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

431–440 of 480 posts

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

#431

Post by guggleet »

guerrilla wrote: post #207
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.

> There are other methods of distribution than app stores. And all of them are completely irrelevant because only us nerds would even know about them let alone how to use them. > People didn't buy their copy of Napster from GameStop back in the day Those days are long dead.

There isn't some magic bar of comprehension or indecipherable encoding. People will gravitate to acquire what they desire, regardless of prereqisites.

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

#432

Post by int_19h »

guggleet wrote: post #430
int_19h wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Nope, just ban importation of such devices. Existing ones will join the waste heap soon enough, and then why bother banning the activity if any device capable of it is inherently contraband?

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

#433

Post by pjc50 »

int_19h wrote: post #373
pjc50 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until the Human Rights Act 1998 established it as a positive right. > _would_ have no laws restricting freedom of speech (libel and incitement excepted) This is optimistic ahistorical nonsense; the UK had a censorship regime until the Lady Chatterly trial. There has been intelligence service related censorship as long as those have existed, as well (see Spycatcher, Zircon). And let's not get into Northern Ireland. No…

Since HRA is just a bill, it can be trivially overridden entirely or on a case-by-case basis by any other bill, requiring only a simple majority in the Parliament, thanks to parliamentary sovereignty. So it doesn't really meaningfully protect anything.

Kind of a constitutional problem, but of course until Brexit it was guaranteed by international treaty. And still is in Northern Ireland:

https://www.dfa.ie/media/dfa/alldfawebsitemedia/ourrolesandp...

"The British Government will complete incorporation into Northern Ireland law of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), with direct access to the courts, and remedies for breach of the Convention, including power for the courts to overrule Assembly legislation on grounds of inconsistency."

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

#434

Post by concordDance »

Aeolun wrote: post #5

It seems to me that the solution to all the woes of this bill is to just not allow any content to be shared . That basically eliminates this being a problem for 95% of all companies.

Yep, this is the point.

Prevent people being able to communicate except through a handful of controlled middle men who can spy on or block content the government dislikes. The end goal is complete control of the communication of its citizens.

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

#435

Post by astrange »

sircastor wrote: post #362
mfincham wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

I don't think this sounds weirdly privileged at all. The trouble is people will solve problems typically through the path of least resistance. It's much easier to find legal loopholes than it is to try and comply. And contrary to the rhetoric, it's expensive and uncertain to simply buy law-making through lobbying. Consider how hard it is in the United States to lay new fiber (and this is an imperfect metaphor). The i…

Deploying 5G doesn't involve laying new fiber?

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

#436

Post by astrange »

Thorentis wrote: post #325
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.

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.

Nobody uses texts for anything, so they wouldn't be able to talk to anyone.

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

#437

Post by plaguepilled »

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…

This seems like the correct move. Legal culpability of the parents would ensure they only give their kids approved devices. The devices would get a govt kickback to the manufacturer and require 6 years of service, so the parents only have to upgrade their kids device once.

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

#438

Post by pSYoniK »

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…

Fully agree with your point on the grey market aspect of things. I'm also curios about the actual implementations that they hope to see not to mention how they would hope to regulate "internal" chats and other internal communications channels which are, as far as I know, not in the scope of this bill. I had some thoughts on some of the many issues this type of thinking result in - https://psyonik.tech/posts/thoughts-on-the-uk-online-safety-...

TL;DR for the article: 1. Any technical solution will be imperfect and can potentially lead to hundreds if not thousands of cases being raised 2. Difficulties in clearing your name in the case of false flags (not to mention how this would actually be implemented) 3. No clear guidance on how such a system would work 4. A death to encryption services since any system that would entail some for of media transfer would be in scope 5. A grey/dark market place for custom software that will still allow encrypted communications run on VPSes/servers that might restrict UK access but could be accessible through VPNs that exit outside of the UK and thus wouldn't fall under the legislation (I think, feel free to correct me on any of these points ofc). 6. A host of other issues from overworked law enforcement trying to deal with the flood to the migration of individuals involved in any illegal activities far far deeper and thus more difficult to detect.

This is a clear as day example of what happens when people with no understanding of these topics (and many others, I'm sure economy, education and law enforcement is managed by people with no real world experience in said fields...) are allowed to legislate.

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

#439

Post by pimterry »

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…

> If they ever decided to follow the law to the letter, most of the Internet would have to disconnect the EU

It's worth noting that it's the US that would be isolated here, not the EU.

A very large number of other non-EU countries have implemented/are currently implementing extremely similar legislation to the GDPR, including Brazil, Israel, South Korea, Argentina, Canada, Japan, India, New Zealand, Indonesia, etc.

If the world eventually splits into "privacy-required" vs "privacy-optional" internets, the US will be one of few major countries in the latter camp. Yes, clearly the US-based internet is a large chunk, but long-term isolating the US internet entirely from most of the rest of the world will have a meaningful impact.

The EU has an list of countries whose current protections they officially recognize as already equivalent to the GDPR here: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/inte...

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

#440

Post by DocTomoe »

gravitate wrote: post #297
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…

It could mean choosing a life of crime if the regulations are too draconian. Now that your legit business enterprise can’t succeed because of Stasi tactics by the UK government, you are forced to go underground and build something to sidestep the measures.

"If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." (A certain Cardinal Richelieu).

The truth is that we already are all violating laws, every day we live, mostly without being aware of them. That is exactly why there are so many of them. The only thing more draconian laws do is make people decide actively that they commit them.

Post reply on HN