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

81–90 of 817 posts

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#81

Post by littlestymaar »

jojobas wrote: post #67
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…

The concern is they decide a site non-compliant, can't do shit about it in absence of British presence, then go after Britons accessing the site. Kiwifarms stopped serving UK IPs, not because of fear of enforcement but rather because they don't anyone British jailed. The UK landing page straight up says 'use Tor'.

> Kiwifarms stopped serving UK IPs, not because of fear of enforcement

That's exactly what anyone wanting to save face would say though.

> they don't anyone British jailed. The UK landing page straight up says 'use Tor'.

There's a contradiction here: if you want to protect British citizens from being jailed for accessing a website then you should tell them not to use your website, not “use an alternative way to connect", because that will still get people to jail if they get caught by other means (I don't think you can, in fact be jailed for accessing a website in the UK in the first place).

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#82

Post by littlestymaar »

mnmalst wrote: post #72
MaKey wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Technical cookies don't require any consent so every time you see a cookie banner the website owner wants to gather more data about you than necessary. Furthermore, these rules don't require cookie banners, it's what the industry has chosen as the way to get consent to track their…

Or the website owner doesn't want to take the risk and ads a banner even if the site strictly doesn't need one.

There's no risk, they know what they are doing because the law doesn't just mandate the banner, it mandates you to know which third party service you're sharing the data to.

Check the banner next time, you'll see how many “partners” they do sell your data to.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#83

Post by littlestymaar »

jojobas wrote: post #77
LordN00b wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is plenty of precedence for this, and I am about to fudge a bunch of details. The basic point is that the United Kingdom can make any law it sees fit to any place or person. Even though it may only exercise punitive issues once they arrival inside the physical jurisdiction. So the example I was taught, the UK can pass a law banning smoking in Paris, but may not arrest/fine until such criminal trespassers get of…

This case is more like UK bans selling cigarettes and tries going after a Parisian tobacconist.

Which doesn't sounds so absurd if you replace “tobacco” with “cocaine” and “Parisian” with “Colombian”.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#84

Post by cdfsdsadsa »

probably_wrong wrote: post #47
cdfsdsadsa wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW I agree with the intent of the Act, and am generally in favour of a sovereign firewall. Edit: In a nutshell - almost every other transfer of goods and services across national borders is subject to quality standards. Why do we give a pass to a system that allows deep, individualised access to people's personal lives and mental processes?

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…

>I don't want the government to decide which thoughts I can access and which ones I can't

That would be an interesting discussion in itself, but even so - accessing material in isolation over the internet removes all of the benefits of cultural and community self-regulation.

>freely run undercover propaganda and/or destabilization campaigns

I'm of the opinion that WWW3 has already happened - it was a war for hearts and minds waged over the internet, and we've already lost.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#85

Post by npteljes »

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.

No, that legislation is perfectly fine! It's the pesky websites who can't get their grubby hands off of private data. They could very well do away with some of the tracking, and have no popup at all, fully legally! But they all chose not to, and would rather annoy everyone with the pop-up.

I'd welcome a ramp-up of the legislation: outlaw the kind of tracking that needs the banners currently outright. I'm sure a lot of websites would just geo-block EU as a result (like how some did because of GDPR), but I bet the EU-compliant visitor tracking solutions would suddenly skyrocket, and overall, nothing of value would be lost, neither for the users, nor for the website administrators.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#87

Post by jojobas »

beardyw wrote: post #79
jojobas wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This case is more like UK bans selling cigarettes and tries going after a Parisian tobacconist.

Yes if the Parisian tabaconist sells in the UK. What happens in France is a French concern.

No, more like the Parisian tobacconist had the audacity to sell tobacco to some Brits without asking Ofcom.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#88

Post by silexia »

Some people see this as comedic, but government bureaucrats and politicians have always had a sucking desire for control over our lives. They will keep pushing until all of us are in strait jackets living in a nightmare.

We must resist and do everything we can to shrink government power and grow our personal rights and freedoms.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#89

Post by jojobas »

littlestymaar wrote: post #81
jojobas wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The concern is they decide a site non-compliant, can't do shit about it in absence of British presence, then go after Britons accessing the site. Kiwifarms stopped serving UK IPs, not because of fear of enforcement but rather because they don't anyone British jailed. The UK landing page straight up says 'use Tor'.

> Kiwifarms stopped serving UK IPs, not because of fear of enforcement That's exactly what anyone wanting to save face would say though. > they don't anyone British jailed. The UK landing page straight up says 'use Tor'. There's a contradiction here: if you want to protect British citizens from being jailed for accessing a website then you should tell them not to use your website, not “use an alternative way to conne…

[dead]

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#90

Post by crtasm »

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.

Install uBlock. In its settings: Filter Lists -> Cookie notices
Post reply on HN