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

511–520 of 817 posts

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#511

Post by saxenaabhi »

wyager wrote: post #490
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…

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.

That's serving UK users while knowing that they aren't legally allowed to.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#512

Post by inkyoto »

james_in_the_uk wrote: post #491
inkyoto wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> […] 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…

We are essentially saying the same thing. 4chan targets UK users through advertising and equipment location. I am no fan of the OSA but this spat is also not showing 4chan or its fan-base to be particularly mature or legally savvy (quelle surprise).

I was delineating a particular nuance – that the mere utilisation of Cloudflare does not, by itself, render 4Chan subject to the classification of «targeting UK users», save for the instance in which they issue a distinct monthly remittance to an entity denominated «Cloudflare UK» for the edge node services provided during the preceding period.

I.e., if a machine (the Cloudflare control plane) elects to route traffic through an edge node within the UK as an optimisation measure, such an act does not, in itself, constitute the possession of equipment within that jurisdiction — nor would it be readily ascertainable before a court of law.

Historically speaking, the Ofcom/UK approach is orthodox rather than novel. Ofcom’s sequence – information notices, process fines for non-response, then applications to court for service-restriction and access-restriction orders that bind UK intermediaries – is a modern, statute-bound version of a very old playbook. If a service has no UK presence and refuses to engage, the realistic endgame is to pressure UK-based points of access rather than to extract cash from an foreign entity.

What is new is the medium and the safeguards, not the underlying logic: regulate the domestic interface with out-of-jurisdiction speakers.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#513

Post by baobabKoodaa »

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.

Hmmh. If some powerful law enforcement agency was coming after me to stop my website, I sure would hope they would first send me an email asking me to stop.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#514

Post by rpcope1 »

HPsquared wrote: post #12

They want to block things, but don't want the optics of being one of "those" countries with a national firewall. So we get things like this.

Given the constant stream of crazy things I read about the UK, I'm surprised that a national firewall is off the table given their laws and attitudes around what would be protected speech here.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#515

Post by baobabKoodaa »

therein wrote: post #211
throw7 wrote: post #170

If the UK is serious, they could ban entry to the 4chan owner(s) or even arrest them upon entry, so it's not something to just ignore or laugh off.

Oh no, not being able to visit UK must be the worst punishment of all. They'll live their lives without being able to see Luton. What kind of life is that.

Some of us have relatives in the UK.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#516

Post by james_in_the_uk »

inkyoto wrote: post #512
james_in_the_uk wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are essentially saying the same thing. 4chan targets UK users through advertising and equipment location. I am no fan of the OSA but this spat is also not showing 4chan or its fan-base to be particularly mature or legally savvy (quelle surprise).

I was delineating a particular nuance – that the mere utilisation of Cloudflare does not, by itself, render 4Chan subject to the classification of «targeting UK users», save for the instance in which they issue a distinct monthly remittance to an entity denominated «Cloudflare UK» for the edge node services provided during the preceding period. I.e., if a machine (the Cloudflare control plane) elects to route traffic…

Agreed.

I was merely citing use of Cloudflare as evidentiary, not determinative.

I am not so sure about the relevance of billing entity. I suspect that how Cloudflare chooses to bill is as much driven by tax (especially transfer pricing) as anything else. I also think there are as-yet-unanswered questions about the role of CDNs and similar “global” infrastructure providers, and the impact of using their services as subcontractors (cf intermediaries), in interpreting jurisdiction. These services are obviously different to the “traditional” autonomous systems (routed networks). I am not sure that the law has caught up with this yet. But that is a tangent.

Thanks for the thoughtful debate.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#517

Post by thih9 »

> The kids already know how to use VPNs to circumvent firewalls

Vpn is not always a solution, at least in my experience (nordvpn).

I haven’t tried 4chan, but e.g. reddit rejects anonymous vpn traffic (shows an error message, forces login); streaming platforms also often don’t work.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#518

Post by inkyoto »

gorgoiler wrote: post #501
HDThoreaun wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are ways around this too. When the VPN entrance point is a static IP a ban may work but what happens when a product shows up that spins up dynamic VPSs in the public cloud? All the cloud providers have free trials that let people do this for free forever. Sounds difficult but surely people will come up with a streamlined approach if push comes to shove. Even in china where using a VPN is a major crime they are…

Off the top of my head here are some ways you could fairly easily shut down VPNs. The big one is to start whitelisting good protocols only. That means everything must be https and you have to at least pass the hostname in plaintext. Random traffic on UDP ports is now illegal as it is assumed to be VPN traffic. Another one is to pass a law telling ISPs to flag customers with traffic patterns only to a single IP addres…

Disruption at the technical level will prove excessively convoluted and impractical to enforce, for censorship-resistant VPN technologies continue to evolve at an accelerated pace – Amnezia and XRay2 serve as exemplary cases in point.

A far more expedient course lies in legislative control: the imposition of a licensing requirement for VPN usage, coupled with punitive measures – fines and imprisonment – for defiance thereof. A few well-chosen prosecutions, conducted publicly with a fanfare and pomp and without leniency, would suffice to instil both fear and obedience amongst the populace.

As ever, the familiar refrain of «think of the children» would provide an acceptable veneer of moral justification to soothe the public conscience.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#519

Post by oefrha »

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…

Ironic considering that U.S. does long arm enforcement all the time, often successfully. You can often read stories about U.S. seizing random foreign websites, bitcoins and shit on this very forum. I guess the part where Britain looks “very silly” is that UK’s long arm is much more likely to be ignored than US’s long arm since British Empire’s sun has set?

> as if we haven’t yet shucked-off the American Revolution, let alone colonialism.

I can’t even.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#520

Post by aydyn »

6r17 wrote: post #499
hax0ron3 wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your countrymen want to use Uber, Air B&B, Oracle, and Facebook, should you try to stop them from doing it, even if you personally dislike those companies? You are making the same argument that Trump is making with the tariffs. Personally, while I can see some good arguments for protectionism, I'd rather have the choice to decide whether or not I want to buy Chinese products, rather than the government making the…

I personally think that FB, Uber, RBNB, Oracle, Google, Amazon, and literally every american SASS should be completely forbidden from Europe. Period no discussion at all. Given the state of current America, given the reactions even on this very post that do not see how Cambridge Analytics has damaged the entire world - yes, I think it would be safe to put a good 10 year ban on every US web tech. It would fasten up Eu…

Its cute that you think Europe has the ability to replace those services.
Post reply on HN