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

721–730 of 817 posts

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#721

Post by int_19h »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #713
int_19h wrote: post #706

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And the second is that you're not the one flying the plane. You thought you were going to Charles de Gaulle but the weather in Paris is worse than expected or some drunk driver crashed the gate and drove out onto the runway and they're diverting all the planes, so after you're already in the air you find out you're actually going to Heathrow. Such a system would presumably account for possible diversions and plot y…

> Such a system would presumably account for possible diversions and plot your flight accordingly. I mean, that's fine if you want to avoid Russia while flying from California to Quebec, but you don't really need an app for that one. Whereas if you're within the plane's fuel supply of where you don't want to be, how are you supposed to know ahead of time what kind of nonsense is going to happen while you're in the ai…

You can't account for any possible contingency obviously, but you can still account for most. Start with just determining possible diversions on the route as it is supposed to be. That route can in turn be replaced with a heatmap of historical routes the planes on it have actually taken. And so on. The point is to not be on a plane that can be diverted to a country where you really can't end up at any likely point of its regular route.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#722

Post by int_19h »

Ylpertnodi wrote: post #715
int_19h wrote: post #705

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My impression is that most UK citizens do in fact support their nanny state and its policies, so this is rather an example of democracy in action.

Your 'impression'.

From the polls, yes.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#723

Post by thaumasiotes »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #714
thaumasiotes wrote: post #622

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_China > On 26 January 2006, Google launched its China-based google.cn search page, with results subject to censorship by the Chinese government. > In January 2010, Google announced that, in response to a Chinese-originated hacking attack on them and other US tech companies, they were no longer willing to censor searches in China and would pull out of the country completely if nece…

I think that's leaving out a lot of context that the "Controversies" section of that Wikipedia entry, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_China#Controversies , better explains. First, in 2006, there was still a general belief I think that Western companies could profitably exist in China and be, if not a "force for good", than at least a force for slightly more openness. Google's options were either to not be in Chi…

Perhaps you could quote something from that section that you feel is relevant here. It didn't look relevant to me.

> Google's options were either to not be in China at all, or to be in China and abide by their laws.

OK. So, they chose "be in China and abide by their laws", and you think it makes sense to characterize that as "they left the market rather than bend the knee"? Those are exactly opposite descriptions. They bent the knee rather than leave the market. That's what happened.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#724

Post by f33d5173 »

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 china point is interesting because it's false. Google doesn't censor their results in china. There was a five year period some 20 years ago where they did, but prior to that period, and after that period, they didn't. China still does business with google. This is because china understands that it is their own responsibility to censor their internet. If google is unwilling to do so, they are satisfied with blocking all google services in china.

At a certain point in internet censorship, you exit the arena of sensible, free countries, where everybody can agree to get along and enforce each other's blocks, and enter the realm of a censorious authoritarian country that must constantly patch holes in their filters to protect their citizens from badthink. The UK has entered the second realm, but hasn't realized it yet. They see someone refusing to enforce their block for them as the ultimate scorn. In fact, it is what the vast majority of websites already do to china, iran, or any other similar country. Following regulations implies a willingness to play ball. When you no longer want to play along, you ignore the regulation instead.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#725

Post by iamacyborg »

immibis wrote: post #686
iamacyborg wrote: post #683

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last I checked I don’t think we were stopping people at the border because they said mean things about our government.

https://freespeechunion.org/french-philosopher-to-challenge-...

So your counter is to show that we won’t let a blatant racist in? I think a lot of folks in the UK would consider that a good thing.

Just out of genuine curiosity, what media are you consuming to have this view of the country?

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#726

Post by lurk2 »

ryandrake wrote: post #687
lurk2 wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What stops people from setting up and aging (or buying) sockpuppet accounts to the point where they control 10+ or even 100+ flag-capable / vote-capable HN accounts, and then using them as a network to deny or boost certain topics? It’s a single board with a full-time moderator and almost everyone on it has a background in information technology. These kinds of networks leave very obvious signatures, and the site s…

Of course, only the site admins would be able to show you actual examples. But this kind of stuff happens everywhere on the internet where you can post for free, so there is no reason to think it's not happening here.

> Of course, only the site admins would be able to show you actual examples.

I’m not asking for timestamps or evidence, I’m asking for general instances where you believe vote manipulation may have occurred.

>But this kind of stuff happens everywhere on the internet where you can post for free

This isn’t true.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#727

Post by lazide »

adastra22 wrote: post #711
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #682

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their executives might be in trouble if they ever visit the UK though.

If they want to run that sort of banana republic nonsense in violation of international laws and norms, they can choose to do so (and make an international incident).

What international law or norms are being violated here? Near as I can tell, this is the UK trying to avoid using the mechanisms of international law or norms to impose domestic law on international firms?

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#728

Post by lazide »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #654
dragonwriter wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When it comes to antiterrorism stuff, it's a totally different story. If I go to the Middle East and provide money to an organization on the US terrorist list, then yes - I can definitely be prosecuted for it if I enter US jurisdiction. And it goes even further - I don't need to enter their jurisdiction. The US can just have me extradited if there is a treaty. Moreover, the US government can have you seized and bro…

As we have recently seen, the US may send the military to sink your boat and kill you if they think you might be planning to break a US law. Whether this is legal or not is another matter.

Or at least, they’ll claim they did it for that reason after they blow up your boat and kill you.

Notably, if you survive, they’ll send you back home without bothering with a trial?

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#729

Post by lazide »

hunterpayne wrote: post #427
Mountain_Skies wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sections 105 and 108 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea allows any country to go after drug smugglers in international waters but it does require that a court in that country approve of the action. It's certainly worth questioning if a court can issue a preemptive ruling on a proposed action against alleged drug smugglers. There's also the issue that Maritime Law is weird, convoluted, and probably…

Since you are going all lawyer on this one, you should know they weren't flying any national flag. Technically, if you do this in international waters you are a pirate and anyone can legally do what the US did in that situation. Maritime law is very old and has some interesting provisions in it. The parts you quote only matter if a national flag is being flown at the time.

Cite on not flying any national flag?

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#730

Post by Nevermark »

mothballed wrote: post #679
Nevermark wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is breaking a law that protects patients' privacy. Nobody should distribute private information given to them under an agreement to maintain privacy. Nobody is forced to abide by HIPPA, without their consent. Nobody is forced to sign a HIPAA agreement. In fact, nobody is forced to work in the medical professions, or look at private medical data, in the US. And no law prohibits asking a patient or caregivers if t…

This is a recklessly misinformed understanding of HIPAA. It applies even if you've never signed a "HIPAA agreement."

My understanding:

HIPAA prohibits share private medical information that isn't yours. Regardless of signing anything or how you got it.

And no medical establishment can (legally) share records with you, without a legal purpose, and documentation you know your obligations or are legally allowed to have the information.

Nobody cares what your opinion is, without an explanation.

This is HN. Two-way curiosity and friendly discussion are encouraged. Enlighten me, instead of posing, please.

Post reply on HN