmare for any company in the UK that uses such things. Which I can't see going over well.

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

#424

Post by guggleet »

swayvil wrote: post #208
fguerraz wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't worry, blocking p2p is the next step and is extremely easy to do. China has done it already and it's very effective: * Force every service provider to register their IPs and domains (for CDN use) * Force every ISP to do stateful firewalling and block every attempt to establish a new connection unless the destination IP is on a whilelist maintained by the government. Problem solved.

Wifi mesh nets in the city. Sneaker nets in between

I imagining a post-apocolyptic plot... nodes of dense dendridtic clusters consisting of low-range meshes connected to eachother via hijacked defunct, satellite ISPs

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

#425

Post by concordDance »

red_admiral wrote: post #250
causi wrote: post #132

who also has skin in the game about being on the receiving end of the most horrific online abuse Do people just not get educated in online literacy anymore? An adult getting abused online is like getting third degree burns because you laid your hand on a hot burner and refused to take it off. If people saying mean things to you is disturbing your groove so much you're calling it "abuse" maybe you should stop reading…

No, it is not. Examples of online abuse that go well beyond "disturbing your groove" are well documented. Online abuse, like climate change, is proven beyond reasonable doubt and we should probably do something about both.

And every case of online abuse can be solved by returning to the pseudo anonymity style of the 2000s. Have an email address for just your friends, etc.

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

#426

Post by Akronymus »

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…

> If UK government really cared about children, and not about surveillance and censorship, they would solve the problem another way.

Like not allowing them to get off essentially scot free just by apologizing? https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/870-sex-...

(ironically, cant actually read that article atm because of the company firewall)

I personally think MOST legislative to do x to protect children is just BS reasoning to intrude on privacy.

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

#427

Post by concordDance »

rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #121
stevewatson301 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The “reigning in big tech” thing that’s been going on for all this while is really a ruse to limit citizen freedom while coming up with laws that only big tech can comply to. I wish it was more widely recognized and understood by more folks.

>a ruse to limit citizen freedom while coming up with laws that only big tech can comply to. Which law in particular?

Have you read TFA?

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

#428

Post by Akronymus »

pie_flavor wrote: post #399
doublerabbit wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In my experience, kids will almost always find a way, or get someone to help them find a way, if they are sufficiently motivated.

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

#429

Post by concordDance »

carom wrote: post #209
2Gkashmiri wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

right now or say 10 years ago til now, before the whole encrypted chats came into the picture, how many people have been convicted of CSAM in the UK, USA or somewhere else? is it in thousands? millions? if people were not getting convicted left and right before encryption, why is suddenly encryption the #1 enemy?

In addition to this, if they actually cared about children they would up the penalties for crimes. In the US it is 4 years in prison. Let's make it 20 years per image. That is what Maxwell got for literally trafficking children. But hey, let's add some red tape to the internet, mind numbing.

Is sharing an image as bad as, say, destroying someone's knees? Because 20 years is the kind of sentence you'd get for deliberately doing that.

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

#430

Post by guggleet »

int_19h wrote: post #371
throwaway4aday wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are other methods of distribution than app stores. People didn't buy their copy of Napster from GameStop back in the day, they downloaded it from a website.

The logical next step would be to require devices sold in the country to only be able to use legal app stores, where "legal" is defined as "complying with the requirement to block any E2E apps without backdoors". Everything is already in place for this, both hardware- and software-wise.

What, and mandate you have some authorization to maintain your ability to access software or to use electronics of any sort that doesn't have a compliant application store?
Post reply on HN