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

451–460 of 817 posts

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#451

Post by james_in_the_uk »

mrguyorama wrote: post #358
james_in_the_uk wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a bit of both. It’s not possible to rely on browser controls as-is, because they do not differentiate between necessary and optional cookies. Browser vendors could agree standards and implement them, exposing these to users and advertisers in a friendly way. But they haven’t shown any interest in doing this. I wonder why?

Without laws forcing companies to properly declare which cookies are "necessary", this control you imagine does nothing, as every company simply sets their advertising cookies as "necessary" One of the hundreds of reasons do_not_track failed. You cannot do something that trusts the website operators, because they are egregiously untrustworthy. The cookie banner everyone keeps bitching about is a direct example of thi…

What is considered a “strictly necessary” use of cookies is set out in law in a quite a number of countries.

My point is about UX: it could be much slicker if the browser industry standardised the consent mechanism.

You make a good point about lack of incentives.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#452

Post by Nevermark »

mothballed wrote: post #391
Nevermark wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That is breaking a law that protects patients' privacy. Nobody should distribute private information given to them under an agreement to maintain privacy.

Nobody is forced to abide by HIPPA, without their consent. Nobody is forced to sign a HIPAA agreement.

In fact, nobody is forced to work in the medical professions, or look at private medical data, in the US. And no law prohibits asking a patient or caregivers if they are ok with some harmless informal sharing, and explaining the urge to them...

This is similar to the voluntary civil jeopardy of signing an NDA before being informed of trade secrets. Penalties may vary.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#453

Post by tw04 »

trhway wrote: post #419
flumpcakes wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I run a lemonade stand, and a UK citizen walks up a pays a dollar for a glass of lemonade, then that doesn't give the UK jurisdiction over the lemonade stand. It does... to correct your example, the UK citizen is paying a dollar for the lemonade while in the UK. Are you saying that if I had a website hosted in Russia that pretended to be your bank and stole all your money from phishing that is perfectly legal?

>Are you saying that if I had a website hosted in Russia that pretended to be your bank and stole all your money from phishing that is perfectly legal? Website hosted in US publishing truth about Ukraine war - even calling it a war is already a felony in Russia - is it legal or illegal? I'm personally against stealing money, and i'm for calling a war a war, yet how do we formally codify that into law - there are 200…

> Website hosted in US publishing truth about Ukraine war - even calling it a war is already a felony in Russia - is it legal or illegal?

Try hosting one of those sites and then fly to Russia and let us know. I think you’ll find it’s quite illegal and will be enforced to the fullest extent of the law the second you enter their jurisdiction.

It turns out it doesn’t actually matter whether you or I think the law in question is BS. We don’t run Russia or determine what laws they enact.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#454

Post by topspin »

hunterpayne wrote: post #443
topspin wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's just that this... legal authority... isn't quite enforceable outside the UK jurisdiction. That appears to be the widely held understanding in this particular case. I'm not so sure. This isn't a strictly black letter law matter. It probably should be, and I'd prefer that it was, but I see political angles to this. Right now, it is improbable that Trump's DOJ has any interest in doing Ofcom's bidding in the US f…

Sure, that would require the Democrats win an election first. I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. Its not like Trump is the most inspiring candidate. When you lose 2 out of 3 to him, perhaps time to take a long look in the mirror. But no, the dems will probably run someone like AOC next time and lose badly. Even worse, once 2030 comes around there is a new census. This matters because enough people have moved from…

> Unless something dramatic changes

Dramatic things happen with regularity. Wars, viruses, economic calamities... there is no predicting any of it. For all you or I know 4 years from now the (D)s will own everything. Maybe then Ofcom gets a hearing. Maybe Ofcom doesn't exist any longer. This misses the point.

The point is that the hubris exhibited here, in this forum, and also by this lawyer, behaving as though there is some perpetual immunity in effect, is naïve. It is entirely plausible that some foreign regulator with intentions that happen to align well with the prerogatives of prevailing office holders right now or at any point in the future could have have powerful leverage in the US.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#455

Post by dathinab »

ok123456 wrote: post #309
dathinab wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but it isn't absolute anywhere It's not absolute in the US because the US constitution only protects from the governmental limiting it, which means there is a lot of potential to effectively and fully legally limit free speech. And even the government gave itself a lot of limitations where through excuses and loopholes it can limit free speech (e.g. from teachers in public schools). Then there is the question of what…

"If people systematic rail up the population and spreed misinformation..." You mean like what western governments do daily to China?

or the Chinese government does about the West

but no, it's not about that, it's more about how e.g. Hitler took over Germany. Systematically rilling up people, spreading systematic misinformation about how the Jews supposedly backstabbed German and how the world economic crash between WW1-2 was another devious plan of them etc.

like the difference is its very dump for a country to let people destabilize it with such means, it's still ethically wrong to do so about other countries, but less of an potential existential thread to democracy

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#456

Post by lavezzi »

pstuart wrote: post #252
Razengan wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Put anyone in charge of any space and they'll want to control what people say and think there. Hell look at HN and literally anywhere. Everybody has their own "ideal" world. I for instance don't want anybody talking shit about anime or video games ever.

The moderation of this site is top notch and a key component of its quality, and I say that as someone admonished by dang more than once.

yes, them constantly locking threads about content they don’t agree with is stellar

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#457

Post by hnsnobsur »

IlikeKitties wrote: post #49
4ggr0 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the rasion d'etre of 4chan can probably be discussed forever, but i can't imagine donating money to such a vile, hate-filled platform. surely there are better causes fighting for the same things, right? i know, freedom of speech, it's your money and not mine, etc.

4chan isn't all /b/ and /pol/. /g/ the technology board can be a very interesting place. And its Members often create technology that absolutely suprises me. Just recently we started an effort to retake the usenet and are actively repopulating alt.cyberpunk.tech with genuine good discussions.

[dead]

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#458

Post by bluGill »

cosmicgadget wrote: post #235

From the attorney's post: > The infinite character of that power was most famously summed up by English lawyer Sir Ivor Jennings, who once said that “if Parliament enacts that smoking in the streets of Paris is an offence, then it is an offence”. This line is taught to every first-year English law student. Initially this seems like disrespect for another country's sovereignty. But really the crucial thing is: > We ex…

Technically yes, but arresting US citizens will have implications and you can expect the us will protest via diplomatic channels. It is very unlikely UK is interested in that.

Not that countries don't prosicute laws for crimes outsiden of their border, but the bar for what they will is higher.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#459

Post by james_in_the_uk »

sib wrote: post #438
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…

Not quite. There are well-established legal mechanisms for Ofcom (or anyone) to try to engage legally with companies domiciled in the US and with no locus in the UK. Rather than using these mechanisms, they have tried to short-circuit the process by sending emails that have no legal force.

What “well established process” would apply here ?

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#460

Post by bluGill »

trothamel wrote: post #403
flumpcakes wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cit…

Simply offering a service to UK citizens isn't enough to provide jurisdiction. If I run a lemonade stand, and a UK citizen walks up a pays a dollar for a glass of lemonade, then that doesn't give the UK jurisdiction over the lemonade stand. That's what's happening here - a webserver is operating entirely out of the UK, with no nexus. UK citizens send requests to it - just like all other countries citizens do, so eith…

Countries claim juristiction for thing outside their borders all the time. however they place a much higher bar on what they claim. Lemonaid stands are likely safe, but even if it is legal where you live the US will claim pedopillia laws aganst you they can get you.

part of the high bar is claiming juristriction requires sending your army. (Sanctions are often used too which might or might not work). That is why the threat is if the directors travel to the uk - that gives them sone power - but still expect US government to do 'things' if the arrest any US citizen on this.

Post reply on HN