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

591–600 of 817 posts

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#591

Post by pfortuny »

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.

Mmmmmhhhhhhh…What if I buy some goods (say electronics) in the EU from a foreign firm (v.gr. China) using mail and these goods do not comply with the EU’s regulations? I really do not know the proper reply to this.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#592

Post by subscribed »

rpcope1 wrote: post #514
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.

That will be after introduction of the digital ID, mandatory tagging of pal the traffic with your identity and backdooring/declaring e2ee Apps unlawful.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#593

Post by Ray20 »

beowulfey wrote: post #575
4ndrewl wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an interesting view. If I were to fly to the USA, purchase something that was illegal in my home country (and explicitly state I was going to take it back home), then took it back home - would the vendor be prosecuted?

No because the sale would have had to occur in the place that it is illegal

Obviously, yes. A crime is a crime, so what difference does it make what country it was committed in?

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#594

Post by AnthonyMouse »

kijin wrote: post #586
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.…

> 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.

That doesn't do them any good because the set of people who never intend to set foot in the US is still vastly larger than the number of people required to set up an offshore internet casino.

> 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.

Most people can't even name every country, much less tell you what their laws are. And then you'll be breaking them without even knowing, and if that's regarded as a legitimate reason to incarcerate someone then what are you supposed to do? Suppose you have to choose between a layover in Egypt or in Hungary, do you even know which one's laws you might have broken at any point in your life?

> 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.

The problem is if you get on a flight to Paris you have no control over whether it might get diverted to London.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#595

Post by Levitz »

ivan_gammel wrote: post #157
tasuki wrote: post #35

> The Act explicitly grants Ofcom the legal authority to regulate online safety for individuals in the United Kingdom, and this expressly includes conducting investigations into, and imposing penalties for, non-compliance by providers of online services with their duties under the Act. […] The Act expressly anticipates that it will have extra-territorial effect I don't see anything wrong here: Sure, Ofcom can have th…

Look at this page: https://www.4chan.org/advertise It explicitly says that 7% of their users are coming from UK. If UK blocks them, they will loose noticeable part of advertising revenue. If there was no money at stake, they could just ignore Ofcom and sleep well. But they appear to be very agitated about the fact that they may loose their second biggest market. Honestly, I don’t understand anyone on 4chan side here:…

You seem to be under the false impression that 4chan makes money, as in, is profitable. It's very much not. Nor does advertising, much less UK advertising, constitute an important influx of money into the "business".

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#596

Post by Ray20 »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #378
jay_kyburz wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think its unreasonable for a government to ask company to abide by its laws if it want to do business with its citizens. Where I think they are going wrong is that they are trying to levy fines rather than just blocking the business. Oh, and the whole age verification thing is bonkers. I'm a parent of 2 teenagers, I don't think its asking too much for a parent to be responsible for what children see and do on…

It is not possible to censor the internet when VPNs are freely available. The more you try the more it backfires. By telling your kids they cant see a website they are sure to visit it, all they have to do is google for a free vpn.

>It is not possible to censor the internet when VPNs are freely available.

What's stopping VPN providers from being forced to censor the internet?

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#597

Post by Uvix »

pfortuny wrote: post #591
wyager wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Mmmmmhhhhhhh…What if I buy some goods (say electronics) in the EU from a foreign firm (v.gr. China) using mail and these goods do not comply with the EU’s regulations? I really do not know the proper reply to this.

Then you’re the importer of record and the compliance burden is on you.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#598

Post by Levitz »

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.

That part I understand, it surely looks awful.

The ID side of things though? Having your citizenry send their personal information to foreign companies all across the globe? It's a disaster waiting to happen.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#599

Post by testdelacc1 »

kijin wrote: post #586
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.…

This isn’t about visiting for shopping. Billions of people, the vast majority of humanity, manage just fine without ever taking a holiday in the US.

What matters is if any of their assets are ever denominated in USD, or ever use the international banking system that is also controlled by the US. No other country has that kind of long arm jurisdiction.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#600

Post by philwelch »

pfortuny wrote: post #591
wyager wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Mmmmmhhhhhhh…What if I buy some goods (say electronics) in the EU from a foreign firm (v.gr. China) using mail and these goods do not comply with the EU’s regulations? I really do not know the proper reply to this.

That’s what customs is for.
Post reply on HN