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

481–490 of 817 posts

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#481

Post by trothamel »

flumpcakes wrote: post #413
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. 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?

So, my original point was that a business is not under the jurisdiction of the UK just because it offers a service to UK citizen - I probably should have mentioned I'm not in the UK.

Whether the website is illegal or not would depend on Russian law in your example. I'd also suspect that other laws might apply, like wire fraud. Some of those would likely be enforceable in other countries.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#482

Post by School-Cotton »

jolmg wrote: post #389
pclmulqdq wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> If you enter America, there may also be consequences That isn't much different. Say an adult American drinks alcohol in America; then they travel to a country where alcohol is illegal. Should they be prosecuted in that country for having drank in America?

Dunno about “should”, but they certainly can be.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#483

Post by School-Cotton »

kstrauser wrote: post #224
morkalork wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also all the countries that have laws regarding sex-tourism abroad as well.

That's different in that it prosecutes citizens of those countries for things done outside their borders, not unrelated people doing things elsewhere. America will prosecute Americans for doing certain things that are illegal inside America outside its borders. As another example, if you take a boat to international waters and kill someone on it, you're going to get arrested and prosecuted when you get home. America…

> America will not arrest or prosecute someone from the UK visiting Thailand as a sex tourist.

Sure it will. Citizenship is irrelevant. If you travel abroad to have sex with underage people and then come to the US, you can be prosecuted regardless of your nationality.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#484

Post by inkyoto »

james_in_the_uk wrote: post #462
estimator7292 wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putting the burden on site operators to geoblock UK users is not only placing an incredible burden on individual operators, it doesn't even work. It is not the responsibility of foreign companies to enforce or even acknowledged the UK's laws. If the UK has a problem, they have tools to solve it on their own soil. If they want to enforce their laws they need to pay for it. The UK is trying to bully and scare foreign w…

Relevant here is that 4Chan appears to explicitly target the UK users for commercial purposes, and potentially (via subcontract to Cloudflare) serves to UK customers from equipment located on UK soil. Whether one agrees with the policy aims of the OSA or not, there are some complex jurisdictional and enforceability issues at play here. Unfortunately it’s not as simple as you make out.

> […] and potentially (via subcontract to Cloudflare) serves to UK customers from equipment located on UK soil.

Still, not quite.

Servers in the UK ≠ targeting the UK – courts on both sides of the pond will ask whether the operator directed activity at the forum. Merely serving content from UK edge nodes because a CDN optimises latency is usually incidental and does not, by itself, show a «manifest intent» to engage with UK users. There is an established precedent in the US[0].

If a UK-established CDN processes personal data at UK nodes, the CDN itself may be subject to UK GDPR. That does not automatically drag a non-UK website operator into UK GDPR unless it offers services to or monitors people in the UK. Accessibility or passive CDN caching alone is insufficient. And modern UK statutes mirror this; for example, the Online Safety Act bites where a service has a significant number of UK users or targets the UK – not simply because a CDN happens to serve from UK equipment. From the horse's mouth: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-c...

Then there is a nuance – explictly configured Cloudflare (1) vs automatic «nearest-edge» (2) selection:

1. Explicit UK-favouring config (for example, rules that prioritise UK-only promotions, UK-specific routing or features tailored for UK users) is a relevant signal of targeting, especially when combined with other indications such as UK currency, UK-specific T&C's, UK marketing or support. In EU/UK consumer cases the test is whether the site is directed to the state – a holistic, fact-sensitive enquiry where no single factor is decisive.

2. Automatic «nearest-edge» selection provided by a CDN by default is a weak signal. It shows global optimisation, not purposeful availment of the UK market. US targeting cases say much the same: you need directed electronic activity with intent to interact in the forum; mere accessibility and generic infrastructure choices are not enough.

[0] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/293...

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#485

Post by miohtama »

bluGill wrote: post #458
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.

The bar for British is arresting old ladies saying nasty things online, so practically their bar is already gone.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#486

Post by nprateem »

estimator7292 wrote: post #450
flumpcakes wrote: post #352

I think the premise of this is simple, and a lot of people seem to not be understanding this... The UK can make a law and apply it however they see fit. 4Chan is providing a service to UK people (a website you can access) and is not implementing the law. Ultimately the UK cannot enforce this law until money destined to/from 4Chan passes through the UK or people associated with the site visit UK territories. In practi…

Putting the burden on site operators to geoblock UK users is not only placing an incredible burden on individual operators, it doesn't even work. It is not the responsibility of foreign companies to enforce or even acknowledged the UK's laws. If the UK has a problem, they have tools to solve it on their own soil. If they want to enforce their laws they need to pay for it. The UK is trying to bully and scare foreign w…

I'd love some of what you're smoking.

I assume companies wouldn't need to comply with tax law either unless countries in which they operate pay them to pay their dues.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#487

Post by miohtama »

spuz wrote: post #8

I don't understand why the British government's solution is to impose orders on British ISPs as they have done with other websites that they want to block, rather than try to impose on a company based in another country.

It's because of s long history of being a nanny state, and now they have bi-partisan political drive to export this.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#488

Post by james_in_the_uk »

lalaithion wrote: post #480
james_in_the_uk wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

MLAT applies only to a narrow set of legal procedures, essentially around criminal activity. I’m a lawyer but this is very specialist stuff. I’m not expert enough to opine on whether MLAT applies here but - simply judging by the quality of their respective legal work on display - I’m minded to believe that Ofcom knows what they are doing. OTOH 4chan’s rhetoric reeks of FUD.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#489

Post by nprateem »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #394
flumpcakes wrote: post #352

I think the premise of this is simple, and a lot of people seem to not be understanding this... The UK can make a law and apply it however they see fit. 4Chan is providing a service to UK people (a website you can access) and is not implementing the law. Ultimately the UK cannot enforce this law until money destined to/from 4Chan passes through the UK or people associated with the site visit UK territories. In practi…

> why wouldn't it have the power to hold that entity accountable? Literally because the entity is not under the jurisdiction of the UK. The UK can force domestic companies to block the website but they cant force the website itself to do anything. The claims of fines against 4chan are therefore nonsensical. Probably just part of the legal proceedings prior to blocking the site I guess but still strange to see.

Yeah this line of thinking worked really well for Assange

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#490

Post by wyager »

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…

4chan is not "operating in the UK". They accept and respond to packets from the UK. If the UK government doesn't like this, they can block 4chan themselves.
Post reply on HN