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

771–780 of 817 posts

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#771

Post by account42 »

hunterpayne wrote: post #424
jay_kyburz wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why we are not travailing the US right now.

Because you think ICE will arrest you for being an illegal immigrant? If you seriously believe this, then probably its best you don't go outside anymore. Every time the media reported something like this, turned out they were leaving out something important. Like the professor who was smuggling biological samples into the US. Turns out that's illegal, that's why she went home. If you aren't doing something like that,…

Yeah these people that think there is any measurable risk to going to the US as a normal tourist or businessman respecting US laws while there really need to get out of whatever bubble is feeding them that fear.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#772

Post by account42 »

qingcharles wrote: post #752
kstrauser wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I declare categorically that UK law does not apply to me, here in California. However , if I'm going to break one of their laws that they feel very strongly about, I'm probably not going to travel to the UK. That's just begging for something bad to happen. Why risk it? So in this case, if you know the US is looking for you, why, oh why, would you travel to the US?

They can issue an arrest warrant, though, and then file an extradition request to the US which you then have to fight.

The US doesn't extradite citizens for things that are not a crime in the US.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#773

Post by account42 »

tgv wrote: post #181
ibejoeb wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not exactly. It's like if a brit goes to paris to buy cigarettes, the UK is stating that it's the tabac's job to refuse the transaction. They can say whatever they want, but the UK can't conduct an extra-territorial police action in france. They can bar subject from traveling to france instead. The onus is on the UK.

They're not going to Paris, are they? 4chan brings their services into the UK. The US does the same thing: Kim Dotcom comes to mind.

> They're not going to Paris, are they? 4chan brings their services into the UK.

They don't bring their services to the UK, ISPs and other network operators do - the UK can go after those and force them to implement the Great Firewall of Britain but that would be less popular so they don't yet.

> The US does the same thing: Kim Dotcom comes to mind.

Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi. The UK can try to go after US citizens abroad if they want to but they will quickly find out why that's a bad idea.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#774

Post by account42 »

littlestymaar wrote: post #569
madeofpalk wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about marijunana? It's absurd for the UK government to try and go after a legal California weed store.

If the California stores ships to the UK, you can be certain that they will. And they'd be right to do so as a country has sovereignty over what is allowed or not in their country, not matter the country of origin of the seller.

They have a right to stop the packages at the border. They have no right to go after the stores themselves and more importantly they have no power to do so unless the US helps them, which they would never do over a free speech issue.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#775

Post by account42 »

mikkupikku wrote: post #133
Hamuko wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wouldn't this mean that the Act only applies to services explicitly design/targeting UK users/visitors? Clearly not considering that there's nothing in 4chan that would make it explicitly targeted towards the UK. Unless Ofcom is saying something and doing the opposite.

4chan does have very minor explicit support for UK users; on some boards it puts a UK flag on their post (as it does with all other countries and territories.) It could perhaps be argued that this constitutes the site being consciously designed with UK users in mind. Hardly matters though, there's nothing the UK can do about it. They aren't a superpower anymore and it's time for them to realize it.

4chan should troll the UK by replacing the UK flag with a roman one or another past occupier of their choice.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#776

Post by grayhatter »

NicuCalcea wrote: post #764
grayhatter wrote: post #750

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure they do. When I go to boards.4chan.org, the server recognises my request, including where it's coming from, and returns some content. Similarly, when I buy lemonade from a company, they see my shipping address and ships the lemonade. Seems to me like it maps pretty well. How do you suspect a given IP address maps to a geographical location? Does ofcom supply a list of IP addresses based in the UK? What if it's…

Like I said, Ofcom is satisfied with IP-based geolocation implemented by other services, so those what ifs are not relevant.

If you don't understand exactly what the parameters are, how can you 1) be sure you're doing it correctly, and not still in violation i.e. has ofcom publicly stated they've reviewed it and agree it's acceptable, or have they just moved on while ominously stating they'll be watching? Seems like a needless risk to hope ofcom doesn't decide they did it wrong and demand retroactive fines. 2) defend the action if they do later to continue or change their mind about if any action is enough?

It's a mistake to ignore the problems and realities of some solution, or half solution, caused a legal demand from without a reasonable claim of jurisdiction.

Honestly, It's a wild take to assert that an ip based geoblock that's guaranteed to be buggy is fine or acceptable just because ofcom hasn't figured out how buggy it actually is yet. Just as it is equally insane to suggest that a foreign government should be able to compel, (or willing to demand) some action by anyone.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#777

Post by account42 »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #399
ninalanyon wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is not possible to censor the internet when VPNs are freely available. The obvious next step is to ban VPNs too or to block connections to their servers.

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…

The obvious solution to crimes that are hard to enforce is to up the penalties until the deterrence effect is sufficient to stop most people.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#778

Post by grayhatter »

NicuCalcea wrote: post #765
grayhatter wrote: post #663

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But if you're shipping lemonade to the UK, you are subject to UK lemonade regulations. I was with you up until here. Shipping to a physical address, where if you don't specify the country name, it won't arrive. Is very different than shipping to an Internet address, which has no "reasonable" connection to a physical location. > Your choice are: follow UK regulations [give up the core gimmick of your entire site]; s…

> But I don't think it's reasonable to defend them as if these actions aren't egregious I'm not defending the Online Safety Act, I think it's a horrible and stupid law. On the other hand, I will defend GDPR, which uses a similar legal framework of enforcement. My argument is that the UK is within its rights to implement and enforce laws as they see fit, not that the laws are good.

> My argument is that the UK is within its rights to implement and enforce laws as they see fit, not that the laws are good.

The argument you are making, is that the laws, and the behavior they're enabling is reasonable.

That may not what you meant to convey, but to abuse an analogy, it is fruit from the poisoned tree. You can't defend some action, without by proxy defending the source. Either the law is reasonable, and ofcom is acting reasonably, or the law is unreasonable, and ofcom is acting unreasonably trying to enforce it. Correct or not, or technically legal in the UK or not.

You can defend the actions of ofcom, as not illegal, but that's not what you're doing, and not the context of this thread.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#779

Post by account42 »

ares623 wrote: post #529
exoverito wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Psychologically perhaps, but to say physically addictive is not precise. The government in general has been becoming increasingly authoritarian and centralized far before social media, see the abuses of the CIA and MK ULTRA, Operation Mockingbird, COINTELPRO, the War on Terror. You use the term neonazi, yet I hope you're honest enough to recognize the left also has dark authoritarian impulses. It was only a few years…

How is nicotine different from dopamine? Both are addictive chemistry. One comes in little sticks, the other comes in a black glass and metal slab.

I have yet to hear of someone being physically ill from dopamine withdrawal.

Plus, there is plenty of dopamine (or other brain juice) to be had from more healthy activities.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#780

Post by NicuCalcea »

grayhatter wrote: post #778
NicuCalcea wrote: post #765

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But I don't think it's reasonable to defend them as if these actions aren't egregious I'm not defending the Online Safety Act, I think it's a horrible and stupid law. On the other hand, I will defend GDPR, which uses a similar legal framework of enforcement. My argument is that the UK is within its rights to implement and enforce laws as they see fit, not that the laws are good.

> My argument is that the UK is within its rights to implement and enforce laws as they see fit, not that the laws are good. The argument you are making, is that the laws, and the behavior they're enabling is reasonable. That may not what you meant to convey, but to abuse an analogy, it is fruit from the poisoned tree. You can't defend some action, without by proxy defending the source. Either the law is reasonable,…

> The argument you are making, is that the laws, and the behavior they're enabling is reasonable.

I am doing no such thing.

Post reply on HN