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

471–480 of 817 posts

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#471

Post by aftbit »

PaulRobinson wrote: post #366
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…

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…

>every tech company engages in regulatory alignment for the entire Middle East

Can someone expand on this a bit? I'm passingly familiar with the Chinese Google example (though I thought Google left the market rather than bend the knee?) but I know nearly nothing about the Middle East angle.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#472

Post by galangalalgol »

NicuCalcea wrote: post #442
trothamel wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. You are allowed to sell lemonade to British tourists. But if you're shipping lemonade to the UK, you are subject to UK lemonade regulations. That doesn't mean that the UK has jurisdiction over your business and can shut it down or anything like that, but i…

Why is it the website operators job to figure out where people are from? It isn't even generally possible for them to do correctly. A better analogy would be that a british person hired someone who looked and sounded american to go to the us to buy some lemonade and have it shipped to the uk where having it breaks the law, and then blaming the lemonade stand.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#473

Post by hunterpayne »

IlikeKitties wrote: post #402
EarlKing wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Objection: The Chernobyl containment building generally speaking does its job. /pol/, on the other hand, leaks like an incontinent old man in a retirement home. "Containment" only works if you have jannies that actually sweep it up. 4chan, much like Voat, suffers a problem of people spamming up boards and threads with unrelated crap that is ostensibly supposed to be kept to other boards/threads (like /pol/). The repu…

> Objection: The Chernobyl containment building generally speaking does its job. The Sarcophagus and the new containment building sure, I meant the original one before the accident.

You do know that they physically disabled the safety systems at Chernobyl before the accident. They were running an incredibly irresponsible test at the plant. The rumor is that that test was for the PhD thesis of the kid of a central committee member.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#474

Post by ryandrake »

lurk2 wrote: post #439
Razengan wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh please. Vote-based social networks are way too vulnerable to burying the truth and boosting lies. It just takes the first 3-4 viewers to downvote you to prevent the next 10000 people from seeing what you said. There's no downside to downvoting just because you don't like what someone says, even if it's true. And usually no amount of corrections can outshout a lie/mistake with 100+ votes.

Vote manipulation is a non-issue here because users require a minimum of 500 karma to vote, and because the site is so much smaller than Reddit it can take months to reach that threshold. Downvoting is also capped so that you're very unlikely to get pushed back below the 500 karma threshold unless you are consistently making comments that the community doesn't like. I post things I know won't be well-received here al…

What stops people from setting up and aging (or buying) sockpuppet accounts to the point where they control 10+ or even 100+ flag-capable / vote-capable HN accounts, and then using them as a network to deny or boost certain topics? This kind of behavior almost certainly goes on here.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#475

Post by jandrese »

itake wrote: post #467
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…

> Google does certain things in relation to Tiananmen Square searches in China What does Google do with Tiananmen square searches in China? I can't access google here at all.

Completely whitewashed, for all the good it does Google.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#476

Post by jandrese »

delfinom wrote: post #470
nradov wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect that MI6 could find a US private company's directors names if they wanted to. We're not talking about nuclear launch codes here.

Not really that easily? Generally, only the legal agent for the private company will know and the direct hires of the board i.e. the CEO/CTO/whoever they name up top. Sometimes board of directors can get named in court records but with the public records redacted. But outside of that? Not even the IRS knows unless the directors get compensation. MI6 would have to commit a few physical in person crimes to get any deta…

Honestly I'm surprised to learn that 4chan has a board of directors.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#477

Post by martin-t »

mrkstu wrote: post #282
martin-t wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The evolution of governance of online communities mirrors that of the real-world. First, everyone did what they wanted. As conflict became more common, power hierarchies started to emerge. we're now at a stage where every place needs to be governed, yet its members have no influence over who does it. I have online communities will transition into something resembling democracy where moderators are elected from member…

You vote for the moderation you like with your digital feet- see X vs BlueSky

That's like saying you vote for the government by moving to a different state.

This[0] blog post puts it nicely - you _can_ move but you lose all your connections and sometimes even you data.

[0]: https://overreacted.io/open-social/

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#478

Post by hibern8 »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #369
jolmg wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You will stopped from doing that by American law. The difference between this and that is that Ofcom believes it can regulate conduct that never touches British soil. You're showing yourself to believe that America can regulate conduct that never touches American soil.

America won't go after you. America will go after Americans who access your site and American ISPs will block your site. That's not America regulating your behavior. You're still free to do whatever you want. If you enter America, there may also be consequences, but you don't need to enter America.

You must not remember the Kim Dotcom raid.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#479

Post by jandrese »

morkalork wrote: post #119
LordN00b wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is plenty of precedence for this, and I am about to fudge a bunch of details. The basic point is that the United Kingdom can make any law it sees fit to any place or person. Even though it may only exercise punitive issues once they arrival inside the physical jurisdiction. So the example I was taught, the UK can pass a law banning smoking in Paris, but may not arrest/fine until such criminal trespassers get of…

The United States (eg. illegal gambling, hacking), South Korea (smoking cannabis abroad) and many other countries operate the same way.

Sure, but those laws apply to US Citizens, and typically aren't enforced until the person returns to US soil.

Sovereignty is a big thing in international politics. Countries as a whole are loath to meddle in other countries domestic affairs, even in extreme cases like genocide/ethnic cleansing. Violating weird online protection laws are not the sort of thing a country is going to risk an international incident over.

Sure you can find some examples of countries that violate those norms, but they are the exception not the rule.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#480

Post by lalaithion »

james_in_the_uk wrote: post #459
sib wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ?

The US-UK Mutual Legal Assistance treaty imposes obligations on Ofcom which they have not met, 4chan claims:

“None of these actions constitutes valid service under the US-UK Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, United States law or any other proper international legal process.”

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71209929/1/4chan-commun...

Post reply on HN