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

581–590 of 817 posts

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#581

Post by phantom784 »

aftbit wrote: post #471
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…

>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.

I worked for a company that asked users for their gender, with language along the lines of "choose the gender that best matches your identity."

There was a special case for Middle Eastern countries that removed this language.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#582

Post by subscribed »

downrightmike wrote: post #370
riazrizvi wrote: post #175

More odious nannying by silly civil servants. If Britain is to restore cultural leadership it needs to move policy away from this horrible trend of policing what people say and think, and focus its energy on better policing what people do.

England was cooked in WW2. While the USA was landing on hte moon and back, the UK borrowed $1Billion dollars because they caused a deficit after the war. Rather than moving forward, the monarchy held the UK back from progress. And they still are, Brexit was the latest scheme. charlie isn't going to help them get out of the 18th Century.

Brexit was as much Putin's achievement as the second term of Trump is.

I agree it was enabled by the corrupt class, but initiated elsewhere.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#583

Post by AnthonyMouse »

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…

> The US does this, and US lawyers understand this. If I open an online poker and sports bookmaking site in the UK (where such sites are completely legal), and take business from all over the United States thereby breaking federal law, I can expect to be met at the plane door the next time I take a shopping trip to NYC.

Countries do things like this when they're run by fools and they can do this because the fools have weapons and prisons. What good has it done the US? Can US patrons of offshore internet Bitcoin casinos no longer find them available? Not a chance.

But then on top of being completely ineffective, it causes exactly what you're saying -- other fools in other countries want to treat the foolishness as precedent for doing it themselves.

Which is why the people in the various countries should put a stop to all of it, before it spreads and they find themselves in a foreign prison because their flight had a layover in a country with a law they didn't know about. And countries themselves should retaliate like hell whenever anyone tries to do it to one of their citizens.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#584

Post by oskarw85 »

aydyn wrote: post #520
6r17 wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's cute that you think anyone is going to kiss your American ass.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#585

Post by Maxious »

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.

Ofcomm hasn't been able to identify the owners of the delaware LLC, that's why they attach a screenshot of the CAPITOL SERVICES, INC website.

Publically available databases suggest 4chan executives include John Cena, Evan Essence and Norton Antivenom.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#586

Post by kijin »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #583
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…

> The US does this, and US lawyers understand this. If I open an online poker and sports bookmaking site in the UK (where such sites are completely legal), and take business from all over the United States thereby breaking federal law, I can expect to be met at the plane door the next time I take a shopping trip to NYC. Countries do things like this when they're run by fools and they can do this because the fools hav…

That's the crucial part. Lots of people who do business in other countries either want to, or need to, visit the US from time to time. Whether for a "shopping trip to NYC", or for business reasons. That's why it's a big deal when the US wants somebody.

On the other hand, I'm not particularly concerned about some tyrannical regime on the other side of the world that doesn't like the kind of content I have on my site. I'll postpone the research until I actually need to fly over their airspace or something.

Where does the UK currently stand in the spectrum between "country that everyone wants to visit sometime" and "country that nobody gives a fuck about"? It used to be firmly on the former side, but it seems to be drifting away to the latter side every year.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#587

Post by Levitz »

intended wrote: post #553
james_in_the_uk wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

4chan is 100% FUD and is playing to the gallery. This is nerd sniping of a different sort. I’m guessing they are aiming to drum up American sentiment for their actions, and because its 4chan.

4chan is perfectly aware of its reputation, and if that wasn't enough, it's worth noting they banded with kiwifarms on this one:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyjq40vjl7o

>Lawyers representing controversial online forums 4chan and Kiwi Farms have filed a legal case against the UK Online Safety Act enforcer, Ofcom.

Drumming up public support is a no-go. Rather, I think the intent is to make the stance that if the UK wants to prevent citizens from accessing sites if they are underage, then the UK can do just that, rather than expect random companies around the world to comply.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#588

Post by mschuster91 »

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…

> Ofcom has to go through the motions of telling 4chan they can't smoke in Paris because of the (very on-brand) nanny law.

The thing is, Ofcom can still issue fines, and enforce these fines against anyone in the UKs legal scope advertising on 4chan.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#589

Post by retsibsi »

ok123456 wrote: post #414
Balinares wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it's absolute until it's something you don't like. Gotcha.

You have to prove that an actual crime or harm was involved. There is some nuance there, but there absolutely is not a censorious bureaucrat issuing warning letters and fines for things they don't like.

The point is that you're now defending a completely different position from "Free speech is absolute." Determining what should count as "an actual crime or harm", how it can be proven, and so on, is pretty much the entirety of the problem you were claiming to have solved.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#590

Post by iamacyborg »

immibis wrote: post #561
iamacyborg wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the older women are being arrested for protesting in the streets in support of an organisation our government has deemed to be aligned with terrorism. It’s entirely silly but not as silly as your example.

No, the older women are being arrested for protesting in the streets against an organisation that is committing terrorism, because the government has deemed that actual terrorism is not terrorism and opposing terrorism is the real terrorism, and a bunch of nonsensical things like that.

I think you consuming too much right wing American media.
Post reply on HN