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

791–800 of 817 posts

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#791

Post by account42 »

reorder9695 wrote: post #187
aveao wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that seems like an issue with the website owner to me

A lot of websites for smaller businesses will not be run by technical people, they'll be run by business people or otherwise who don't understand cookies beyond "I see cookie banners on every website I visit, therefore to avoid legal trouble I need one too", you can't expect someone like that to understand the difference between tracking cookies and technical cookies.

Ah yes of course. How could I forget about poor Mom & Pop Co. and their 186 business partners that they want to share my personal data with. Surely we can't expect such a small operation to know what they are doing.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#792

Post by account42 »

user34283 wrote: post #198
smilingsun wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very easy to make websites without needing cookie popups in EU/UK. Every cookie popup is a reminder of how stale the thinking around tracking and data sharing is!

If you do not use personalized advertising, I presume. Which may drop your ad revenue by somewhere between 20% and 60%.

You could also drop the ads completely and choose an honest business model instead.

Until then I will shed no tears about your slightly lowered effectiveness at manipulating people into acting against their own best interests.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#793

Post by account42 »

hunterpayne wrote: post #449
mrguyorama wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The funniest part of the banners is that most websites just buy a service from a third party to manage compliance, and some of those third party service providers have added "decline all" style buttons and one click solutions to all that use them, and are even friendly enough to save that choice in one of the "necessary" cookies. But people (like my girlfriend) still click "Allow all" because they don't seem to reali…

Oh, its funnier than that. The most sophisticated data trackers don't even use cookies anymore. Anyone you would have to worry about getting that data hasn't used cookies in years. So the entire exercise punishes small companies that don't do anything with the data except pre-populate fields for you. But big tech companies that the law was targeting don't have to change a thing.

"Cookie banners" and the GDPR aren't just about cookies - they apply to all forms of tracking.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#794

Post by account42 »

uyzstvqs wrote: post #548
epanchin wrote: post #11

Is there a solution where we can compel parental control to be enabled by default on kids phones? That would seem to be least intrusive option. Using the internet in the UK/EU is such a horrible experience, every cookie pop-up is a reminder how badly thought out these rules are.

The simplest solution is to require all online devices to have a "child mode" that can be activated during setup, and require all parents to enable this for minors under 16. In this mode, the device takes screenshots every few seconds of active use, and makes this viewable on the parents' devices as a timeline. This must be private with full end-to-end encryption and limited data retention in the clients (7 days or s…

Yes, let's get kids used to surveillance from a young age. What could possibly go wrong.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#795

Post by account42 »

GardenLetter27 wrote: post #50
epanchin wrote: post #11

Is there a solution where we can compel parental control to be enabled by default on kids phones? That would seem to be least intrusive option. Using the internet in the UK/EU is such a horrible experience, every cookie pop-up is a reminder how badly thought out these rules are.

The cookie popups is such a painful representation of Europe tech in general. Like you can configure your browser to do whatever you want with cookies - blocking them all, blocking only third party ones, etc. - there is no need for government regulation here. But the legislators are completely tech illiterate and even the general public supports more interference and regulation.

The only ones who are tech illiterate are the ones still repeating this nonsense in 2025.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#796

Post by account42 »

jjangkke wrote: post #317
arresin wrote: post #101

Oi, ‘av you got yer internet loisence?

Jokes aside, what on earth is going on with the UK? It seems to have serious demographic issues and actual ethnic English are understandably angry at having been largely vilified as Nazis and far-right for wanting to protect their heritage and identity. To reach into draconian surveillance and censorship to quell its own natives of the land who has lived there for thousands of years at the behest of those that have a…

It's not just the UK really, they are just a bit further ahead than the rest of the western world.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#797

Post by account42 »

energy123 wrote: post #128
probably_wrong wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right now you're downvoted for expressing an opinion that I believe deserves a deeper discussion. I don't want the government to decide which thoughts I can access and which ones I can't, but I also understand that allowing a foreign power (let's say Russia, although "the US" works just as fine) to freely run undercover propaganda and/or destabilization campaigns without any recourse doesn't look good either. And whi…

Something needs to be done. The outcomes are manifestly bad. I can't take the pro-freedom intellectual argument seriously unless it's coupled with a suite of pragmatic solutions to the negative side effects I am observing with my own senses. The intellectual walls of text just aren't papering over that reality.

> Something needs to be done.

This is about the worst attitude you can have in politics.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#798

Post by piltdownman »

kijin wrote: post #720
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #691

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If diverting planes becomes a big enough problem for ordinary businesspeople and not just prominent opponents of certain dictators, I'm sure someone will build an app that helps us plan flights accordingly. Traveling from the US to France and need to avoid UK airspace? Sure, let's take a quick layover in Spain. Have you done any of the following things in the last x years? OK, we'll make a big detour around China t…

> They already do stuff like this. Who? I can't think of a single case other than Ryanair 4978, a plane that was carrying a Belarusian opposition activist over Belarusian airspace. Not saying this was justified in any way, but even Belarus didn't dare to touch any foreign passengers. If you're aware of any actual case of a first-world airliner from country A being forced to land in country B to have a citizen of coun…

Since we don't use cold-war classifications like 'first-world' anymore, I'll refer simply to National Airlines with long-established US and European route access from country A being forced to land in country B to have a citizen of country C arrested.

This excludes the (arguably contentious) incidents like:

- 1954 in Israel where forced a Syrian passenger plane to land in order to gain hostages which it then hoped to exchange for captured Israeli soldiers. - 2012 in Turkey grounded a Syrian plane in 2012 in order to detain and transfer a suspect to the US. - 2016 in Ukraine grounded a plane with military jets to have a citizen of country C arrested

Leaving the following three exemplars:

Egyptair Flight 2843 - EgyptAir forced to land at a NATO base in Italy in the 80s by US fighter jets due to PLO members onboard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achille_Lauro_hijacking#Interc...

Aeromexico Flight 006 - The US diverted a France-Mexico flight to Canada in order to detain and transfer a suspect to the US https://www.cbsnews.com/news/aeromexico-flight-diverted-pass...

Bolivian president's jet - Bolivian president's jet rerouted amid suspicions Edward Snowden on board with France and Portugal accused of refusing entry to their airspace, with plane forced to Land in Vienna due to pressure of US State Department https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/03/edward-snowden...

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#799

Post by piltdownman »

delfinom wrote: post #380
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…

>As an American business, you can choose to ignore that, but that has consequences if any of your board of directors ever sets foot in the UK. The board of directors for a private company is generally secret in the US. Only the "manager" aka president/CEO/whoever at the top is generally named publicly, as well as legal agent.

Add in the list of Directors and Consultants from the Big 4 who are ex-servicemen with various TOP-SECRET clearances and/or working for the Military-Industrial complex. If the US wants to stop that, then the opposing nation has very little to say in the matter unless they're a Superpower.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...

Same can be said for extra-territorial arrests and extraordinary rendition when suitably large Corporate entities like the MPAA are involved. Non-violent Internet copyright infringement charge brought by the United States, even when its not a crime in the country of origin, is enough to bring the hammer down

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom#Extradition

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#800

Post by wtcactus »

account42 wrote: post #787
wtcactus wrote: post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Britain is ruled by a far left government.

Left and right doesn't really matter - all western politicians do what benefits the rich at the expense of everyone else. If they didn't they wouldn't even make it on the poll.

Correction. They benefit everyone else at the expense of the middle class.

They might benefit the rich, but they also benefit the lower classes very much as those are the ones they need to vote for them.

And they take all that from the middle class that had to pay for mostly everything for mostly everyone.

Post reply on HN