Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

781–790 of 936 posts

Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

#781

Post by ilovecake1984 »

fluoridation wrote: post #312
giobox wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree it seems absurd, this is how the UK's unwritten constitution works - the UK Parliament is not restricted to legislating just for the territory of the UK. Of course it can only realistically enforce within UK borders, but it can pass whatever legislation it wishes. There is a famous quote regarding this nature of British parliamentary sovereignty that is taught to every law student in the UK: "If Parliam…

Doesn't it ridicule its own agencies to allow them to go after entities that they have no hope of policing? It's such an impotent gesture to do this.

No, because it’s a step in a process.

Next steps would be blocking the site uk wide.

We will likely see a future where uk puts out interpol notices on the individuals involved.

If they enter a country with extradition agreements they will get extradited.

Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

#782

Post by ilovecake1984 »

okanat wrote: post #62
ecshafer wrote: post #39

UK fining an American company for this is absurd. 4Chan isn't breaking any laws. You can make it illegal for your own citizens but you can't regulate a foreign business. UK citizens should fight for the right to free speech though.

This is false. You of course can regulate and fine a foreign business. That's how trade regulations work. The UK isn't going to get a cent from that but the leadership is banned from entering the UK for the foreseeable future. Doing this a lot as a country is how you achieve pariah status and losing a bunch of trade, though.

Not really. Nowhere else in the world is free speech absolutist.

US is extremist and out of step with the civilised world.

Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

#783

Post by egorfine »

Spivak wrote: post #779
egorfine wrote: post #758

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's obvious US laws would apply if you're serving US customers So any customer from Libya makes it customary for my female co-workers to wear hijab at the workplace, right? Same logic. No. A customer who voluntarily purchases services from a company in a different jurisdiction does NOT automatically makes this company subject to his specific jurisdiction.

She does if you want to keep doing business there. That's the stick that's available. Either you follow their laws despite not being in their jurisdiction or you can't sell to customers in Libya. I don't like it same as you because it makes doing business on the internet complicated but it's how it works in practice.

> you can't sell to customers in Libya

Why though? Libya has no jurisdiction over my business in the EU. I place no restrictions on who can purchase a subscription on my SaaS. I certainly can sell to customers in Libya.

All Libya can do is ban my business, but they can only implement that ban within their own sovereign borders.

Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

#784

Post by ilovecake1984 »

hunterpayne wrote: post #521
epolanski wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can make it illegal for your own citizens but you can't regulate a foreign business The us does that regularly. There's thousands of companies that cannot do business with entities from countries like China or they can face criminal charges in US. A former company I had as a client, EU based SaaS faced this.

But to be clear, those businesses wanted to make money from the US market. In the case of 4chan, they don't make money from the UK. Somehow, this important distinction keeps getting ignored. You want to sell in the UK market, you have to follow their rules. Same with the US. Somehow the British government doesn't seem to understand this.

Money has nothing to do with it, other than practicalities.

Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

#787

Post by jopsen »

pwdisswordfishy wrote: post #568
EmbarrassedHelp wrote: post #184

Ofcom is currently threatening a Canadian forum that exists to help people with depression. Ofcom claims that geoblocking blocking the UK is "insufficient": > I've also gone back to Ofcom explicitly telling them the UK was now geoblocked (twice now) and I received a response that this was insufficient. Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/1rk690v/i_ru... Ofcom really thinks that their laws apply gl…

> Ofcom really thinks that their laws apply globally. How silly of them. Obviously, only the US jurisdiction can do that.

Well, someone operating a business refusing to pay fines in the UK might want to avoid traveling to the UK.

Not a big loss, but something to keep in mind. There is a risk the UK has long memory.

Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

#788

Post by ilovecake1984 »

bpodgursky wrote: post #6

It does seem like if the UK wants to do content filtration (blocking noncompliant websites) they will need to own up to it and set up a China-style firewall, rather than hoping they can badger the service providers into doing it for them.

That’s the idea. This is step one.

Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

#789

Post by ilovecake1984 »

stackedinserter wrote: post #512

It's insane how many people here on HN defend these bs fines. Prepare to follow Russia's laws if you normalize this.

Yeah because you can’t pick a moral middle found between two vile extremist states like the Us and Russia.

Clowns

Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

#790

Post by IshKebab »

strken wrote: post #364
IshKebab wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not actually how TCP/IP works though.

Can you elaborate? The metaphor is a good description of how a VPN works, if not plain old TCP/IP.

IP packets have the source address in them so you can directly reply. It's not hierarchical.
Post reply on HN