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

IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

prestonbyrne.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 418 posts

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#91

Post by 13415 »

crazydoggers wrote: post #65
morkalork wrote: post #8

Interesting that it's the existence of the suicide discussion forum that's too much to bare for the UK. Really drives home the point that in the state's eyes: your self, your body and ultimately your life, don't belong to you.

Is it not possible that there is concern for individuals well beings in the midst of a mental health crisis? It’s one thing to be talking about suicide or assisted suicide because you’ve decided it’s right for you and your situation. It’s another to be dealing with depression from trauma, unable to get help and have no support system, and then be coerced by individuals on forums with ulterior motives. I’m not saying…

I doubt Ofcom are motivated by "concern for individuals well beings in the midst of a mental health crisis", but even then, it is clear in the context of the current discussion that they should be concerned with enforcing their legislation in their own country. The UK is free to build The Great Firewall of the United Kingdom and block half of the internet if their concern is so great.

What they cannot be allowed to do is tell organizations in other jurisdictions that they now suddenly fall under UK jurisdiction.

There are 195 countries in the world. If all of them followed a policy like UK's Ofcom, the internet would be gone in no time and world-wide user-to-user communication would become impossible for legal reasons. It's obviously not a sane position.

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#92

Post by gpm »

landl0rd wrote: post #86
mlhpdx wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t agree that choosing to host a website without limiting the audience is innocent. It’s a choice, and has been the default for a long time, but it means one has chosen to speak outside the borders of their own country and that comes with rules, like them or not.

No, one has chosen to make something available for contact within one country. One is not actively himself reaching across borders to do so. One cannot reasonably be required to take any affirmative action to fulfill the whims of a foreign government. Also, Britain isn't important enough to make this stick against e.g. an American. If someone writes me a letter asking a question about material that is prohibited in h…

What is having your web server send IP packets with an IP address addressed to an overseas address to your ISP who you have signed a contract with to have them deliver those packets to the designated address if not actively reaching across borders?

That's what happens when you respond to a request after all. (Up to very minor nits, e.g. you might be paying a cloud provider instead of an ISP).

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#93

Post by HotGarbage »

mlhpdx wrote: post #81
Hizonner wrote: post #55

You shouldn't even be expected to geoblock. If I'm operating a Web site in country A, I should not have to care about country B's laws unless I am taking specific action intended to attract users in country B in particular . That's doesn't mean just to target the whole world, either. If you don't want your citizens to access something in another country, take it up with your citizens. It was obvious from the minute t…

I don’t agree that choosing to host a website without limiting the audience is innocent. It’s a choice, and has been the default for a long time, but it means one has chosen to speak outside the borders of their own country and that comes with rules, like them or not.

Yeah, nah, the internet is pull not push. If a citizen of country A seeks material from country B that's legal in B but illegal in A that's on them.

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#94

Post by ranger_danger »

jacquesm wrote: post #54
ranger_danger wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a source for the USA pressuring VISA and MC?

[flagged]

> Is google down again? Damn. Sorry man, I'd try again in a couple of hours.

"The burden of proof lies upon the person making empirically unfalsifiable claims."

Beyond that, I find your comment to be extremely rude and condescending, and a violation of this site's guidelines.

Science says being generous, thoughtful and kind is a sign of high intelligence, so let's all try to be nicer.

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#95

Post by gethly »

Sounds like UK problem to me. No one can be expected to know or abide laws of another country. In person or in the digital realm. If UK has some laws, then UK citizens should abide them, not the rest of the world. In other words, say betting is illegal in UK and I as a UK citizen go and make a bet via website that is run by a business in Panama. The Panamanian company should not concern itself with anything but rather it is me whom is breaking the law.

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#96

Post by argsnd »

3rodents wrote: post #38
garaetjjte wrote: post #13

He seems very confused about what First Amendment is about. How it would be even possible for UK government to violate it?

That’s because he’s barely a lawyer. He’s a blogger with a legal education. His legal practice is pro bono because nobody would pay for him to LARP as someone with credibility on the subject of free speech. Edit: I appreciate the down votes but research him, he has never participated in a real case. He is not a practicing lawyer by any real measure.

This seems to be correct from about 5 minutes of research.

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#97

Post by Hizonner »

mlhpdx wrote: post #81
Hizonner wrote: post #55

You shouldn't even be expected to geoblock. If I'm operating a Web site in country A, I should not have to care about country B's laws unless I am taking specific action intended to attract users in country B in particular . That's doesn't mean just to target the whole world, either. If you don't want your citizens to access something in another country, take it up with your citizens. It was obvious from the minute t…

I don’t agree that choosing to host a website without limiting the audience is innocent. It’s a choice, and has been the default for a long time, but it means one has chosen to speak outside the borders of their own country and that comes with rules, like them or not.

> I don’t agree that choosing to host a website without limiting the audience is innocent.

"Innocent"? That's a strange word to choose. Who cares what's "innocent"?

> It’s a choice, and has been the default for a long time, but it means one has chosen to speak outside the borders of their own country and that comes with rules, like them or not.

... or it means one has chosen to speak inside the borders of their country, and people outside those borders have chosen to import that speech. Web sites don't lob speech at you willy-nilly.

The bottom line is that that standard is impractical to implement, illiberal in its effects, and just generally a bad idea. For that matter, it's also at odds with most of the ways the world treats trade in physical goods.

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#98

Post by landl0rd »

gpm wrote: post #92
landl0rd wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, one has chosen to make something available for contact within one country. One is not actively himself reaching across borders to do so. One cannot reasonably be required to take any affirmative action to fulfill the whims of a foreign government. Also, Britain isn't important enough to make this stick against e.g. an American. If someone writes me a letter asking a question about material that is prohibited in h…

What is having your web server send IP packets with an IP address addressed to an overseas address to your ISP who you have signed a contract with to have them deliver those packets to the designated address if not actively reaching across borders? That's what happens when you respond to a request after all. (Up to very minor nits, e.g. you might be paying a cloud provider instead of an ISP).

It is a reply. I am not responsible for checking the locality of an IP address. Indeed, I can never do so with one hundred per cent accuracy. It is Not My Problem.

Governments that expect some content or other blocked can damn well do it themselves, in their own legal system. They cannot compel someone else to spend his time, talent, or treasure to enforce their petty rules.

If they go after one of their own for requesting something from me, whatever. If they block me, whatever. I suppose they're within their rights to do that.

The federal government "deputizing" or trying to chill private actors out of speech, out of doing business, etc. is a violation of Americans' first amendment rights; so held SCOTUS last year. No way in h--- are we letting some tinpot foreigner do so.

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#99

Post by rootusrootus »

bbor wrote: post #36

So the story behind the title is that the UK gov claims that the IP block wasn't working? And the author agrees that IP blocks can't really work, even? Separate from the free speech debate, the international law part of this seems pretty cut and dry. Here's the bolded parts: So, it appears, as with 4chan, Ofcom has elected to proceed with a mock execution... Ofcom is trying to set the precedent that... you have to fo…

> I don't understand what legal principle it would be violating?

Jurisdiction? Don't you first have to commit the crime in the jurisdiction in question?

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#100

Post by HotGarbage »

mrlonglong wrote: post #85

I don't understand this. You're perfectly free to run these websites from the US. We just exercise our right to block these at our UK shores. Where's the problem?

They're not blocking them, they're actively seeking fines, even after the site takes it upon themselves to block the UK.
Post reply on HN