Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Imgur pulls out of UK as data watchdog threatens fine

express.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 735 posts

Re: Imgur pulls out of UK as data watchdog threatens fine

#471

Post by gambiting »

smashah wrote: post #391
flir wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish Wikipedia would take one for the team, and go dark in the UK. (And I'm in the UK). Wouldn't work with somewhere like China, but the UK might still be capable of being shamed.

At this point, the UK government is beyond shaming. On the contrary, it shame and record-breaking unpopularity seems to empower them. I wouldn't put it passed them to require the digital ID to access the internet passed curfew.

Tbf, well implemented digital ID would be much preferable to the idiotic situation that we're in now. The emphasis on well implemented.

Re: Imgur pulls out of UK as data watchdog threatens fine

#472

Post by ehhthing »

Popeyes wrote: post #451

Lots of the top comments talking about how Imgur can stay out of the UK more easily and not about how Imgur can comply with the law and protect children's data. Why is it always that regulation is the problem, not the company being irresponsible with data.

> Why is it always that regulation is the problem, not the company being irresponsible with data.

Can you be irresponsible with childrens' data if you don't know whether your users are children?

Re: Imgur pulls out of UK as data watchdog threatens fine

#473

Post by arethuza »

avianlyric wrote: post #360
jobs_throwaway wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The notion that a 17 year old cannot consent to user tracking is absurd

That’s because you’re looking at this ass backwards. The law determines an age at which a person is considered capable of making legally binding agreements, like providing consent. In the UK that’s 18, with some exceptions. It would be absurd for the UK to create a special exception to allow underage youths to consent to user tracking at an age lower than the standard age for legal consent in any other context.

As far as I can tell, here in Scotland it is 16?

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/50

Re: Imgur pulls out of UK as data watchdog threatens fine

#474

Post by KaiserPro »

oncallthrow wrote: post #280
KaiserPro wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are public comments in a public forum classed as private data under GDPR? for example the only thing that can really be classed as PII is my username. does it count as reasonable to request it be deleted?

Yes and yes. Google “right to be forgotten”

Remember that GDPR is about storage and processing of personal information, not data created by a user. They are related by not 1:1 linked.

If the username is removed, and there is no reasonable way to link the user to the comment, then its not PII. I would hope that this is logical because its not personally identifiable. (caveats apply here like if you put your home address in every comment. However is it reasonable to expect a user to do that in a public forum? probably not. )

As you can request that your username is deleted here, and assuming they are deleted properly, then HN is reasonably following the user's request. Hence my assertion that HN is GDPR compliant enough to no worry.

Re: Imgur pulls out of UK as data watchdog threatens fine

#475

Post by gambiting »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #359
jobs_throwaway wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The notion that a 17 year old cannot consent to user tracking is absurd

But the notion that a five-year-old is able to consent to anything is absurd. So we have to draw the line somewhere. The UK has chosen to draw the line at 18, which for some kids will be absurd, yes. But for others it will be appropriate. And yet others will still not be emotionally mature at 18 and capable of making that kind of decision properly.

UK's age of consent is 16. So yes, the idea that a 16 year old can consent to sex but not to cookies is indeed absurd.

Re: Imgur pulls out of UK as data watchdog threatens fine

#476

Post by octo888 »

BatteryMountain wrote: post #469
zmmmmm wrote: post #267

There's an opportunity for a service like CloudFlare here give people a simple toggle that manages geoblocks on legal liability factors. It's way too much for every organisation to individually track every country's laws day by day in case just by being accessible there you incur a liability. And it sounds like the UK would have just self-selected out of the list of "safe" countries. If something like this was in wid…

Or, just ban children from the internet, same as gun ownership for 12yo's. Fine/imprison parents. This is a parenting problem, not a technical/business problem. Remove the supply of children and things will get better. A business cannot make laws or override laws with ToS and invent their own moral compasses - rather it is the sole responsibility of the parent on what their child gets exposed to (whether politics, po…

> The parents have been getting a free pass all this time

I totally agree but the UK government – particular Labour – doesn't want people to take responsibility really, because that would take from their own 'power'. There's nothing the UK loves more than a stupid population hooked on benefits and devoid of education, critical thinking and financial freedom.

Re: Imgur pulls out of UK as data watchdog threatens fine

#477

Post by gambiting »

omnicognate wrote: post #468

Good riddance. Imgur is a cancerously awful website. express.co.uk isn't much better for that matter.

Does anyone ever actually use Imgur as a website though? I generally use it to upload a photo then send someone a link. It's no different than dropbox in my mind, except just limited to photos.

Re: Imgur pulls out of UK as data watchdog threatens fine

#478

Post by m101 »

Some may think that harm doesn't matter, but perhaps actual fines are unjustified without the presence of actual harm.

And yes, perhaps the rules should be followed regardless of what they are, but perhaps the government bureaucracy is such that it's just too hard to change rules.

I'm one to think that the UK is generally overregulated, excessively obsessed with safety, and the regulation ethos is inconsistently applied. The government and civil service are also incompetent to the extreme. There also isn't a culture of accountability in government.

I also think that regulation is often simply used as a revenue generation measure, which is not what it is supposed to be about.

Perhaps a good middle ground is for a company that is at threat of investigation is simply asked to leave the UK or pay a fine.

Re: Imgur pulls out of UK as data watchdog threatens fine

#479

Post by [deleted] »

bapak wrote: post #281
FinnKuhn wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are we talking about the EU in this thread? I don't see how draconian UK laws relate to a proposed chat control law in the EU that hasn't even been drafted and would likely not survive a judicial challenge if it were to be approved.

Well, it relates in that the UK also hates encryption and is extremely likely to get their own Chat Control anytime this decade.

[deleted]

Re: Imgur pulls out of UK as data watchdog threatens fine

#480

Post by Koffiepoeder »

BatteryMountain wrote: post #466
Popeyes wrote: post #451

Lots of the top comments talking about how Imgur can stay out of the UK more easily and not about how Imgur can comply with the law and protect children's data. Why is it always that regulation is the problem, not the company being irresponsible with data.

Why are children on the internet? Why are the parents not being fined for being irresponsible? Give the kids a loaded gun, its the same as giving them access to the internet. The internet is not a place for children to begin with. Why try to bend the internet to conform? It will destroy the internet as it is as well as all it's freedoms. Oh and it probably won't stop/protect them, as thousands of new sites come & go…

Saying the internet is not a place for children is like saying the street is not for children. Full of drug dealers, cars and danger!

Yet learning how to cross the street is an essential skill in life. They are also filled with flowers, pathways to playgrounds and much more. And that's why children are not forbidden on the streets.

My point being: let's educate instead of regulate. "Regulating the children" is silly and countereffective.

Post reply on HN