Hopefully many more companies do this and British internet users migrate to use of VPNs. This will apply maximum pressure on the government to reverse these parochial laws.
Imgur pulls out of UK as data watchdog threatens fine
51–60 of 735 posts
Re: Imgur pulls out of UK as data watchdog threatens fine
#52> The ICO also confirmed that companies could not avoid accountability by withdrawing their services in the UK. This is quite a slippery slope. If I host a website in one country, I do not necessarily care where people access my website from. It is not like I actively provide a service to them - they just use internet (decentralised network) to access it. What if I publish a newspaper here, someone takes it where the…
It appears that you are mixing things here.
It's not about "hosting a website", it's about providing services.
If you provide services, like selling a newspaper, in the UK, you need to respect their laws, or you will suffer the legal implications of not doing so.
And regarding the accountability, it refers to the fact that imgur USED TO provide services in the UK:
> We have been clear that exiting the UK does not allow an organisation to avoid responsibility for any prior infringement of data protection law, and our investigation remains ongoing.
Companies providing services outside the UK can infringe all the UK laws they want, the UK doesn't care.
But as soon as you decide to provide services in the UK, you have to follow the law. And, as they explain in the article, if you break the law, stopping to provide services in the UK will not absolve you for your past wrongdoings.
Re: Imgur pulls out of UK as data watchdog threatens fine
#53> The ICO also confirmed that companies could not avoid accountability by withdrawing their services in the UK. This is quite a slippery slope. If I host a website in one country, I do not necessarily care where people access my website from. It is not like I actively provide a service to them - they just use internet (decentralised network) to access it. What if I publish a newspaper here, someone takes it where the…
You already need to care depending on what you are serving, and this has been the case for at least 20 years to my knowledge.
The most obvious example of this is websites from the UK or Europe which operate any kind of gambling. [1] This may well be legal (based on licensing) in their jurisdiction, but they still need to restrict access to prevent US people from accessing the service or they will be breaching the US's gambling laws.
Likewise many US firm geofence access for EU residents out of fear of GDPR.
People hosting news sites have often had to geofence to prevent UK residents from accessing their site if they are hosting any kind of reporting of UK court cases that are under embargo or matters that are subject to one of the UK's famous "Super injunctions" [2]
[1] eg this guy was on the board of a listed UK company operating as far as they were concerned entirely legally who was arrested in NYC https://www.theguardian.com/business/2006/sep/14/gambling.mo...
[2] eg In the "Ryan Giggs" super injunction case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_British_privacy_injunctio...
Re: Imgur pulls out of UK as data watchdog threatens fine
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, but the UK is saying they'll fine Imgur even after Imgur blocked access. At that point, what tooth does the fine have? "You must pay this fine if you want to, err, nothing I guess"?
They used to have UK legal presence, and planning to move out. The UK is saying something like "crimes done during your presence won't be ignored". If Imgur never had UK presence, then yeah there would be no teeth. But if you're doing business in a country you can't break the law then leave and expect them to just ignore what you did during that time.
…but how enforceable would the fine be? They pull out and have no UK assets to seize.
Re: Imgur pulls out of UK as data watchdog threatens fine
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
The UK government does not care. The law applies no matter where you are hosted, where you are incorporated or who is proxiying you. >You do not need to abide by UK laws, even if your website is accessible from there. The UK government does not agree.
I suppose in their defense, culturally, the UK hasn't respected many borders apart from their own so this really isn't anything new. Zing aside, I'd be thrilled to see whatever prosecutor or litigator or whatever they call them over there bring a case against a US based company for hosting content in the US, geoblocking the UK, a UK resident using a VPN to bypass that block, and making the case that that is somehow t…
The UK also is trying the same stunt against 4Chan.
The article is from a month ago, but the gears of "justice" rotate slowly: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyjq40vjl7o
One thing to note is that UK government officials also seem to be masquerading and submitting reports to try to ToS these websites.
Re: Imgur pulls out of UK as data watchdog threatens fine
#56> The ICO also confirmed that companies could not avoid accountability by withdrawing their services in the UK. This is quite a slippery slope. If I host a website in one country, I do not necessarily care where people access my website from. It is not like I actively provide a service to them - they just use internet (decentralised network) to access it. What if I publish a newspaper here, someone takes it where the…
You already need to care depending on what you are serving, and this has been the case for at least 20 years to my knowledge. The most obvious example of this is websites from the UK or Europe which operate any kind of gambling. [1] This may well be legal (based on licensing) in their jurisdiction, but they still need to restrict access to prevent US people from accessing the service or they will be breaching the US'…
> People hosting news sites have often had to geofence to prevent UK residents from accessing their site if they are hosting any kind of reporting of UK court cases that are under embargo or matters that are subject to one of the UK's famous "Super injunctions" [2]
…and if the site has no UK assets, how enforceable is the injunction?
Re: Imgur pulls out of UK as data watchdog threatens fine
#57> The ICO also confirmed that companies could not avoid accountability by withdrawing their services in the UK. This is quite a slippery slope. If I host a website in one country, I do not necessarily care where people access my website from. It is not like I actively provide a service to them - they just use internet (decentralised network) to access it. What if I publish a newspaper here, someone takes it where the…
The following paragraph might shed some light on what that means (emphasis mine):
> We have been clear that exiting the UK does not allow an organisation to avoid responsibility for any prior infringement of data protection law
In that context it's completely fair to say "leaving doesn't absolve you of past transgressions".
Edit. If Imgur made any revenue from UK users then it becomes impossible to claim plausible deniability on any definition of "providing a service". If the UK can do something about this is a different matter. They could make CEOs/board personally or even criminally liable for the company's failure to pay a fine but probably won't.
Re: Imgur pulls out of UK as data watchdog threatens fine
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
The UK government does not care. The law applies no matter where you are hosted, where you are incorporated or who is proxiying you. >You do not need to abide by UK laws, even if your website is accessible from there. The UK government does not agree.
But its still not the UK government's decision. They don't have sovereignty over other nations, as much as they'd like to think they do. All they can legally do is bitch and moan and order UK ISPs to block. There's no action they can legally take against Imgur.
The US does exert its laws extraterritorially when there is a sufficient nexus to US interests too. Why wouldn't the UK be allowed to do so?
Re: Imgur pulls out of UK as data watchdog threatens fine
#59> The ICO also confirmed that companies could not avoid accountability by withdrawing their services in the UK. This is quite a slippery slope. If I host a website in one country, I do not necessarily care where people access my website from. It is not like I actively provide a service to them - they just use internet (decentralised network) to access it. What if I publish a newspaper here, someone takes it where the…
It appears that you are mixing things here. It's not about "hosting a website", it's about providing services. If you provide services, like selling a newspaper, in the UK, you need to respect their laws, or you will suffer the legal implications of not doing so. And regarding the accountability, it refers to the fact that imgur USED TO provide services in the UK: > We have been clear that exiting the UK does not all…
It’s you who are mixing things. Putting up a website outside the UK and “deciding to provide services in the UK” are two decidedly different things.
UK legal imperialism is self centered and unrealistic and undermines speech the world over.
Re: Imgur pulls out of UK as data watchdog threatens fine
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
"status": 451 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7725
I find it interesting that there was no mention of Fahrenheit 451, the very reason they picked that number. They did at least put a thanks to Ray Bradbury.