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

871–880 of 936 posts

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

#871

Post by remus »

miohtama wrote: post #608
heavyset_go wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are the "duties" Ofcom is demanding of site owners and operators: - to conduct a suitable and sufficient illegal content risk assessment; - to use proportionate measures to prevent individuals encountering priority illegal content; - to use proportionate systems and processes to minimise the length of time priority illegal content is present; - to swiftly take down illegal content when it becomes aware of it; -…

Guess how one gets "a suitable and sufficient illegal content risk assessment"? You need to buy it from compliance companies which lobbied for the law in the UK, run by ex regulators. https://x.com/moo9000/status/1950866445186818209?s=20

> Guess how one gets "a suitable and sufficient illegal content risk assessment"?

This stuff is not magic, you can just do it yourself.

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

#872

Post by remus »

observationist wrote: post #318
15155 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ofcom really thinks that their laws apply globally. The cries of a long-since-dead empire slowly fading into geopolitical irrelevance.

Not so slowly. They've gone from a more or less respectable smaller country to more or less politically, culturally, and economically irrelevant in less than 10 years. I even question whether it's rational to allow them to have nukes; they should probably be required to give them up to some country that has a shot at remaining a stable and predictable geopolitical entity over the next century.

> economically irrelevant in less than 10 years

The UK has the 6th highest GDP in the world. Pretty high bar if that make you economically irrelevant.

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

#873

Post by chrisjj »

poizan42 wrote: post #859
chrisjj wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the leadership is banned from entering the UK for the foreseeable future Not at all. But if they do enter, they might find difficulty leaving.

They haven't pierced the corporate veil as far as I can tell - it's not moot or any other executives that have been personally fined. Also as far as I'm aware the UK doesn't have debtors jail.

On the contrary. Online Safety Act breaches can carry personal liability and up to 2yrs jail.

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

#874

Post by andrewflnr »

ta9000 wrote: post #446
gerdesj wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China's wot?

> Totalitarianism aside, I'm not sure about the stability either. Personally I suspect Xi Jinping's reign will end with some kind of bang, either an economic one or something relating to That’s a pretty big aside.

Not sure why you replied over here, but yeah, it sure is. Just trying to be clear about separating the moral judgement from the prediction.

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

#875

Post by andrewflnr »

kelvinjps10 wrote: post #541
matheusmoreira wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

North Korea is still standing and even got Trump to play diplomacy. Only reason Iran got attacked is the fact they didn't have nukes yet . Venezuela showed everyone what happens when you're a toothless country. USA shows up at your door uninvited, fucks your shit up, takes your oil and kidnaps your president for good measure, just to tack on some extra humiliation. Don't get me wrong, Maduro deserved an even worse fa…

As Venezuelan nothing angers me more than someone naming Maduro as our president, and that in some way I should feel bad about it. The guy and his government were pure evil.

No one should feel bad for Maduro, but the reasons Maduro was evil had very little to do with the actual reasons the US grabbed him. Trump's motives were pure greed, and that's a terrifying reason for kidnapping a foreign head of state. And at least as far as I've seen, it didn't even help. Literally every other part of his regime is still in place isn't it?

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

#876

Post by ronsor »

bcjdjsndon wrote: post #775
ronsor wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Hollywood is mad, but piracy sites are still up and unblocked. Book publishers are mad, but Anna's Archive persists on CCTLDs. The US by and large doesn't censor websites even if the content is illegal in the US. They'll get a warrant and seize servers or domains if it's in the country, or maybe poke international law enforcement for cooperation, but it doesn't really extend beyond that.

Short memory then. Megaupload was censored by way of seizure. Exactly what you said doesn't happen in the us

I literally said "They'll get a warrant and seize servers or domains."

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

#877

Post by tremon »

remus wrote: post #872
observationist wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not so slowly. They've gone from a more or less respectable smaller country to more or less politically, culturally, and economically irrelevant in less than 10 years. I even question whether it's rational to allow them to have nukes; they should probably be required to give them up to some country that has a shot at remaining a stable and predictable geopolitical entity over the next century.

> economically irrelevant in less than 10 years The UK has the 6th highest GDP in the world. Pretty high bar if that make you economically irrelevant.

That's mostly because of London's financial center, where a lot of foreign money is laundered; the city's GDP is comparable in size with small EU countries like Belgium or Ireland. If you take London out of the equation, what's left has an average GDP of only 30k per capita [0].

A quick comparison with [1] (using 1 GBP ~ 1.30 USD) shows that London would rank #8 in Europe (between Denmark and Norway), while the rest of the UK would come in somewhere around #25, between Spain and Italy.

[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1168072/uk-gdp-per-head-...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Eu...

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

#878

Post by senordevnyc »

epolanski wrote: post #735
senordevnyc wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I run a site in the US and have zero intention of implementing GDPR or geoblocking anyone. If the feckless EU bureaucrats don’t want me serving Europeans, they can either block me or convince their citizens to stop requesting things from my servers. Beyond that, they can fuck off.

It doesn't work like that. If my services are available in US, I need to comply with US laws as well.

You can declare that “it doesn’t work like this” all you want, and I’ll just keep ignoring it. GDPR is totally irrelevant to me, and no one who disagrees has the power to actually do anything about it.

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

#879

Post by senordevnyc »

pelorat wrote: post #623
senordevnyc wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I run a site in the US and have zero intention of implementing GDPR or geoblocking anyone. If the feckless EU bureaucrats don’t want me serving Europeans, they can either block me or convince their citizens to stop requesting things from my servers. Beyond that, they can fuck off.

This is of course fine, if you intend to never travel internationally. Not defending any one, Ofcom is terrible just like 4chan.

I travel internationally all the time, including to Europe. These clowns don’t even have the ability to connect me to my site. They can’t subpoena anyone, they have no control or visibility. Why does anyone outside of the EU give a shit about this? It baffles me.

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

#880

Post by egorfine »

Spivak wrote: post #830
egorfine wrote: post #783

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I suppose inability for you to sell and inability for customers to buy are technically different but the end result ends up being the same. If you need to access that market then they have leverage over you to force compliance with their laws.

I'm not sure Libya has any solution to prevent their citizens from purchasing my services. Blocking access to my site, sure. But preventing citizens from using my service is going to be much, much harder.

So, no.

Post reply on HN