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

441–450 of 480 posts

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

#441

Post by anshorei »

tsimionescu wrote: post #259
Eupraxias wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By conservatives, do you mean the same people who believe we should be conservative in our application of government? Are you sure you are not speaking of liberals, who believe government should be applied liberally? Not like any of them act as they speak, but if I am not mistaken, that's what the words mean.

Conservatives are, by definition, people who want to conserve the status quo. They believe society is good as it is (or as it was in sine possibly imagined past) and seek to use the power of the state to prevent changes, and to revert any changes that are pushing society away from what they believe is the status quo. Conservatism has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "being conservative in application of gover…

The fundamental core of conservatism is exemplified in Chesterton's Fence, the meaning of which comes down to "make changes with extreme caution", not "don't make changes at all". The inverse of conservatism is the desire for revolutionary change, which is not the same as progressivism (though it's certainly a popular idea with some). Anti-industrialism (e.g. the Ludites) was conservative. Environmentalism can be conservative. Politics has muddied the true meanings of "progressive" and "conservative".

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

#442

Post by citrin_ru »

toyg wrote: post #412
pessimizer wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably by about 5x. If the UK makes things difficult, they can just be ignored.

It's actually 7x (65m vs 450m).

Depends on what consider a proxy for market size. EU GDP to UK GDP ratio is about 4.5

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

#443

Post by bloak »

sjtgraham wrote: post #335
MarcScott wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> In the UK a sixteen year old is considered to be old enough to give consent in a sexual relationship. Not quite. It's 16 unless with someone in a position of trust, e.g. your school teacher, social worker, doctor or care worker. A person under 18 cannot legally consent to that in UK.

> A person under 18 cannot legally consent to that

That's a bizarre way of putting it, isn't it? It's not as if the person under 18 would be committing an offence by giving consent, and the consent would still be valid for defending against an accusation of rape (as far as I know; see the Sexual Offences Act 2003).

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

#444

Post by AinderS »

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.

> working to improve the legislation

You mean like what the Pirate Parties, FSF, EFF, Mozilla, and countless others are trying to and failing? I never thought I'd see "well we have no political power to change things, but as disastrous as these laws are, for us specifically, maybe we can evade them for a little while longer if we're clever" described as "privileged".

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

#445

Post by doikor »

raxxorraxor wrote: post #400
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…

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.

Not really as GDPR has specific provisions for governments to collect data for national security/defence, prevention/investigation of crimes, etc . So they did not have to retroactively change anything as it was written into the law from the beginning.

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

#446

Post by causi »

pie_flavor wrote: post #401
vorpalhex wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

and don't care one way or the other

Obviously we do care, otherwise we wouldn't comment. You don't have to be terminally-online to have an opinion about what we should be allowed to do online.

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

#447

Post by FateOfNations »

_fat_santa wrote: post #29

If this applies to every site that hosts user generated content then that's nuts. When the internet first started, part of the appeal is that you could just make stuff without people looking over your shoulder, asking for forms, etc. Seems that the internet we created today is technically the same as the one from before, but now with governments throwing up red tape at every corner. Makes me wonder what a site like H…

> Makes me wonder what a site like HN would have to do in order to stay in compliance.

Easy answer: geoblock the UK.

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

#448

Post by Agamus »

cstross wrote: post #415
Agamus wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I am not.

Shorter version: Yes, you are mistaken. Longer version: this is a discussion of a bill in progress in the British parliamentary system, where the current government is by a party known as the Conservative and Unionist Party , or "Conservatives" for short. This should not be confused with any colloquial meaning of the term "conservative" that might be familiar to you from American vernacular usage. Note that political…

Another version: no I am not.

I'm impressed with how many people really do not understand the meaning of these terms. The idea that the US is culturally divided makes a lot more sense to me now, reading all of these responses.

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

#449

Post by ThePowerOfFuet »

codedokode wrote: post #395
MarcScott wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> > 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.

"Stranger danger!"

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

#450

Post by tsimionescu »

anshorei wrote: post #441
tsimionescu wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conservatives are, by definition, people who want to conserve the status quo. They believe society is good as it is (or as it was in sine possibly imagined past) and seek to use the power of the state to prevent changes, and to revert any changes that are pushing society away from what they believe is the status quo. Conservatism has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "being conservative in application of gover…

The fundamental core of conservatism is exemplified in Chesterton's Fence, the meaning of which comes down to "make changes with extreme caution", not "don't make changes at all". The inverse of conservatism is the desire for revolutionary change, which is not the same as progressivism (though it's certainly a popular idea with some). Anti-industrialism (e.g. the Ludites) was conservative. Environmentalism can be con…

I've heard the fundamental position of conservatism slightly differently: "if something doesn't have to change, then it must not change". As such, the opposite may well be "let's change this and see if it helps".

But behind this fundamental position, there still lies the position that the current state of affairs is fundamentally ok, or very close to it (or if not the current one, then some previous one that you aspire to return to). You can't truthfully be a conservative while believing everything is rotten and always has been - you would have no reasonable reason to oppose change, even change for change's sake.

Post reply on HN