[HN Gopher] Your compliance obligations under the UK's Online Sa... ___________________________________________________________________ Your compliance obligations under the UK's Online Safety Bill Author : Arkanum Score : 465 points Date : 2022-07-11 13:19 UTC (9 hours ago) (HTM) web link (webdevlaw.uk) (TXT) w3m dump (webdevlaw.uk) | dan-robertson wrote: | I found the comparisons to the EU privacy regulations a bit | annoying. I think the article would be stronger without them. I | think they give too rosy an impression of the EU regulations | (which can also be bad or burdensome) and that makes me think the | U.K. regulations are less bad (rather than that they are so bad | they make the EU regulations look good, I suppose). | IshKebab wrote: | > As with the previous post, this is tremendously long: 4100 | words. There's really no way to make it shorter. | | There definitely is. | TheMagicHorsey wrote: | I like how the English write. Maybe it's because it was | originally their language and so they teach it well in their | schools. | | As an American, I rarely see young people able to write like this | anymore. | | On the topic: are they trying to kill their startups? Because | this is how you drive startups out of the UK. | [deleted] | groffee wrote: | > Or it would have, if the nine MPs across three parties who were | scheduled to attend actually showed up. Only one did. | | Everything else aside, if MPs don't show up for a scheduled | meeting they should just be sacked. | | How many of us can just blow off meetings like that with no | consequence? | Beltalowda wrote: | It should be noted this meeting was in the middle of a | political crisis where half the government had resigned. I | don't know who those MPs were or what they were doing, but I'm | betting they suddenly found themselves overloaded with this | crisis and this meeting fell through. It's not that uncommon | for something like this to happen. I'm not saying it's great | this happened, but it happens - MPs are humans too. | | I wouldn't be so quick to judge in this case. I think the | extremely high expectations and little room for error ("they | should just be sacked") is part of the problem. If you bollock | a child every time they do something slightly wrong they will | learn to lie and hide things very quickly. | TillE wrote: | It just underlines what should be fairly obvious: that such | official meetings are not how things are actually decided in | representative democracies. | | I mean that's even more explicit in a parliamentary system, | where members are nearly always expected to vote the party line | or face consequences. | mellavora wrote: | > I mean that's even more explicit in a parliamentary system, | where members are nearly always expected to vote the party | line or face consequences. | | yes, that is a feature (not a bug) of a parliamentary system. | A complementary feature is that parliamentary systems tend to | have representational seat distribution. So a party that wins | 35% of the vote gets 35% of the seats. And those seats are | expected to vote as a block unless there is an extreme | question of conscience. | | You could contrast with for example the US system, where the | original intent was that the senators/representatives would | represent their state, not the party. Worked well for a | while. Now, however, they also follow party line or face | consequences. But there are realistically only two parties, | and the the "first past the post" system locks us into 2 | parties. | Beltalowda wrote: | > You could contrast with for example the US system, where | the original intent was that the senators/representatives | would represent their state, not the party. Worked well for | a while. | | That was (and to a degree, still is) also the intent in the | British system: you would primarily represent your | constituency, not your party. This is why you have | constituency surgeries where you meet your constituents, | maybe address some concerns, etc. which are similar to the | "town hall meetings" you have in the US. The US essentially | copied the British system. | | I don't know how well it worked in the past as I'm not that | familiar with the history; in HMS Pinafore there's already | a joke about it ("I always voted at my party's core and | never thought of thinking for myself at all"[1]) which is | from 1880 or thereabouts, so I'm guessing not very well | _shrug_ | | It's natural for like-minded people with similar ideas to | gravitate towards each other and form political parties for | strategic and social reasons. In the US the founding | fathers set up the system to work without parties, only to | found the first political parties themselves a few years | later, so that idea broke down pretty quickly. | | [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCBxI9yKLgw | cronix wrote: | > So a party that wins 35% of the vote gets 35% of the | seats. And those seats are expected to vote as a block | unless there is an extreme question of conscience. | | Yes, essentially we can just keep the main leaders of each | party and assign them everyone's votes from their | respective parties (35% in your example) that "won" and get | rid of everyone else and end up with the exact same | outcome, except orders of magnitude cheaper and more | expedient. If you're a member of x party and x party won, | why are you actually needed if you're not the leader? Your | salary, benefits, retirement and as well as every single | person on your staff are all a waste at that point, because | you're going to vote for x's position, which is decided by | the leadership. | pjc50 wrote: | > A complementary feature is that parliamentary systems | tend to have representational seat distribution. So a party | that wins 35% of the vote gets 35% of the seats. | | lolnope, this is a FPTP country. | | The last election, the Conservatives got 43.6% of the vote | and 57% of the seats. | | Even more extreme, although overall irrelevant, the SNP got | 45% of the popular vote in Scotland, resulting in _48 out | of 59 seats_ won in Scotland. | raverbashing wrote: | > And those seats are expected to vote as a block unless | there is an extreme question of conscience. | | Actually no. It depends on the "whip" guidance (in the UK) | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whip_(politics)#Instructions | mcintyre1994 wrote: | > yes, that is a feature (not a bug) of a parliamentary | system. A complementary feature is that parliamentary | systems tend to have representational seat distribution. So | a party that wins 35% of the vote gets 35% of the seats. | | Important context since this is about the UK: we don't have | a representation seat distribution like that, we have first | past the post. In the last election (2019) these are the | results for each party with at least 10 MPs: | | - Conservative Party, 43.6% of votes, 56.2% of seats | (outright majority). | | - Labour Party, 32.1% of votes, 31.1% of seats. | | - Scottish National Party, 3.9% of votes, 7.4% of seats. | The SNP only campaign in Scotland and win most seats there, | which makes them extremely over-represented by FPTP. | | - Liberal Democrats, 11.6% of votes, 1.7% of seats. | Beltalowda wrote: | In 2015 UKIP got 12.6% of the votes, making it the third- | largest party in terms of votes cast by quite some | margin, and they got just one seat. | | In 1983 the Conservatives had 1.5% fewer votes compared | to the previous 1979 election, but ended up with 7.7% | mote seats resulting in the largest majority in decades. | | I think it's a real missed opportunity that the Blair | government didn't change anything when they had a large | majority in the 90s/00s. They said they would, but it | fell by the wayside. The problem is that Labour always | thinks _this time_ it will be different and _this time_ | they will come out on top. And for a while they will, | right up to the point they don 't. | ranko wrote: | > a party that wins 35% of the vote gets 35% of the seats | | At the last general election to the UK parliament (2019), | the Tories won 44% of the votes, and ended up with 56% of | the seats - first past the post strikes again! | dane-pgp wrote: | > parliamentary systems tend to have representational seat | distribution | | > the "first past the post" system locks us into 2 parties. | | What you say is true, but while we're discussing an article | about the UK, it is worth stating, for the avoidance of | doubt, that the UK also uses the First Past The Post | electoral systems (for its national parliament) and | therefore doesn't have a representational seat | distribution. | | Indeed, that may be part of the reason that such an extreme | policy from such an unpopular party is being put forward at | all. (The current government won 43.6% of the vote at the | last general election, with 67.3% turnout, meaning it had | the support of 29.3% of the electorate, but won 56.2% of | the seats). | kodah wrote: | It would be nice if those who didn't vote actually | affected the power of the parties. Not voting is a valid | choice, it says, "All the options you gave me suck. Try | again." Otherwise you run into a system where people | start trying to calculate the delta between two evils and | think we're making progress. | Thiez wrote: | How do you see this work in practice, and wouldn't it | just lead to calculating the deltas between three evils, | the third being abstention? How would this be better than | getting rid of the first-past-the-post system? | | We saw this is the Netherlands a while ago. There was a | referendum about whether there should be closer relations | between the Netherlands and Ukraine, and the options were | "agree" and "disagree", but many people who were in favor | of closer relations chose not to vote at all, hoping that | the referendum would fail to hit the minimum turnout. So | the minimum turnout _was_ hit, and afterwards they were | all whining about it, because they disagreed with the | result, but had intentionally chosen not to vote. | kodah wrote: | Your example isn't quite the same thing. | | More or less, I want my lack of voting to be a signal to | the Democratic party that, "Your vision is out of whack | and does not serve me". Today, when someone doesn't vote | the party and constituents try some mental gymnastics to | put fault on people who don't vote as if they don't care. | sacrosancty wrote: | Vote for an independent. Any one. Just to show you did | bother to vote. If enough people do that, the major | parties will try to win those "stolen" votes back by | offering you what you want. | worldofmatthew wrote: | When this bill passes, I am going to do everything to make my | internet traffic hard to track. Mainly as a FU to this country. | HeckFeck wrote: | I dread to think what this will mean for the free and open | Internet - the source of much mirth, yes, and much dread. But | that's just a reflection of the human condition. It should be | just left be. | | Another case of myopic, joyless stodges ruining what they don't | understand. | | I've paid enough taxes to this worthless, bloated institution | that claims to 'protect my liberties' - is it too late to get a | refund? Don't they owe me something for clear breach of contract? | The 'social contract' isn't what it was when I was born! | cowtools wrote: | Brits don't have freedom of speech AFIK. it was never in their | social contract. | HeckFeck wrote: | We had it through negative liberty, opposed to positive | liberty. The approach was that everything was permitted | except that which is forbidden. | | So, instead of a 'right to' free speech, rather we _would_ | have no laws restricting freedom of speech (libel and | incitement excepted). This was the understanding that | would've permeated Parliament, the courts, the palace, and | the hearts and minds of everyone who understood it. | | More or less, until 1997. | gpt5 wrote: | The constitution's amendments are different from other | laws. Instead of restricting the people, it restricts the | government power. It is there to make it harder for the | government to devolve into a tyrannical one. The historical | context (the US fighting against the monarchy of England | for independence) is why it's there and it explains many of | its regulation (including the right to bear arms, which was | needed in order to fight against England). | | The UK doesn't have it, which makes it a lot less stable, | as seen in 1997 | omginternets wrote: | What happened in 1997? | nickmyersdt wrote: | What happened in 1997? | rikroots wrote: | Probably the Treaty of Amsterdam - one of the EU's more | entertaining reads | | https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/treaty/pdf/amst- | en.pdf | | The UK Human Rights Act landed in 1998. Schedule 1 Part I | Article 10 covers "freedom of expression" | | https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/p | art... | M2Ys4U wrote: | Even prior to the Human Rights Act the UK was bound by | Article 10 of the EChHR, it just wasn't directly | enforceable by UK courts (one first had to exhaust | domestic legal challenges and then bring a case in | Strasbourg at the ECtHR) | HeckFeck wrote: | The onset of Blairism, which accelerated all previous | statist trends with a smiling face and suave media | personality. | | So we ended up with the Communications Act (2003) and its | dreadful Section 127. As well as admission to PRISM, and | making ourselves one of the CCTV capitals of the world. | | And he's still taking aim at freedom from beyond the | grave: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/does-tony- | blair-think-fr... | notahacker wrote: | The Communications Act Section 127 was based on the | existing Malicious Communications Act (1988) passed by | the Thatcher government. And the UK has had plenty of | other speech restrictions like blasphemy laws ( | _abolished_ by Blair) to suspiciously broad offences | against obscenity existing since time immemorial. | | The Online Safety Bill is the brainchild of a | Conservative government, included as a flagship | commitment in a Conservative manifesto aiming to appeal | to conservatively minded voters, a successor | administration to the Conservative government who brought | us the national porn block. Nothing makes it easier for | such legislation to be passed more than revisionist | nonsense about how the wonders of negative liberty meant | we never needed any of the positive protections this law | specifically supersedes and it's all the left's fault | anyway. | pjc50 wrote: | Until the Human Rights Act 1998 established it as a | positive right. | | > _would_ have no laws restricting freedom of speech (libel | and incitement excepted) | | This is optimistic ahistorical nonsense; the UK had a | censorship regime until the Lady Chatterly trial. There has | been intelligence service related censorship as long as | those have existed, as well (see Spycatcher, Zircon). And | let's not get into Northern Ireland. Nobody old enough to | remember "Gerry Adams has his voice read by an actor" would | claim the UK used to be a bastion of pure free speech. | andai wrote: | What happened in 1997? | Sakos wrote: | I assume he means the McLibel case | (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_case). | xdennis wrote: | There's a 84 minute documentary about it: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V58kK4r26yk | Nasrudith wrote: | There is a noisy contingent extremely proud of that fact for | some bizzare reason. I can only hope they are an extreme | minority. | M2Ys4U wrote: | Err... you might want to give the ECHR a read, and in | particular Article 10. | fithisux wrote: | Well said. Breach of social contract. The problem is that | others think it is advantageous to close their mouth. Of course | this is not possible by the laws of Nature. | HeckFeck wrote: | Precisely. What cannot be said will find an outlet elsewhere. | We'll soon find that having some potty mouths are far better | than the alternatives. | getSood666 wrote: | b3rv34v3ev4 wrote: | This is NOT regulation of big tech. | | This creates a barrier to entry that allows ONLY big tech access | to the playing field. | | These types of barriers to entry already exist in other areas | like the pharmaceutical business and finance. Now we're getting | artificial barriers created in IT. | lifeisstillgood wrote: | The extra-territoriality part is interesting. It's still part of | the post-Brexit hangover. GDPR got enforced globally because a) | it covered 500 million rich europeans so you could not ignore | that market b) it was the first and not insane. | | This is insane - and worse the UK is just, just small enough that | you could if you wanted, turn off the service to those geo-IPs | and carry on. | | I wonder. If any non-English speaking country tried it, it would | almost be guaranteed | notnotjake wrote: | What is the mechanism that allows it to apply | extraterritorially? How can they make me comply? | bencollier49 wrote: | Arrest you when you change planes at Heathrow. It's nuts; | most of the Internet will be locked off from UK users. | flipbrad wrote: | The worst thing is, with the EU DSA coming in, a lot of this is | probably completely unnecessary. So it creates extra bureaucracy, | and gives the UK establishment a new boot to place on the necks | of those that carry others' speech (and also pose a threat to | traditional media), for very limited gain. | Folcon wrote: | What is the current direction of that looking like? | bjt2n3904 wrote: | We're all sitting here shaking our heads wondering how we got | here. | | The answer is we demanded it. | | Instead of parents taking responsibility for what their children | see on their phone, we tried to push a parental responsibility | into the service provider, that they're simply unable to | logistically comply with. | | This is the end result of trying to solve a problem in meat space | with legislation. Everyone that sat around going "Hurr hurr XKCD! | Slippery slope! Seat belts and road safety!" are complicit. | outside1234 wrote: | Just ignore it - if everyone ignores it it will be impossible to | enforce. | _dain_ wrote: | What do each of the Tory leadership candidates think of this | bill? I'll back anyone who'll scrap it. | bencollier49 wrote: | Kemi Badenoch seems to be anti. | codedokode wrote: | If UK government really cared about children, and not about | surveillance and censorship, they would solve the problem another | way. | | The only way protect children online is to ban them from | Internet. Children should not have access to normal laptops and | smartphones, instead they should use "kid phones". Such phones | would allow children to communicate only with people approved by | parents or teachers and visit only approved sites. This way they | will enjoy perfect safety which this Bill fails to provide. | | Every site which wants to become approved, must fulfill all the | requirements from the Bill and indicate this with a HTTP header. | Kid phones and laptops should allow only to visit such compliant | sites. | | Kid-oriented phones and laptops must be visually distinctive: for | example, have a shape of a cute animal. In this case teachers, | parents or police will be able to instantly spot and confiscate | illegal devices. | | This is a win-win plan: kids would be safe and adults would be | safe from government overreach. Obviously no government will | agree to such plan. | c7DJTLrn wrote: | You just came up with a better idea than the entire UK | government ever has. | doublerabbit wrote: | Only until you discover kids selling "adult phones" in the | playground at school. This is as much as a parent problem as | content author of a internet website. My parents tried, they | installed web filters, everything. I still got round them. | | I bought a BB gun at school, even a butterfly knife. I feel | that it's education on how to use the internet that's missing. | As well as finance. | baobob wrote: | We're actively discussing this at the moment, and the only | solution we have is judicious bugging of a real 'adult' phone | for the kid. If they're old enough to know Santa Claus | doesn't exist, they'll also be old enough to know the phone | company wasn't reporting on their naughtiness to their | parents, it was just the phone that was rigged by their | parents before they ever got a hold of it all along | eikenberry wrote: | Our system for our kids was no smart phone until ~14 and not | taking it to bed until senior year. With all computers, each | person has their own, in a shared family office. That and | answering questions and talking to our kids about the | internet, the good and the bad. No filters or other bullshit. | So far (oldest is about to head to university) so good. | worldofmatthew wrote: | The truth of cause, it is about control. The kids part is to | allow for a moral panic that the government needs to "save the | kids" from. It would be profitable if you could charge a | monthly fee for a kids specific social network that parents had | control over who the kids could chat to and what news they | could read. | | The funny thing is that if I created a phone that had a kids | mode lock-down (with kids friendly appstore, social media, | browser and education content) with a monthly fee and no-ads. | The government would scream that I was harming competition and | locking people out by daring to charge for a product that would | be expensive to operate. | vgel wrote: | If I, a US citizen, started an online service that attracted | Ofcom attention, what binds me to following UK regulations? The | article mentions "extraterritorial enforcement", but what does | that mean? Will the US extradite me to the UK if I don't put | monitoring in place? Will I get arrested if I visit the UK? Will | they try to sue me in US court? | | I mean realistically if it became a problem I'd just IP-block all | of the UK because they're small, but I don't understand what the | legal framework for "extraterritorial enforcement" even is. | LatteLazy wrote: | In theory yes, in practice the US basically never extradites | people to the UK and if they tried you would probably have a | good defence (against extradition) under various parts of the | constitution. | solarkraft wrote: | Weird how it only goes one way, isn't it? | streblo wrote: | Is it? | Shuang1 wrote: | It's not really weird. We have rights guaranteed to us in | the United States that no other country has, so it makes | sense we would not extradite. | rsstack wrote: | The US extradites people, including US citizens. That is | required from the federal government by extradition | treaties that are signed voluntarily by the US (in | exchange for extradition _to_ the US). It is uncommon | because they require escalations through the Department | of State and not many crimes are serious enough to | justify extradition. | AustinDev wrote: | The US does not extradite for crimes committed in the US | to other countries at least I'm not aware of any cases. | rsstack wrote: | No, there is not a precedent for that AFAIK. But the US | does extradite, as we don't have "rights guaranteed to us | in the United States that no other country has". | Spivak wrote: | Well in this specific case it would be pants-on-head stupid | because this person committed no crime while under UK | jurisdiction. | | Like how would it even work if Alabama made it a crime for | anyone in the world to have an abortion, extraditions all | around? | rsstack wrote: | States aren't allowed to have treaties with foreign | countries, so no country could have an extradition treaty | with Alabama even if Alabama wanted to and that country | agreed to it (in exchange for something has Alabama has | to offer?). | rsstack wrote: | "From January 2004 to the end of December 2011, seven known | US citizens were extradited from the US to the UK. No US | citizen was extradited for an alleged crime while the person | was based in the US." | | https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/100739/response/25520. | .. | | https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9237663/No- | America... | intunderflow wrote: | The Senior Managers Liability part means it's a criminal | offence in the UK - so basically you could never visit the UK | for fear of arrest. | muyuu wrote: | as stupid as this sounds the US does the reverse already | mike_hearn wrote: | With respect to the politicians not turning up, it's worth noting | that at least some of the candidates for PM are against the | Online Safety Bill and want to scrap it. So for them, campaigning | to become the next leader may actually be a more useful way to | spend time than hearing what they already know. | | It appears the OSB has become a victim of incoherent requirements | specifications. It's grown enormously during its gestation period | and is now trying to do way too much, including things that are | self-contradictory. Some politicians recognize this, for example | Kemi Badenoch: | | https://order-order.com/2022/07/11/watch-badenoch-slams-onli... | | but I recall others saying similar things. I just can't find the | references right now. | causi wrote: | _who also has skin in the game about being on the receiving end | of the most horrific online abuse_ | | Do people just not get educated in online literacy anymore? An | adult getting abused online is like getting third degree burns | because you laid your hand on a hot burner and refused to take it | off. If people saying mean things to you is disturbing your | groove so much you're calling it "abuse" maybe you should _stop | reading them_. This is stuff from the first week of 1990s | computer class in elementary school. | darkhorse222 wrote: | You're talking like someone who doesn't live in a hyper- | connected, hyper-online society. The same poor argument could | made to verbal harassment. "Put in some headphones!" | causi wrote: | I _would_ make that argument if I could push a button and | make that person disappear from my sight and hearing. | Ironically verbal harassment is much more protected. I 'm | free to get a group of people together and go chant "You're a | cunt!" outside the Palace of Westminster. | vorpalhex wrote: | You don't have to be hyper-online or hyper-connected. | | I spend time with people in person or on the phone usually. | We, gasp, _do things_ like go to restaurants or go camping. | Sometimes we all sit on the sofa in a big pile and share | snacks and watch movies or talk about life. | | It's nice. Sometimes I'm even alone and get to read a dead | tree book or just enjoy nature. | | What happens "on the internet" is of very low importance, | slightly below my choice of socks or what brand of snack to | get. | yaseer wrote: | > _An adult getting abused online is like getting third degree | burns because you laid your hand on a hot burner and refused to | take it off_ | | This analogy is broken on quite a few levels. When did the | internet become a hot burner? | | The internet is not _designed_ to get hot - it 's not a cooking | device. If your laptop consistently got so hot it burned your | lap, you'd try to fix it, not say "of course it does that". | | > _If people saying mean things to you is disturbing your | groove so much you 're calling it "abuse" maybe you should stop | reading them_ | | There are laws governing abusive behaviour in person. Our | society does not just advice people to "just not listen". | | Why would you expect different principles to apply to online | and in-person behaviour? | | https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/verbal-abuse-and-harassmen... | causi wrote: | _Why would you expect the internet to be governed by | different laws to in-person behaviour?_ | | Because you can't instantly erase someone from your | perception in person to person interaction. Online you can | even proactively protect yourself, such as by adding words | and phrases you don't like to your blocklist. Suppose I | decide I don't ever want to interact with someone who still | uses the word "retard". My computer can preemptively block | those people on my Twitter, my email, even pages containing | the word on my browser. It takes only seconds to wipe entire | categories of people and opinion from every facet of your | online experience. | yaseer wrote: | > instantly erase someone from your perception in person to | person interaction. | | As easily as you can block a message, so too can abuser | create a new account. | | Online harassment can be as persistent as in-person | harassment - there's countless stories of people being | continuously harassed. If it were so easy to block people | online 'cyberstalking' wouldn't be such a big problem in | the same area. | causi wrote: | That's when _you_ create a new account. The obsession | with linking your real life to your online life is the | most toxic change to internet culture since the web | started. | antonymy wrote: | Thank you. I see so many people here who seem intent on | linking their online identity to their real life | identity, a trend popularized by social media and which | is in direct contravention to the common sense advice we | used to give people: don't upload PII on the internet. | | I understand many people rely on social media for | professional networking but there's absolutely no reason | why you have to use this professional networking account | to trade verbal jabs with people on contentious topics, | or confront trolls, or start political debates, etc. Make | an alt if you want to slum it in the comments section. | Again, this was common sense 20 years ago, and now seems | like it's lost knowledge. | adolph wrote: | all ephemeral, leave no trace or context | pjc50 wrote: | And yet people keep complaining about "cancel culture". | | People saying things about you can affect you _even if you don | 't read them_. | red_admiral wrote: | No, it is not. Examples of online abuse that go well beyond | "disturbing your groove" are well documented. Online abuse, | like climate change, is proven beyond reasonable doubt and we | should probably do something about both. | reaperducer wrote: | While I don't disagree with you, it's important to remember | that these companies spend billions of dollars to literally | make their product addictive. | | In school we teach kids how to be responsible with alcohol and | drugs. But some still become addicted. The same applies to | social media. | | The difference is that instead of the pusher being some shady | character at the back of the school bus, it's a massive company | with marketing, public relations, and lobbying teams. | causi wrote: | Sure, and doomscrolling, misinformation, and the constant | need for external validation are horrific problems. I don't | think they're quite on the subject when we're talking about | people's refusal to disengage with online hostility. It's | like trying to make it illegal for people to flip you the | bird in traffic. Is it a nice thing to do? Absolutely not, | but letting it ruin your life is completely optional. The | same thing applies to people on Facebook telling you to go | fuck yourself. | calibas wrote: | I don't think you've really experienced online abuse. | | If you get in an argument with someone and they start saying | nasty things, then it's simple to disengage. You just stop | replying and you don't go back to the thread. In this scenario, | your comment makes sense, but you should count yourself very | lucky if this is the worst you've experienced. | | Personally, I pissed off a cult leader and she sent her | followers to harass me. They used email and social networks, | among other methods, to send me regular messages accusing me of | all sorts of horrible things. If I followed your suggestion of | " _stop reading them_ " it would mean I no longer check my | email or social networks... | | For those inexperienced with these matters, it may seem like I | can just block the messages, but in many cases that's near | impossible. A "professional" abuser knows all about VPNs and | will just keep creating new email addresses. | causi wrote: | Not a coordinated campaign like yours but I've been doxxed | and had half a dozen death threats. | | _A "professional" abuser knows all about VPNs and will just | keep creating new email addresses._ | | You had no luck with keyword filters? You have my sympathy. | calibas wrote: | Keyword filters simply don't work unless the abuse follows | a very specific pattern that legit messages do not. It's | not an effective method of curtailing abuse. | buscoquadnary wrote: | My belief is that the open internet began to pose a threat to | those in power, they now seek to divide the internet back up | along national boundaries via absurd regulations in order to for | the traditional institutions to maintain their power. We are | already seeing it with many sites being unwilling to deal with | the compliance headache of GDPR and just blocking European users, | plus it seems like half the internet is off limits to China | because everyone blocks Chinese IP addresses because of their bad | behavior. | | Ultimately the only people who benefit as the internet gets more | and more locked down and more and more regulated is the people at | the top who are able to reassert control of the information those | unwashed masses receive. | shadowgovt wrote: | TBF, it's not just those in power; there _are_ differences | between nations (in terms of both culture and rights | perceptions), and a lot of policies like these have popular | support as well. | | From the American point of view, the entire EU has bought into | something very heavy-handed in terms of the GDPR, but IIUC the | GDPR is pretty popular in the UK (though full compliance with | it _technically_ requires one not even run a default-configured | Apache server). | jacooper wrote: | I think its really unfair to compare the GDPR with this, the | GDPR is a good law, which is actually possible to comply with | and has reasonable limits to where it applies[1] | | 1. https://gdpr.eu/companies-outside-of-europe/ | noduerme wrote: | ok123456 wrote: | Nextgrid wrote: | > passing legislation that people want that addresses their | material concerns | | Is it though? The same problem that gave us the Capitol's | storming also skews those people's concerns, so the | legislation they'd demand would be anything but reasonable. | ok123456 wrote: | The mid-west and south were on-board when democratic | party still stood behind the New Deal and before NAFTA. | dane-pgp wrote: | > a few confused people mill around the rotunda and take | selfies. | | That's like calling 9/11 "a few planes being temporarily | diverted from their flight paths". | | The facts[0] paint a different picture: | | "13 percent of those nearly 700 arrested as of early | December are members of militia groups like the Oath | Keepers or extremist groups like the Proud Boys." | | > could have been avoided by winning by clear and | resounding margins | | If you don't care about the clear and resounding margin of | the popular vote, or care about the voter suppression | efforts in red states, or the fact that Biden won 74 more | electoral votes than Trump, then I don't know what to tell | you. | | > by having a track record of passing legislation that | people want | | You're basically saying "Unless the winners pass exactly | the legislation that the losers want, then the losers will | resort to violence". You're advocating for terrorism. | Anyway, you might be surprised to know that the Republicans | had control of at least half of the legislature since 2015, | so the 1/6 rioters really should have directed most of | their anger towards the GOP. | | [0] https://slate.com/news-and- | politics/2022/01/january-6-capito... | ok123456 wrote: | >That's like calling 9/11 "a few planes being temporarily | diverted from their flight paths". | | Yeah it wasn't 9/11. It was more like a 2005 myspace | flash-mob that was part of a poorly thought out product | promotion. | | > ... popular vote ... | | We don't elect by the simple popular vote. Amend the | constitution to change the rules. By the current rules, | it was a squeaker. The "battle ground states" are battle | grounds not because of widespread voter suppression, but | because the brand of the other team is so bad there. | | > You're advocating for terrorism. | | Yeah. Medicare for all is terrorism I guess. | noduerme wrote: | root_axis wrote: | > _You watched a few confused people mill around the | rotunda and take selfies._ | | This characterization is dishonest. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iludfj6Pe7w | | Please don't bother with equivocations. | ok123456 wrote: | I clicked your video and it was run of the mill protest, | crowd control, and milling around the rotunda taking | selfies. | jlokier wrote: | Longer video, has more of the event. | | https://youtu.be/UdnNIQQOANk | | Link that doesn't require YouTube age assertion: | | https://www.theguardian.com/us- | news/video/2022/jun/10/unseen... | | I agree that the characterization as "people milling | around the rotunda taking selfies" is grossly misleading. | | At least some of the people were plainly not intending or | doing "run of the mill protest". | | Listening to Trump on that day, his speech is worse than | I'd thought. (I'm not connected to the USA so I don't | follow closely.) | the8472 wrote: | If we cannot trust the masses to inform themselves then | democracy is dead, with it relying on on informed voters. If | people are only allowed to see the pre-approved narratives | then we get into the situation where the WHO claiming that | covid-19 being airborne is misinformation and the dumb proles | spreading messages to the contrary get banned (the former | happend, the second thankfully did not). | mixtur2021 wrote: | You are coming across here as a terrible elitist. Language is | unnecessary. Referring to people as the "unwashed masses" and | then a comparison to chimpanzees. In the context, this reads | like de-humanization. | noduerme wrote: | dane-pgp wrote: | > What I've come to realise since then is it's not a joke. That's | the intention. Make it too prohibitive, risky, or impossible for | public discourse to flow on smaller platforms and services; | require the larger ones to become speech police and societal | monitors | | This is, I believe, also the intention behind the calls to repeal | Section 230. It takes politics back to the simpler age where | there were just a few entities deciding what the public were | talking about, and they could be reached with either a bribe or | an arrest warrant. | | For a lot of politicians, who don't understand social media and | mostly receive criticism on it, I can imagine them not caring if | the costs of pre-screening all content ended up making social | media accounts require annual payments. That would have the | immediate effect of removing anonymity from users, and limiting | online comments to people with disposable income (who could be | profitably sued for insulting politicians). | pydry wrote: | >That would have the immediate effect of removing anonymity | from users, and limiting online comments to people with | disposable income (who could be profitably sued for insulting | politicians). | | This must be what they meant by "Singapore on Thames" coz it's | certainly not about good economic policy or building enough | social housing. | [deleted] | com2kid wrote: | > ended up making social media accounts require annual payments | | So, an end to social media companies that are actively hostile | to their users? No more psychologically deceptive tactics to | force engagement at any cost? No more ad tracking? An end to | foreign spam accounts? | | Looks like quarterly ARPU is about $12 per US user per month. | So a $5 a month subscription would destroy their business | model. However go back 6 years and $5 a month was what they | were bringing in from ads, and Facebook wasn't exactly | suffering as a business 6 years ago. | | In Europe, ARPU is just $6 per month right now, though I'd | presume UK is higher, since EU is very diverse in terms of | country economies. | | Of course most people would leave Facebook if it was $5 a | month. | kergonath wrote: | > So, an end to social media companies that are actively | hostile to their users? No more psychologically deceptive | tactics to force engagement at any cost? No more ad tracking? | An end to foreign spam accounts? | | We pay for TVs (the physical objects), and most of them are | still riddled with ads. They _will_ double dip if they can. | The reasoning won't be "if we charge them this much we can | drop ads and not lose money", it will be "if we charge them | this much we can have it _on top_ of however much we are | doing with ads". | Nextgrid wrote: | > They will double dip if they can | | If they can, yes. But it will now open them to competition. | | Not to mention, if the law is structured in such a way that | advertising-based business models remove their (UK | equivalent) of Section 230 while purely fee-based models | don't (as you'd assume fee-based models benefit equally | from any content, where as ad-based models benefit from | _certain_ content more than other) then they can 't double- | dip since the extra liability will wipe out any advertising | profits. | com2kid wrote: | That is because the price of TVs has been dropping while | the # of features (and sizes of the TVs) have been | increasing. | | Modern smart TVs are subsidized to heck and back. | | You can actually get smart TVs w/o lots of ads, Sony's | Android TVs give you a slew of opt-out options when you | first turn them on. | | Roku is the worst about this, they show ads to customers | and try to collect $ from the streaming platforms. | LatteLazy wrote: | Those things won't change, the charge will just be on top. | | And if they judge you broke a rule that will be an extra $50. | But you can appeal for $200? | Nextgrid wrote: | > the charge will just be on top. | | Disagreed - if ad- and engagement-based social media | becomes a regulatory minefield then other monetization | models suddenly become attractive. The final price will | always only be limited by what the market is actually | willing to bear. | Clubber wrote: | What are the alternatives from a advertiser's perspective | though? Put an ad in the paper? TV? Radio? Those just | don't have the viewership anymore. | Nextgrid wrote: | > Put an ad in the paper? TV? Radio? Those just don't | have the viewership anymore. | | Ultimately people have a specific amount of disposable | income regardless of how much advertising you throw at | them, so the market will rebalance. There might be _less_ | advertising overall, which is a good thing for many | reasons but one of them would be that the advertising | that remains becomes more effective. The mediums you | mention _currently_ don 't have the viewership because | all attention is consumed by social media - this may very | well change. | | In addition, the issue only applies to the common | definition of internet advertising. Advertisers can still | produce first-party content just like any other user on | the platform and people will like/follow/share it if it's | useful or entertaining to them. Product placement will | still work, and so on. | Nextgrid wrote: | > And if they judge you broke a rule that will be an extra | $50. But you can appeal for $200? | | The fact that money is involved would put them under legal | scrutiny. It may not actually be a bad deal - the fee can | be refunded if the appeal is legitimate (the fee is just to | deter spammers) and if they still act maliciously you can | take them to small claims court since there's now a defined | monetary loss. | roody15 wrote: | This is absolutely the intention. | | Western Governments are looking to control the discourse and | are following the footsteps of China. | | Honestly sad to see the web move in this direction :/ | Zak wrote: | > _[Preventing public discourse] is, I believe, also the | intention behind the calls to repeal Section 230_ | | What do you think about calls to remove platform immunity from | algorithms that have an editorial effect? | root_axis wrote: | Absurd. It would effectively make personalized social media | timelines illegal. This idea also doesn't make any logical | sense, we all expect that a person or entity that posts | illegal content is liable for posting it, foisting that legal | burden on the website where it is posted is clearly the wrong | thing to do (unless the site is soliciting the upload of | illegal content or is refusing to remove illegal content, | both of which is already illegal). | dane-pgp wrote: | If the goal is to prevent the ambiguous harm of "editorial | effect", then I don't think it is fair to remove all platform | immunity and punish the platform every time it fails to | implement the correct, government-approved "editorial effect" | instead of its own. | | It seems like the proponents of such a rule change are being | underhanded, thinking "We can't ban companies from having a | political bias, so we'll say that if the company has a | political bias (i.e. any editorial/content policy), it | becomes liable for any libel, or scams, or threats (written | in any language) that appear anywhere on its platform". | | I might support a narrow form of this, though, which says | that if a platform doesn't let you opt out of (legal content) | filtering/re-ordering of content, then the platform has | profited from you receiving messages with an unwanted bias | (i.e. commercial speech), and therefore owes the user a small | amount of statutory damages each time the user suffers some | harm. | Nasrudith wrote: | It is called the goddamned First Ammendment. What you are | stating is legally speaking speaking complete nonsense like | insisting that a coffee shop cannot be a resturant. | camdat wrote: | >algorithms that have an editorial effect? | | Isnt this every non-chronilogical sorting algorithm? | kergonath wrote: | Even chronologically sorting ones. _Any_ choice made is an | editorial choice. | xoa wrote: | > _What do you think about calls to remove platform immunity | from algorithms that have an editorial effect?_ | | You mean, "repeal Section 230"? Because the entire point of | Section 230 is to allow imperfect biased moderation without | having to eliminate all user content. Such calls are | ridiculous, stupid, or malicious on a host of levels. Making | editorial decisions about what to allow on your own private | property is core 1A Freedom of Speech, with caselaw dating | back to well before the web. | | "Editorial effect" is also an utterly meaningless phrase. You | probably have some silly politics thing in mind, but | moderating against porn or violence also has an "editorial | effect". So does having a forum devoted to aircraft or cats. | I think trains and birds are great too. But if I want to run | a forum specifically about aircraft or cats, I need to be | able to delete train or bird posts, and if necessary ban | users who won't follow the rules. This is all completely | biased and has the editorial effect of shaping the forum to a | specific niche of speech, there is nothing common carrier | about running a focused forum. And politics could indeed | enter into it, what if some political group proposes a law | banning aircraft or cats? Rallying and organizing against | that could include being biased against those who want to | support that law. Colorful and strident invective may be | featured. Such is life in a free society. | | If you want a soap box that does something else, the law also | protects _your_ ability to make that (or to group up to do it | or pay someone else to do it or whatever else). And as a | practical matter it is now easier and cheaper to do so and | get to a potential global audience then at any time in human | history (let alone the history of the US). Win the argument | in the marketplace of ideas, not using the state monopoly on | violence. | Zak wrote: | The main thing I have in mind is machine learning | algorithms that optimize for engagement. Those aren't | necessarily biased in favor of a specific political | position, but tend to amplify rumors over well-sourced | reporting, demagoguery over reasoned debate, and often | malicious false claims. | | Off the top of my head, I don't have a good way to | differentiate those algorithms in legal terms. As another | comment points out, even sorting chronologically has an | editorial effect of sorts, but these things are different | and _I know it when I see it_. Perhaps someone wiser than | me has an unambiguous definition. | xoa wrote: | OK, that's at least a more reasonable thing to be worried | about [0], but as you say trying to use the law there | would be damn near impossible. Take the case of a law | against airplanes/cats again. I'd definitely feel very, | very strongly about such an effort, and want very, very | much to defeat it. In the democratic system that means | rallying a critical mass of fellow citizens. If it so | happens my airplane/cat platform is pretty popular and | likely would share my interests amplifying that would be | a reasonable way to go about it, using algorithms that | optimize for results. You might say "well, commercial use | restricted only" but how would that be different the | typical ad testing runs which have existed forever, where | they are constantly testing to try to figure out what | engages people and what doesn't? If it's "malicious false | claims" then that's already a violation of defamation, | there isn't any need for additional law on that front, | but for anything else how can we decide in a way that | can't be used the other direction? | | That's always the rub and the core issue of free speech: | there are no oracles. You have to imagine what your worst | most hated enemy demagogue would do with the tools you | propose to create, because they will have them. Nobody | can be trusted with the power. It is hard though, and I | won't completely dismiss the idea that the scale | networking/storage/ML offers can create emergent effects | that don't show up at a smaller level. The legal notion | of tracking for example. | | ---- | | 0: though "amplify rumors over well-sourced reporting, | demagoguery over reasoned debate" = the tabloids that | exist right there at a large percentage of supermarket | checkout aisles, remember nothing new under the sun, you | might be surprised at some of the content of regular | newspapers for that matter in the 1800s say. | HeckFeck wrote: | This is a great argument. I couldn't put it better. | rconti wrote: | Larger businesses have economies of scale in all things, | including regulatory compliance. It's a great reason to be | thoughtful when crafting regulations. Although, in this case, | as you point out, that may be a feature. | di4na wrote: | To be fair re Section 230, the interpretation the court have of | it is... wildly on the side of the platform. In particular, it | allows a company to wiggle out of its TOS if it seems the TOS | could be construed at being more stringent than Section 230. | | There is definitely _some_ change to do to section 230. I do | not think it needs a repeal, but i do think it needs some | rethinking and probably some more regulation on privacy and | safety. | Nasrudith wrote: | Bullcrap. There is nothing to wiggle out of because they | don't have any actual obligation. Terms of service are a | mutual courtesy and not a legal contract. They cannot have | you arrested or fined for posting swears on their Christian | Minecraft server but they can ban you. | comex wrote: | If there's an "I Agree" button you have to click, it's a | "clickwrap" contract, which courts in the US generally | treat as enforceable. [1] | | If the terms are just linked somewhere, it's a "browsewrap" | contract, which may or may not be enforceable. [2] | | Other jurisdictions may differ. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clickwrap | | [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browse_wrap | llamataboot wrote: | I don't know about intentions, seems like the intention behind | a ton of this stuff is to "protect the children", or "fix a | problem" etc etc, but there just isn't enough awareness of | possible side effects - not unique to tech legislation - just | look at the policy ratchet of "you can always run by being | tougher on crime, very hard to run on being not as tough" | | -- | | and arguably there is also some interaction with tech companies | doing malicious compliance as well which generally means that | the original intent of the legislation gets lost and user | experience further degrades (cookie popups anyone?) | | -- | | I think it's too simplistic to make this a "politicians want to | control the discourse" - there's always a bunch of tradeoffs in | these things, and arguably the edge cases /are/ the base case | (anyone that has done content moderation for a reasonably large | community knows that it is very hard to make any sort of | blanket rule, even if you have blanket rules) | philipov wrote: | That's not intent, that's pretext. Pretext is the | justification you tell people to get them to agree with your | plan. Intent is the effect you actually want it to achieve, | which you don't tell people. It is important to distinguish | between the two. I think the intent of most laws is "Get me | reelected," and that is where we need to discuss Perverse | Incentives of professional politicians. Reelection pressure | is clearly not working as an incentive for keeping | politicians focused on the public good. | BurningFrog wrote: | It's a good mental practice to always be aware that stated | intentions and actual reasons are entirely separate things. | | They do sometimes, mostly by chance, coincide. | | The advanced level of this is to be aware this applies even | to your own actions. | llamataboot wrote: | The super advanced level is to realize it applies to all of | your /thoughts/ which is mostly a pattern matching brain | and personality built around the ways it found to make | sense of some things justifying the chaos in retrospect :D | hallway_monitor wrote: | Correct but this is a different phenomenon. You are | talking about post hoc justification for your behavior, | where your brain is very good at making up stories that | have nothing to do with the original motivation. | | I believe GP is referring to the fact that the true aim | of much of this legislation had nothing to do with | protecting kids from the beginning. They use that | rhetoric because it's easy to get people on board and | much more difficult to explain the real world | implications for security. | BurningFrog wrote: | I think it's a mix of cynical PR campaigns and honest | activism, and I'm not smart enough to say which is the | biggest factor in each instance. | | Separately, the honest activists are often lying to | themselves, in the sense that their real motives are not | what the they tell themselves and others. | dcow wrote: | I didn't get that impression. You're not wrong that | something can be justified "for the children" but have an | ulterior motive. But I think what's being argued is that | the initial motive is actually honestly _for the | children_ and that that goal blinds people to the reality | of how bad or pointless or even perversely harmful the | proposed solution is. | yboris wrote: | A great book to realize that the reasons people give for | what they do are not the real reasons is _Elephant in the | Brain_ | | https://www.amazon.com/Elephant-Brain-Hidden-Motives- | Everyda... | | A great book to realize that the reasons you give for what | you do are not the real reasons is _Strangers to Ourselves_ | | https://www.amazon.com/Strangers-Ourselves-Discovering- | Adapt... | BurningFrog wrote: | Yes, I learned much of this from Elephant In The Brain. | Biggest shock to my belief systems this century. | | May have to read Strangers to Ourselves as well. | joering2 wrote: | > If a British child could merely type your URL into a browser, | the site is in scope. | | Seems incorrect, no? The visit is more important than just typing | URL. Worst-case scenario I will check your IP and if its in UK/GB | scope, you will see "Unable to browse this site due to your- | stupid-anti-blah-blah-UK-policy" | ChrisKnott wrote: | The whole article is written like this - hyperbolically | presenting the least generous reading she possibly can of the | proposed law. | | > _[A pretty reasonable set of questions that companies must | consider regarding how children might be harmed on their | service]_ | | > "you're probably curled up in a ball crying" | | No actually, I wasn't. | | Filtering out the breathless commentary, the actual proposals | don't seem that bad...? Certainly no worse than GDPR | obligations and nowhere near the kind of regulatory compliance | industries like Manufacturing, Construction and Medicine have | to meet. | | Admittedly I didn't make it to the end of the article because | the tone was beginning to grate too much. | bowsamic wrote: | Do you think prosecutors won't use the least generous reading | of the law? | dogleash wrote: | > presenting the least generous reading she possibly can of | the proposed law | | It's fine if you don't like the flourishes in her writing, | but this is the correct way to read proposed legislation. | | If the uncharitable reading describes the law | enabling/preventing things in a way the authors don't intend, | all they have to do is clarify the scope in the text of the | bill. | | The light least favorable to the drafting party is needed | now. In 5 years when there are legal cases over the bounds of | the law, the courts will use the text of the law rather that | call in the authors and politicians that voted for it and | check what they intended for the law to mean. Or maybe they | would, I don't know how British courts work. | Folcon wrote: | Tone aside, she does point out one clear way this bill does | hurt tech compared to other industries. | | The cost of entry into this space is really low compared to | most other industries. You can very cheaply provide a | reasonably competitive product. | | One of the aspects of this bill that I do find worrying is | that there are clear costs being added on that we're | obligated to pay likely before we've validated the business | works. | | I do feel a lot of side-projects that could have gone to | become viable businesses will never be released with this | bill in place. Who wants to expose themselves to costs to try | out a fun idea? | | A lot of what she's arguing for could have been covered | similarly to GDPR if there were carve outs for smaller | entities, which would have been easy to mention, the absence | of them lends weight to her assertion that the goal of this | bill as it stands is to generally increase political control | of the tech sphere. | | Even if that control only extends to and harms UK | businesses... | hedora wrote: | Well, they'd have to press enter. Once that happened, it sounds | like you'd have to run through certifications to make sure that | the phrase "your-stupid-anti-blah-blah-UK-policy" isn't | potentially harmful to minors, and then also (at a minimum) put | in business processes to make sure that the approved text | didn't change. | | Then, moving forward, whenever you changed any (unrelated) | business process, you'd need to re-up your business process | certifications. | Shuang1 wrote: | As an American who has no desire to visit the UK, is there any | particular reason I need to care? The article says it would | affect me but they don't have any jurisdiction over me. | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | This woman is a great writer! | | This article doesn't really apply to anything I'm doing (at | present), but I enjoyed the read. | Aeolun wrote: | It seems to me that the solution to all the woes of this bill is | to just _not allow any content to be shared_. That basically | eliminates this being a problem for 95% of all companies. | buro9 wrote: | The bill covers this site... HN. | | And it covers Stack Overflow. | | And Mumsnet. | | And basically any site that takes user generated content of any | kind. | verytrivial wrote: | Content presumably includes prose. | shadowgovt wrote: | Correct, taking down all of one's websites is the easiest way | to comply with this bill. | hedora wrote: | That, and hiring a large number of lawyers, paying regulatory | fees, etc. | Havoc wrote: | The whole thing is so completely and utterly braindead that it | must surely be an attempt to shift the overton window & | subsequently pass something slightly toned down. | rlpb wrote: | The article says: | | "Is it possible for your site, service, or app, which allows | content to be shared and/or people to communicate with each | other, to be accessed by any adult or any child within the UK? | | Then you're in scope. | | NB "accessed" doesn't necessarily mean that a user can set up an | active account on your service. If a British adult can merely | download your app on the app store, the app is in scope." | | However, the draft bill doesn't seem to say that. I found the | draft here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft- | online-safe... (and note that the article doesn't seem to link | it, which seems odd). | | The bill says: | | "In this Act "user-to-user service" means an internet service by | means of which content that is generated by a user of the | service, or uploaded to or shared on the service by a user of the | service, may be encountered by another user, or other users, of | the service. | | That seems reasonable to me. There are more details, but as far | as I can see, the ability to merely download an app _does not_ | put it in scope contrary to the claim in TFA. | | I now find myself doubting the the other claims made by this | author. | Brybry wrote: | The "has links with the UK" portion of the "regulated service" | definition says if UK users are a "target market", or if the | "service is capable of being used in the United Kingdom" and | there's user generated content with a "material risk of | significant harm" then it "has links". | | If an app is available in an app store are the users who can | access it not a target market? | | I'm not really sure what "material risk of significant harm" | means for the second qualifier but if it means "users can | potentially post bad things" then that seems very broad too. | | I feel it's telling that they had a need to make exceptions | explicitly for email/voip/sms texting. | M2Ys4U wrote: | >However, the draft bill doesn't seem to say that. I found the | draft here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft- | online-safe... (and note that the article doesn't seem to link | it, which seems odd). | | You're linking to the _draft_ bill. Burns has linked to the | _actual_ bill as amended in the Commons: | https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-03/0121... | (it's linked under the heading of "How to read this post") | rlpb wrote: | Ah, thanks. Looks like there's not an actual bill yet, but | there is a _second_ draft bill. | | However, I looked at the definitions in there and they remain | essentially the same. My concerns still stand. | M2Ys4U wrote: | > Ah, thanks. Looks like there's not an actual bill yet, | but there is a second draft bill. | | No, there's definitely a bill. It's had its first and | second readings and it's in committee stage in the Commons: | https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137 | _fat_santa wrote: | If this applies to every site that hosts user generated content | then that's nuts. When the internet first started, part of the | appeal is that you could just make stuff without people looking | over your shoulder, asking for forms, etc. Seems that the | internet we created today is technically the same as the one from | before, but now with governments throwing up red tape at every | corner. | | Makes me wonder what a site like HN would have to do in order to | stay in compliance. While on the one hand HN could make the | argument that the site is not geared towards children so this | kind of stuff is not a concern, regulations will say: well | TECHNICALLY a child could use HN, and TECHNICALLY a predator | could message with them, and therefore there is TECHNICALLY a | risk, so please pay up $20k/yr for compliance costs. | | I use HN as a stand in example for many many sites and services | out there. IMO, I don't think it will be that enforceable. Sure | the big tech companies will comply, anyone that runs a smaller | service outside the UK will just tell the UK govt to kick rocks | if they come knocking (what can they do besides blocking the site | in the UK). | | If this bill gets passed were going to get the following: | | - Big tech company scandal over CSAM. | | - A heartbreaking story over some small time website owner facing | prison time over non-compliance. | | - Opinion pieces from the tech community about how it's a | terrible idea all around. | | - Puff pieces from non-tech outlets that praise the legislation | without fully understanding the technical ramifications. | | - Flame war between techies and non-techies over competing puff | pieces. | 7952 wrote: | I wonder if it could apply to internal company systems. Like | the corporate SharePoint or file server. And a lot of those | kind of systems have external users also. If a client uploads | some data do I have to scan it for illegal content? | 2Gkashmiri wrote: | right now or say 10 years ago til now, before the whole | encrypted chats came into the picture, how many people have | been convicted of CSAM in the UK, USA or somewhere else? is it | in thousands? millions? if people were not getting convicted | left and right before encryption, why is suddenly encryption | the #1 enemy? | carom wrote: | In addition to this, if they actually cared about children | they would up the penalties for crimes. In the US it is 4 | years in prison. Let's make it 20 years per image. That is | what Maxwell got for literally trafficking children. But hey, | let's add some red tape to the internet, mind numbing. | jacooper wrote: | Because its not about the children, it never was. | ejb999 wrote: | I'll admit, I haven't read the entire article - but the obvious | question to me - using your example of HN - what authority does | the UK have over a website hosted in another country at all? | They can pass all the rules they want, but how do they propose | to enforce them on a company that does not operate in the UK? | | If that was possible, wouldn't CCP or Russia be ordering | websites all over the world to shutdown to control information | they don't like be visible? | voxic11 wrote: | But hackernews does operate in the UK. I have accessed it | from there before. | Vespasian wrote: | The UK government can't influence the US government (or any | foreign government at all) to enforce their laws. | | So companies can choose to comply or not. | | You and I are probably violating several (severely) | punished laws from around the world every day but the | respective authorities can't do anything about it. | Digit-Al wrote: | Our government can't enforce rules on foreign owned websites, | but they can force ISP's to block them. | jacooper wrote: | Which is fine, the UK users and economy will be the one | losing really. | slowmovintarget wrote: | We're also going to get the big companies triggering | investigations of smaller up-and-comers to stamp out | competition. Better Reddit? Think of the children. Better | Twitter? Think of the children. Facebook without the algorithm? | Think of the children. | | Just like what we see with the DMCA. Cheaper toner cartridges? | Think of the creatives! | sirsinsalot wrote: | Honestly this impact can't be overstated. If the bill passes | I'm leaving the UK | muyuu wrote: | over the last 10-15 years there has been an open war on the | early, wild internet model - not just from governments (early | on it was just the so-called autocracies, now it's pretty much | all of them) but also from Silicon Valley/Big Tech themselves | | this will set a massive barrier for all but a few whitelisted | giant entities to host user-generated content, and then it will | be massively censored and used to prosecute people | dp-hackernews wrote: | Surveillance and censorship by way of enforced regulation - Hello | 1984! | lifeplusplus wrote: | hmmm how many countries are there 180+? must be fun to be | compliant to all of them. Either rules should apply to only | within the country or be handled by international organization. | About time we created lawmaking internet committee, there are | many for technical standards already. | hyperman1 wrote: | As someone from the EU, with no money or anuthing coming in from | the UK, why would I even care about this? | | The GDPR has teeth only because the EU is big enough to make | companies care. It is a watered down version from some privacy | rights compared to the old laws in my country. But the old laws | were ignorde by US tech because why wouldn't they. | | So as the UK left the EU, they are now a small country in the | computer world. I'll ignore its laws just as I ignore Afghan laws | requiring women to stay at home or whatever country's laws to | forbif gays from existing. | hedora wrote: | If the article is to be believed, then simply ignoring this law | would open your company's leadership up to criminal liability | in the UK. This probably doesn't matter too much, assuming they | never fly through Heathrow or something. | jacooper wrote: | I mean you can just ban all UK IPs and be done with it. | | Its clearly not a sensible law, and blocking users will send | a clear message to them that they should complains about it. | connordoner wrote: | Realistically, are they going to complain? I don't ever | remember a mass revolt over US websites blocking EU users | because of GDPR. | jacooper wrote: | The GDPR is a way way more realistic law, there is no | comparison here. | | Also the EU is a way bigger user base than the UK, and | being complaint with the GDPR is actually possible | without needing to pay anyone anything. | | I think the affect of this law is going to be way bigger | than the GDPR. | odiroot wrote: | Imagine if they fly through Stansted. That's a punishment in | itself! | xdfgh1112 wrote: | Yeah, this already happens to some extent with American and | Asian sites blocking Europe and the UK because they don't want | to deal with GPDR. | shadowgovt wrote: | As an American visiting the UK and the EU, I got to see what | the GDPR has done to the online experience over there for the | first time. | | Wow, does _that_ suck. I see about 20% of the "cookie track | consent" popups Stateside that I saw browsing from the EU. | jacooper wrote: | Well that's the websites problem, no body told them to | include 50 trackers. And there are many filters to kill | cookies banners. Also AFAIK now there is an enforced Reject | All button. | shadowgovt wrote: | It's also the user's problem because there aren't | websites to go to that _aren 't_ showing those banners. | | Well, except the big, commonly-used ones where you've | already consented (or not). Facebook, for instance. It's | like this law was hand-tuned to consolidate users into | only visiting a few commonly-accessed sites to save | themselves the UX annoyance at the cost of the broader | Internet's discoverability. | jacooper wrote: | I don't agree, many websites don't have it. Its a choice | that these we sites that they want to still track | everyone, and they are paying for it in bad UX. | shadowgovt wrote: | It's the safest choice given the incentives. | pasc1878 wrote: | So you prefer being tracked without you knowing rather than | being asked and easily opt out? | shadowgovt wrote: | Personally, yes. I think most of what the GDPR intended | to accomplish could have been accomplished more easily by | public education campaigns and broad cultural adoption of | no-track plugins. That would have done a lot less damage | to the user experience than naively assuming that if one | pushed the educational burden onto sites, the sites would | cease to do the tracking that triggered the educational | burden rather than just bother their users forever with | government-mandated information placards. | | Especially given that what constituted "tracking" was so | broad that a lot of sites took the "better safe than | sorry" approach because it was cheaper than a full audit | of their tracking and a lawyer to interpret whether, say, | Apache logs that show IP address constitute "tracking." | sterlind wrote: | If this UK bill passes, I'd simply return HTTP 451 with a | note that although the UK is blocked from my site, VPNs are | not. | kmeisthax wrote: | Promoting VPN usage could be construed by the UK courts as | an attempt to commit subterfuge or dodge jurisdiction. They | will not take kindly to this. You really want to make it | perfectly clear that you want _nothing to do_ with Britain | as long as they have crazy laws on the books. | | Related point: if you're intending to get out of GDPR, | blocking the EU doesn't really help, because the law | applies on the basis of citizenship, not territory. If an | EU citizen accesses your website in America, that's still | within GDPR scope. If you have EU business assets, ship | things to the EU, or have any other ties to the EU, then | they still have jurisdiction and you certainly still have | to comply with GDPR. | kwhitefoot wrote: | > because the law applies on the basis of citizenship, | | No it doesn't. depends on location only. A US, or any | other, citizen is protected by GDPR when they access the | web from within the EU | whakim wrote: | > If an EU citizen accesses your website in America, | that's still within GDPR scope. | | No, that's not correct. You have to be clearly intending | to (not just incidentally happening to) offer goods or | services to an EU data subject. | | > ship things to the EU | | This wouldn't be enough to make the GDPR applicable. | You'd have to be specifically targeting EU customers in | some way, such as allowing users to pay in euros - not | just incidentally selling some stuff to folks who live in | the EU. Your other examples (such as having EU business | assets) hold because they would make you an EU entity. | tzs wrote: | Targeting EU data subjects with goods and services is | just one of two ways GDPR asserts extraterritorial | jurisdiction. | | The other is when you are processing personal data of EU | data subjects that is related to "the monitoring of their | behaviour as far as their behaviour takes place within | the Union". | | There's a recital that adds: | | > In order to determine whether a processing activity can | be considered to monitor the behaviour of data subjects, | it should be ascertained whether natural persons are | tracked on the internet including potential subsequent | use of personal data processing techniques which consist | of profiling a natural person, particularly in order to | take decisions concerning her or him or for analysing or | predicting her or his personal preferences, behaviours | and attitudes. | | Unlike the recital that explains the goods and services | case, which talks about it only applying if you envisage | offering goods and services in the Union as opposed to | your site merely being accessible from the Union, the | monitoring case doesn't seem to have any requirement that | you are intending to monitor EU data subjects. | | That's pretty broad as written. From what the recital | says it even applies if you are gathering data the | _could_ be used for profiling even if you are not | actually currently profiling. | | As noted in the article at gdpr.eu that a parallel | commenter cited: | | > If your organization uses web tools that allow you to | track cookies or the IP addresses of people who visit | your website from EU countries, then you fall under the | scope of the GDPR. Practically speaking, it's unclear how | strictly this provision will be interpreted or how | brazenly it will be enforced. Suppose you run a golf | course in Manitoba focused exclusively on your local | area, but sometimes people in France stumble across your | site. Would you find yourself in the crosshairs of | European regulators? It's not likely. But technically you | could be held accountable for tracking these data. | whakim wrote: | > That's pretty broad as written. From what the recital | says it even applies if you are gathering data the could | be used for profiling even if you are not actually | currently profiling. | | I'm not aware of legal cases that have specifically | hinged on this issue, but _Soriano v Forensic News LLC_ | (from 2021) touched on this clause, and seemed to doubt | that merely collecting information (e.g., using cookies) | without further processing it with the intent to profile | would make you subject to the GDPR. | | I didn't specifically mention Article 3(2)(b) - the | clause you're citing - because the post I was responding | to didn't really mention profiling in any way. Still, | it's good to note that the legal landscape on this | particular point isn't totally clear as far as I'm aware. | M2Ys4U wrote: | >Related point: if you're intending to get out of GDPR, | blocking the EU doesn't really help, because the law | applies on the basis of citizenship, not territory. | | Argh, why won't this misinformation die? You are | completely, utterly, 100% wrong. | | The GDPR applies if _either_ the data controller is | established in the EU _or_ the data subject is physically | in the EU. | | Article 3 (territorial scope) is incredibly short, read | it: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- | content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:... | mitjam wrote: | Yes and this may be a UK citizen on a trip to Paris | jacooper wrote: | However, the GDPR doesn't really apply if you don't | intend to target Europeans(2) | | And the GDPR is a way way more sensible law than whatever | the UK is trying to do here, nobody will comply and no | body will care, its only going to Hurt UK citizens and | The UK's economy. | | I care about privacy and really like what the EU has | passed with the GDPR and DSA, but unfortunately we will | have countries that does stupid things like this. | Hopefully they aren't that important so no one complies. | | 2. https://gdpr.eu/companies-outside-of-europe/ | nbevans wrote: | Doesn't matter if they ignore the laws as then they have to pay | fines which bolsters the Treasury anyway. It's win-win. That's | why the EU itself loves to regulate in this way because dishing | out tickets to American big-tech is a big money spinner for a | superstate that is fast running out of money. The real problems | start when these fines are being seen in the halls of power as | disruptive to trade; as then it becomes a bilateral political | issue which can of course blow up in a full blown trade spat | very quickly. | | Also your example of ignoring Afghan laws on women doesn't | work. If you tried to setup a business in Afghanistan that was | say an online tutoring programme tailored for Aghan women. How | quickly do you think your DNS will get pointed to 0.0.0.0 on | the Afghan internet? And how quickly will they seek to | prosecute you as a director of that business? As a foreigner | living abroad, you'll probably be fine but you won't be making | money from your target market. So you're finished. The law | worked and you didn't ignore it. | LegitShady wrote: | the louder someone tells me in advance they don't care, the | more they care about something going on here, and in your case | its to talk about the EU and the UK. This was an article about | the UK, if you didn't care you didn't need to post here at all, | just as people from the US don't need to post to say "I'm from | the US, why do I need to care about EU laws?" you don't, but | you also don't say anything intelligent about it by saying you | live somewhere else. | | Posting to say you live somewhere else and don't care about the | article doesn't contribute to any intelligent conversation, and | usually means you do care about something involved, strongly, | but aren't willing to say so. | hyperman1 wrote: | But it does. Laws like this tend to spill over to other | countrys, unless the politicians in question have to tiptoe | away from the mess they created. So one way to fight this law | is to make clear the rest of the world is not going to play | along. | | So as a person, I of course do care. The UK used to be fairly | good concerning human rights, privacy, cooperation, ... This | represents another step back. So the best thing to do is | ignore this insanity as good as possible. | anigbrowl wrote: | _So as the UK left the EU, they are now a small country in | the computer world. I 'll ignore its laws_ | | _Laws like this tend to spill over to other countrys, | unless the politicians in question have to tiptoe away from | the mess_ | | Pick a lane. | jacooper wrote: | These are different things. | | You can ignore its laws by blocking users, and clearly | saying you won't comply with such stupid laws. | | Being concerned that this can spread to other countries | is a big reason why you have to be clear about not | playing along. | LegitShady wrote: | the rest of the world is not a monolith, and nobody speaks | for the rest of the world in aggregate, so 'making it | clear' doesn't matter. They left the EU so they could | control their own laws, I don't think someone from the EU | being childish about "I live in the EU, I don't care" about | UK law makes a persuasive statement about politics. | noduerme wrote: | Here's something novel, then: I've lived all over the world, | but I wouldn't step foot in post-Brexit, xenophobic Britain | if you paid me. I'm reading this gleefully thinking of ways | to flout whatever implementation is settled upon, while | homegrown British companies rot. I am, in fact, rooting for | your economy to utterly collapse. | LegitShady wrote: | As I said, its not that you don't care, its that you care | very very strongly, but wanted to pretend you didn't care, | which was why you posted to say 'but I don't live in the | UK' as if it was relevant to anyone but you. | anigbrowl wrote: | You're responding to two different people as if they were | the same person. | LegitShady wrote: | didn't notice, but again, same thing with both of them. | "Here are some laws in the UK" - they respond with "let | me tell you about the UK, I don't care about it but here | are the reasons why I care..." | timellis-smith wrote: | Out of interest, have you seen the list of potential future | PMs. I would say it is far more diverse and less xenophobic | than most European countries. | | But yeah believe what makes you happy. Just don't let the | hate get to you to much. | aembleton wrote: | Which of the candidates aren't British? | timthorn wrote: | At least one of whom has stated that the bill in question | would not be taken forward under her leadership. | [deleted] | mixtur2021 wrote: | In perception polls on xenophobia across Europe, UK scores | very well. Here is a report from the EU from 2019: | | https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2 | 0... | yrgulation wrote: | > So as the UK left the EU, they are now a small country in the | computer world. | | Umm yeah no. Perhaps regulation wise but no, the uk is not a | "small" country in the "computer world". | tomjen3 wrote: | It has fewer people than Germany, and only low double digits | compared to the EU. | | With this legalization I would IP ban the UK, then grow the | service and look into opening up for the UK when my service | was big and the lawyers didn't matter. | yrgulation wrote: | Typing this using a british designed arm cpu powered phone | using the protocol made by a british guy on a forum | cofounded by a british american venture capitalist. But the | UK is "small" in the "computer world". Perhaps we should | ban german IP instead so we can read less about german | nationalist pride and instead focus more on what makes | countries competitive and what not in modern tech. | donkarma wrote: | yeah that's all good for you but it doesn't change the | fact that the UK is not that big of a market to cause all | this trouble | swores wrote: | I think (as a Brit myself) you're being overly defensive | and inferring insult where there was none. | | Suggesting that the market size of the UK might not be | big enough to make up for the costs of complying with a | law like this is not at all the same as saying that | people from the UK are not capable of making using | industry contributions. | yrgulation wrote: | You are right i am overly defensive. | | The term small used by op can also be read as a | pejorative term meant to describe uk's would be weakness | post brexit - often used by a small but vocal number of | eu citizens that like myself (a uk person as well) have | been against brexit. And i've it read as such. | | The uk market may be small in size in comparison with the | whole of the eu, but the uk is by no means a small player | in the "computer world", whatever that means. | | Indeed due to its size it may not hold much legal clout | over the eu, and the eu being protectionist as it is it | might even seek to punish british isps or web companies | by the excuse of having different laws. Thats not in | anyone's interest and it reflects poorly on the eu and on | those people here proposing a ban on uk ips because of | some silly laws. I despise the mindset of those who only | seek "sanctions" and "punishment" instead of actual | solutions and are constantly spewing nationalist nonsense | as if, say, germany isnt full of crap and a root cause of | quite some major issues on the continent right now. | | So yeah I am pretty much bored by all this nonsense. How | can we fix the issues that such legislation is causing? | Before the righteous ban our ips - not that we'd lose | much. | 9dev wrote: | What else would it be? There's about 67 million people living | in the UK, compared to the 447 million in the EU - depends on | your definition of "small", but our company will likewise | ignore any specific UK regulations. The handful of customers | there isn't worth any additional overhead compared to the | EU+US. | nsteel wrote: | Perhaps we should be counting computers, rather than | people, in the "computer world". Although I am not saying | you'd come to a different conclusion. | theptip wrote: | Of the countries in the world, the UK ranks sixth in GDP. | cge wrote: | The problem with that measurement is that top GDPs fall | off quickly. While the UK is the sixth, it's only around | 3-4% of the global GDP, and while I can't find values | from the same year at the moment, likely has a lower GDP | than California. The EU is around 18% of the global GDP; | the US, China, and EU together make up around 65% of | global GDP, and each of them has at least triple the GDP | of any other individual country. | 9dev wrote: | Most of that money is bound in the financial industry, | though. Unless you're in the sector, the GDP rank doesn't | matter much for doing business with the UK. | TheSpiceIsLife wrote: | A quick search suggests the UK digital market was nearly $50 | billion on 2021.[1] | | 1. https://www.statista.com/topics/7208/digital-economy-in- | the-... | tasubotadas wrote: | Good example of why you need to fight even for big tech rights. | [deleted] | stevewatson301 wrote: | The "reigning in big tech" thing that's been going on for all | this while is really a ruse to limit citizen freedom while | coming up with laws that only big tech can comply to. | | I wish it was more widely recognized and understood by more | folks. | rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: | >a ruse to limit citizen freedom while coming up with laws | that only big tech can comply to. | | Which law in particular? | amoe_ wrote: | The OSB has become a big bucket which UK politicians can point to | and say "see, we're doing something". When faced with a question | about the internet, the stock response of Tory MPs is to say | "wait for the Online Safety Bill". In that way, it's quite | similar to the situation before Brexit, where representatives | would evade responsibility for policy by claiming that their | hands were tied by Brussels. | drumhead wrote: | One of the candidates for the Tory party leadership has already | spoken out against it. I get the impression its not that popular | and might well be scrapped or dropped. | s1k3s wrote: | Does anyone have a tldr? Respectfully to the author, I don't have | the patience to read through this blog post full of metaphores | and anecdotes. So what happened? | dreamcompiler wrote: | tldr: In the name of "protecting the children," the British | government wants to create an ultra-efficient police state so | they can instantly hoover up information about every British | user of the Internet, on a scale that would make the Chinese | government blush. | | Like the Chinese, they propose to put executives of ISPs and | websites in jail if they fail to assist the government in the | creation of this police state. | | Unlike the Chinese, part of the plan is to make a few companies | [more] fabulously wealthy: Namely the biggest tech giants like | Alphabet and Meta who can afford the enormous costs of | compliance, as well as certain homegrown British companies who | specialize in estimating a user's age by _using AI to analyze | the size of a user 's head in a webcam image._ | | Super-important points: | | 1. This is not about "adult content" websites. It covers just | about any website that uses technology more advanced that | static HTML files, regardless of content. | | 2. The provisions apply to any website worldwide that can be | accessed in Britain. | | 3. The provisions make it effectively impossible to browse the | Internet anonymously in Britain. The government also wants | browser makers to make special British versions of browsers to | assist them in deanonymizing users. | | 4. The cost of compliance for any small business will be so | astronomical that GDPR compliance will seem trivial by | comparison. | jrochkind1 wrote: | Do you think non-giant non-UK websites will be just ignoring | this, even though theoretically if their website is accessible to | those in the UK, the UK wants their compliance? | toldyouso2022 wrote: | First they cane for my cookies and I said nothing because I just | had to shill 30bucks... | [deleted] | fleddr wrote: | Whilst this draft bill is laughable and outrageous, isn't a | similar concept in the making for the EU? One not emphasizing | children but copyrights and such instead? Article 13, I think | it's called. | | I consider them conceptually similar because in both cases it | means that permission-less publishing will ultimately die. Right | now the consensus is to allow publication, after which a | reasonable effort is made to moderate, including the typical | "report" function where you correct after publication. | | It looks like we're swinging in the direction where whatever you | publish (by means of your users) makes you fully accountable | hence the only way to dodge that legal liability is to pre-check | instead of post-check. | | There's some hope in the sense that none of this can actually | work nor is it enforceable. GDPR is a fine example of that. In my | country, privacy authorities are a few hundred in staff only. | When you report a violation to them, absolutely nothing will | happen. They're 2 years behind and the cases they do handle | almost never lead to any kind of verdict. No government is going | to add thousands in staff just to regulate cookies, as surely | they have better things to do with a budget. As such, the | strategy seems to be to occasionally make an example out of a few | by applying severe fines, just to scare everybody else and remind | them that this legislation is a thing. | | Let's also not underestimate the ability for people to revolt. If | memory serves me well, article 13 had a modification so that | people can continue to meme, lol. | dadjoker wrote: | Orwell was prescient. | pmontra wrote: | > In addition to the risk assessments, you will have | administrative compliance obligations to Ofcom as your content | regulator. [long list follows] | | So everybody around the world could and should register with them | and basically perform a DoS at that very first step of the | process? | throwaway4aday wrote: | Can someone explain why this won't result in a renaissance for | peer to peer and e2e encrypted chat/forums/social media etc.? | When government or industry makes it nearly impossible for | consumer needs to be met we inevitably see a grey and black | market spring up to meet those needs. My prediction is that if | legislation like this becomes widespread we'll see a freely | distributed application rise to prominence among a gaggle of | others, it'll dominate the chat and social market until even | grandma is using it and the establishment will have a right | proper freak out as other social media giants implode and | everyone is communicating anything they want with zero oversight | from the government or industry. This is roughly how I remember | the Napster affair going when DRM was pushed hard by the | recording industry, it eventually collapsed but not before | dealing a massive blow to the status quo and forcing a transition | to streaming. | namlem wrote: | It will probably just lead to a rise in VPNs to access services | that block British users. | antonymy wrote: | My immediate thought as well. As this law will apply to ANY | service available to UK users the only feasible solution for | smaller websites and app developers will be exclusion to | avoid liability. So UK users will simply start using VPNs to | by pass region blocks. | jfk13 wrote: | Ah, the familiar HN bubble, where people instinctively | think of "simply start using VPNs" as the solution. | | No; some tiny minority of UK users may do that, but the | overwhelming majority will just use whatever services are | "approved" (follow whatever rules they have to, to stay in | the market) and remain available by default. | vorticalbox wrote: | > If there is any hope, it lies in the proles. | antonymy wrote: | A VPN is a service that people who are not privacy | conscious (which is most people) tend to only use if they | have a particular need for it, such as circumventing a | region block for some service they want to use. This | isn't a very common problem for the average person living | in Britain right now, but it's about to be. So I think | it's pretty fair to assert VPN usage is going to become | more common, as it is a pre-existing, ready-made solution | to the problem millions of British people are about to | have. | oxfordmale wrote: | My twelve year old son told me very casually a few months | ago that he had installed a VPN to bypass the schools | internet filters. It was clearly no big deal to him, it | sounds like that is what all his friends are doing. At | home they are of course doing this to bypass any parent | filters to allow them to look at certain content. | iasay wrote: | I don't think that's the case. I know someone who has no | involvement in anything technical in his entire life and | is using VPNs and torrents fine. He can surely work it | out if demand requires it. | pessimizer wrote: | There are literally network television commercials that | advertise VPNs now, and they've written software to make | setup trivial. | pbhjpbhj wrote: | Are there any YouTube users who still haven't heard of a | VPN? They seem about as niche as TikTok at this point. | flir wrote: | Funnily enough I had to explain what a VPN is to one of | my kids this weekend. | | But... if the need's there, people figure it out (as he's | doing right now - for him it's something gaming related). | chongli wrote: | Loads of people in China use VPNs every day to bypass the | great firewall and access foreign sites. They even rotate | among many different VPN services when the ones they're | using get blocked. | | I see no reason UK users couldn't do the same. All it | takes to get grandma on a VPN is for an enterprising | grandson to set her up. | JacobThreeThree wrote: | >Loads of people in China use VPNs every day to bypass | the great firewall and access foreign sites. | | For what it's worth, in my experience when I was in China | it was trivial to bypass the firewall using a VPN | service. | corobo wrote: | Sucks to be us idiots that happen to be working on tech | businesses in the UK. | | I wonder if I can put an IP block on my own site and just | ignore it all too. Dumbass country. | stickfigure wrote: | More likely it will result in crippling the domestic UK tech | industry while everyone else in the world ignores it. I really | don't see most countries extraditing someone for the high crime | of "let british users access a website without verifying their | age". | goatcode wrote: | After my ears bleeding from trying to understand the | legislation, I know I'll be ignoring it. | solarkraft wrote: | This has been said about the EU, but the market has proven to | just be too big to ignore. | | It could also be the reverse (see authoritarian countries), | with international players leaving the market and local ones | filling the space. | mminer237 wrote: | Very few websites comply with GDPR. Based on recent | interpretations, it's essentially impossible for any US- | owned or US-hosted site to comply with GDPR. The EU is just | being extremely selective about its enforcement. If they | ever decided to follow the law to the letter, most of the | Internet would have to disconnect the EU. Theoretically the | EU could make clones of all international sites like China | has with Baidu and Weibo, but it's hard to see how that | would be good for them. | | The UK's law is obviously a bit different as international | companies _can_ comply with them, but it would essentially | just limit legal websites to big tech who have enough | market reach that all that compliance could pay for itself. | akavel wrote: | Regarding GDPR, citation needed - do you have actual | links you can share to those claimed "recent | interpretations", and whose in particular they are? I'd | be quite interested to see them, if true ,which I | seriously doubt - for the time being, as an EU citizen, | my understanding is, and continues to be, that it's | totally possible for US corpos to adhere to GDPR; it | would just require _some_ money and effort to be spent by | companies that blatantly hoover and hoard personally | identifying data in hopes of squeezing some monies from | it. And having to spend some money on anything that is | not an investment into more money in the future seems to | always trigger over-the-top allergic reaction in | corporations. Until they feel the teeth of real law in | painful fines, when suddenly "impossible" things will | magically become possible. | mminer237 wrote: | They're decisions by the governments of Germany, France, | and Italy: | | * https://rewis.io/urteile/urteil/lhm-20-01-2022-3-o-1749 | 320/ | | * https://www.cnil.fr/en/use-google-analytics-and-data- | transfe... | | * https://www.gpdp.it/web/guest/home/docweb/-/docweb- | display/d... | | So far they've just been enforced against companies that | use Google Analytics, but the reasoning behind it has | been that having users connect to a US server enables | that server to know EU users' IP addresses (which are | legally PII), which would be subject to US government | subpoenas to collect such, and the US government has not | agreed to handle data in compliance with the GDPR, | therefore it's illegal to have users connect to any US | servers. It has nothing to do with "hoover[ing] and | hoard[ing]" data. | | The only way for an American website to comply would be | to form a separate company not subject to US control at | all. However, at that point it's not really an American | website, since no data or control can go to the US. | | Theoretically you could use some international service to | handle all primary routing and get users to waive their | rights under the GDPR before connecting to your website | proper, but I'm not aware of such a service at this time. | calvinmorrison wrote: | I don't really think being a good 'worldwide' business | can exist when longterm there are conflicting views held | by governments about what is right. The fact is some | governments and societies values are objectively better | than others | akavel wrote: | Doesn't seem so clear cut to me yet, but I see what | you're hinting at. The first one seems about Google Fonts | specifically, together with IPs indeed, but not | mentioning US govt subpoenas at all (at least in the | English translation of the abstract). Personally, I long | believed Google Fonts are a risk from privacy standpoint | and not really necessary, just easy - this seems to | basically be reflected in the abstract and makes me quite | happy. Interestingly, it seems to mention _severity_ of | the privacy abuse potential vs. benefit, which again | sounds great to me. Now, the 2nd one mentions GA and | subpoenas, so this becomes more tricky and I wonder what | will come of it. Though for the time being, GA is exactly | a target I hoped would be regulated, so again rather | happy for now, though I see how this seems indeed a | concern dealing with any US company. And how connecting | the two (i.e. IPs as PII + US govt subpoenas) becomes a | concern as well. IANAL, obviously, though. But | interesting, thanks! | rarec wrote: | The EU's a bit bigger than the UK by a fair margin. | pessimizer wrote: | Probably by about 5x. If the UK makes things difficult, | they can just be ignored. | calvinmorrison wrote: | I don't see how these multinational companies like Apple, | etc don't end up with their own armies again like age old. | stickfigure wrote: | By "ignore it" I mean "ignore the law", not ignore the UK | market. At some point the idea that countries can regulate | the internet outside their borders falls apart. The US | succeeds in enforcing its gambling laws WRT Americans, but | that only works because other nations agree to do the | enforcement. | | I just don't see that happening here. So maybe the UK | becomes a no-travel zone for anyone in the worldwide tech | industry? That would be sad, but it's a plausible outcome. | gravitate wrote: | It could mean choosing a life of crime if the regulations are | too draconian. Now that your legit business enterprise can't | succeed because of Stasi tactics by the UK government, you are | forced to go underground and build something to sidestep the | measures. | __alexs wrote: | Because the bill will never pass. It will be quietly swept away | when new Tory leader is elected. | flir wrote: | I dunno. There's always a chance it's Braverman. | muyuu wrote: | at some point e2e encrypted comms will be grounds for getting | swatted | | don't think this is a bridge too far, covering your face in the | presence of public CCTV got you fined/arrested the week before | covering your face with feel-good masks was compulsory | | don't @ me telling me it's stupid, I know it is, but this govt | doesn't believe in free and private communications and it's | working hard in progressively eradicating what's already out | there, with full support from the main opposition party | orangepurple wrote: | Fortunately, where there is a will, there is a way. | | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S209044791. | .. | muyuu wrote: | only a tiny fraction of the people will bother with the | immense overhead of steganography | | it would much more practicable to resort to alternative | channels outside the internet, like mesh networking using | direct comms (typically ad-hoc wifi modes and other radio | protocols to avoid the liability/detectability of cabling), | sneakernet, IP over Avian Carriers - those are all | cumbersome and rather slow typically, but still orders of | magnitude better than trying to pass stuff over ISPs using | steganography | guerrilla wrote: | > Can someone explain why this won't result in a renaissance | for peer to peer and e2e encrypted chat/forums/social media | etc.? | | Simple, because if that because popular, new laws will be | drafted to ban all of that from all app stores for | circumventing this or some other reason. | throwaway4aday wrote: | There are other methods of distribution than app stores. | People didn't buy their copy of Napster from GameStop back in | the day, they downloaded it from a website. | guerrilla wrote: | > There are other methods of distribution than app stores. | | And all of them are completely irrelevant because only us | nerds would even know about them let alone how to use them. | | > People didn't buy their copy of Napster from GameStop | back in the day | | Those days are long dead. | commandlinefan wrote: | > won't result in a renaissance for peer to peer | | This horribly written law can easily be interpreted to apply to | ISP's as well - so if the ISP is allowing these peer-to-peer | systems that allow "unsafe" content to be shared, they're | liable for it too, or they have to shut down the peer-to-peer | systems. | | Which again, is the point - to turn the internet into the | easily regulable cable TV that they already understand. | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | I keep hearing this but there is a big difference between the | public facing platform and the pipe to my house. | | Where is the law vague? Your ISP is not a platform. I feel | like this is a scare tactic. | cowtools wrote: | The law could create a precedent that leads to greater | censorship in the future. | cowtools wrote: | Sure, but there is some limitation to what they could | feasibly restrict. Tor with WebRTC bridges? | throwaway4aday wrote: | You could conceivably implement a fully encrypted p2p | social network over WebRTC within the browser. You would | obtain the app by simply visiting a website that hosts it | making it nearly unblockable since anyone could stand up a | page. Public key crypto could allow you to verify your | identity or send private messages across the network. The | hardest part is establishing the initial connection but | since this can be done with a variety of methods I'm sure a | sufficiently creative person could come up with something | fun and easy for people to use. Maybe some form of | steganography where you post an image to your social feed | and others can point their phone's camera at it and get the | SDP offer and then post the answer as a reply or something. | A more automated method would probably be better but that's | left as an exercise to the reader. | cowtools wrote: | I've looked into this the other month. There are a number | of obfuscation networks that have tried this to some | extent (including IPFS and GNUnet), but I am yet to find | a network that works exactly as you've described: where | you can just access a "tor web portal" in your browser or | something. I think an obstacle would be preventing | fingerprinting inside a non-fingerprint-proof browser. | You might be able to do this if you ported something like | tor's fingerprint-proof browser to emscripten and have it | render to an HTML canvas! | | So far Tor has implemented WebRTC[0], but that's just for | bridging to their main network. | | [0] https://snowflake.torproject.org/ | | P.S. I've also considered the "decentralized p2p social | media" idea myself, but mostly because I believe the | ideas we have currently behind online voting, ranking and | moderation are completely at odds with IRL discussions | which are P2P and based on "forwarding" ideas to known | peers (friends, family, community members, countrymen) | rather than posting and ranking content with anonymous | peers (which are susceptible to Sybil attacks). The fact | that so much discussion takes place on corporate-owned | forums (Including this one, regardless of how benevolent | ycombinator may be) presents a major threat to democracy | in general. | | Instead of "liking" or "upvoting" a post on a centralized | forum, why not "rehost" or "forward" a post on a | decentralized forum: essentially seeding it like in | BitTorrent or "pinning" it in IPFS. "Followers" of a user | donate their storage and bandwidth to them, combating | bureaucratic attacks like delisting and DDoS against | popular users. | | If you could port IPFS to run completely in a browser you | would have this complete "pseudo-social-media" | functionality. They have something called "IPNS" where | instead of giving someone the hash of a file like in | BitTorrent's DHT, you could give them a public key which | you use to sign the latest version of a file that is to | be fetched. The Public/Private keypair could represent a | user's identity, and the file in this case could be a | blog or account page which is updated with new links to | the user's posts, or links to other user's posts. | | So if you ported IPFS to work within a web browser, it | would just be a matter of implementing a user-interface. | Boom, social media solved. You could maintain parity | between desktop and web versions by using libraries like | libdatachannel[1] and datachannel-wasm[2] | | [1] https://github.com/paullouisageneau/libdatachannel | [2] https://github.com/paullouisageneau/datachannel-wasm | zarzavat wrote: | > Which again, is the point - to turn the internet into the | easily regulable cable TV that they already understand. | | Unless the UK significantly increases its military capacity | and sets up world government, they will not be able to shut | down the internet. The internet will still exist. The best | they can hope for is a great firewall / North Korea type | situation which would require a much more authoritarian | (moreover _functioning_ ) government than even the UK can | muster. | sbierwagen wrote: | 1) The point isn't to regulate the internet, it's to | regulate what UK citizens can see. | | 2) The great firewall was complicated by the design goal of | accessing some, but not all, foreign websites. The UK could | accomplish their goals in a day or two by just cutting all | the underwater cables. That sounds like an impossible crazy | thing, but so did Brexit a couple years ago. | worldofmatthew wrote: | The EU might see that as an act of war...... | | A large amount (if not the vast majority) of fibre optics | from Europe to Americas, go though the UK and cutting | them off cuts off the biggest parts of the world from | each other. | BurningFrog wrote: | The EU might also see the UK as an inspiration! | 1991g wrote: | I do not think the European perception of the UK could | accurately be described as "inspirational" at the moment. | olivermarks wrote: | 'Cutting' is extreme but the spooky filtering that is | almost certainly already in place certainly isn't, as | Chinese citizens are all too aware | Iv wrote: | Conservatives all over the world dream of setting up a | chinese-style firewall in their countries. They are angry | that it was first done by a clearly authoritarian regime | which brings some resistance to the idea, but otherwise, in | the name of fight against terrorism or child pornography, | they would have set it up already. | Agamus wrote: | By conservatives, do you mean the same people who believe | we should be conservative in our application of | government? | | Are you sure you are not speaking of liberals, who | believe government should be applied liberally? | | Not like any of them act as they speak, but if I am not | mistaken, that's what the words mean. | goodpoint wrote: | You are mistaken. | [deleted] | adhesive_wombat wrote: | > believe we should be conservative in our application of | government? | | No, they believe "traditional" systems should be retained | (i.e. conserved). | | > government should be applied liberally? | | That is almost diametrically opposite to the use of the | word liberal as applied to politics. | tsimionescu wrote: | Conservatives are, by definition, people who want to | _conserve_ the status quo. They believe society is good | as it is (or as it was in sine possibly imagined past) | and seek to use the power of the state to prevent | changes, and to revert any changes that are pushing | society away from what they believe is the status quo. | Conservatism has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with | "being conservative in application of government". In the | USA, it happens that part of the status quo that many | conservatives want to conserve is a weak federal | government. In the UK, conservatives are typically | monarchist, which is essentially the opposite position. | | Either way, many conservatives are collectivists: they | believe the needs of society and preservation of | tradition outweigh the desires of individuals, and so | they tend to be in favor of concepts such as the | traditional family excluding gay people, the rule of | mothers in child rearing being more important than the | freedom of women to pursue careers and so on. | | The opposite of conservatives are progressives, people | who believe the status quo is not generally good, and who | seek to use the power of the state to change the status | quo in a direction they believe is progress. | | There are also many collectivist progressives, and as | such tend to want things like egalitarian schooling even | if certain extraordinary kids may be kept behind, or | supporting progressive taxation such that those who have | more have to give more to the collective. | | On a different axis, we have liberals, who are the | opposite of collectivists. Liberals can be conservative | or progressive, but they ultimately believe that the most | important value is individual freedom. | | An example of a liberal conservative is someone like Ron | Paul. He believes the status quo is generally good and | shouldn't be changed to much, except where he thinks | government has over reached. However, he also believes | government shouldn't involve itself in people lives, even | to preserve societal values, so he tends to support the | legalization of Marijuana and perhaps even gay marriage | (though given electoral realities, in not sure of his | public position on the second). Contrast this to a more | collectivist conservative like justice Clarence Thomas, | who believes the state should ban gay marriage and even | sodomy and contraception. | knewter wrote: | Clarence Thomas believes that the federal government | overreached its constitutional powers. He's one of the | people whose job it is to make that determination. | | Your assertion that his desire to see the federal | government restricted by the document that exists to | restrict it is equivalent to promoting particular laws at | the state level belies either ignorance or | disingenuousness. Which? | tsimionescu wrote: | Clarence Thomas believes these things should be | prohibited. He has stated some of these things before, | especially about gay marriage - he doesn't believe it | should be permitted in the United States, regardless of | how that permission is achieved. He doesn't necessarily | believe that the Supreme Court should or can ban it, but | he certainly believes it _should_ be banned, in an ideal | world. | | He doesn't believe that the Supreme Court has power to | prohibit them, so he's trying to do the next best thing: | make sure that the Supreme Court doesn't _prevent_ the | federal or state governments from prohibiting them. | | Also note that Roe v Wade has nothing whatsoever to do | with the federal government. It has everything to do with | individual rights, which don't come from the government, | they are natural rights. The government can only | recognize or fail to recognize them. | | His predecessors recognized that these wildly popular | natural rights exist and are compatible with the | Constitution, so they made sure all states are compelled | to recognize them. | | The current highly partizan court has decided to ignore | these natural rights in favor of their political agenda. | That they couch this in the language of overreach is just | an obvious rhetorical ploy. | | If the federal government makes a law prohibiting | abortion in any state, this same Supreme Court will argue | that is obviously in the power of the federal government | to regulate. If the federal government possess a law | guaranteeing abortion, they will find that it is | unconstitutional, tidying done other legal reasoning. | | You may choose to fall for the rhetoric of demagogues | like Thomas, but most people who think critically quickly | see past it. | canadiantim wrote: | From what I can tell it's more the progressive wing of | most countries who are pushing for authoritarian | censorship of the internet. Just look at Canada | metadat wrote: | <Citation requested> | | Is this common knowledge? It's the first claim I've | encountered of Canada attempting Internet censorship. | JacobThreeThree wrote: | It's a big topic right now in Canada. | | Pre-Elon Twitter compared Canada's proposed regulations | to North Korea and China. | | >Newly released documents reveal Twitter Canada told | government officials that a federal plan to create a new | internet regulator with the power to block specific | websites is comparable to drastic actions used in | authoritarian countries like China, North Korea and Iran. | | https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-twitter- | com... | zo1 wrote: | I googled it and found Bill C-11. Not going to dig deeper | into it and confirm details, but maybe you didn't hear | about it for a reason? | metadat wrote: | Thanks, I'm not living in .ca at the moment. I do believe | Canadians appreciate their Internet freedom. | manuelabeledo wrote: | > ... it's more the progressive wing of most countries | who are pushing for authoritarian censorship of the | internet | | China, India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Russia... | Aren't progressive by any metric. | earth_walker wrote: | I agree that the Liberal's current push to degrade | Canadian's privacy is worrisome - and their excuse is "we | need expanded surveillance powers to make sure your | privacy is protected..."!?! | | I disagree that this is a partisan thing however. Whether | it's Canada, the UK or anywhere else it seems each party | in power just pushes for more surveillance and more | censorship, just using different excuses to justify their | actions. | | For example, Harper's conservative government put forth | bill C-13 (online crime excuse) and C-30 ('think of the | children' excuse), which arguably laid the way for much | of the spying apparatus that is currently in place | against Canadian citizens. And while Obama allowed the | NSA's warrantless internet surveillance program, Trump | extended it until 2024. | | All governments want to spy on you, and all governments | want to be able to control what you say, period. They | just want you to beg for it first. | bigfudge wrote: | It's kind of you to say 'even' the uk could muster, but at | this point functioning government seems a forlorn hope | here. | tgv wrote: | > Which again, is the point - to turn the internet into the | easily regulable cable TV | | It's a tad more nefarious. Say what you want about cable tv, | but it doesn't track your every move. | metadat wrote: | Actually the cable providers can and do track everything | about what you watch. There are also no rules or | regulations about how they can use the data they harvest | from you. | | https://www.quora.com/Does-the-cable-company-know-what-I- | am-... | zhte415 wrote: | Facebook will be easier than what you mentioned. | | Napster took off because it meant not spending 10 or 15 pounds | or dollars or euros on a CD. THhe DRM came later, and what | really killed DRM was the change in business model to iTunes | with individual songs, the transformation of the 'star' from a | face on a CD to a bigger product. | fguerraz wrote: | Don't worry, blocking p2p is the next step and is extremely | easy to do. | | China has done it already and it's very effective: | | * Force every service provider to register their IPs and | domains (for CDN use) | | * Force every ISP to do stateful firewalling and block every | attempt to establish a new connection unless the destination IP | is on a whilelist maintained by the government. | | Problem solved. | swayvil wrote: | Wifi mesh nets in the city. Sneaker nets in between | crmd wrote: | Matrix over avian carrier | chihuahua wrote: | ants carrying ATM packets | HappyDreamer wrote: | But ... the Anti Avian Artillery? | tacocataco wrote: | Deploy the wifi bats! | TeeMassive wrote: | wyager wrote: | Please don't use this thread to shill a shitcoin that | doesn't even remotely attempt to solve the issue being | discussed in the thread. Even if the shitcoin itself | weren't stupid, it's specifically targeting low-power iot | devices, not general internet usage. | TeeMassive wrote: | I thought I was mocking them, but whatever. | darepublic wrote: | Autonomous pirate satellite internet | jerf wrote: | Men with guns. | | Yeah, they can't 100% win. They don't need to. In fact, | even if they did 100% win, they'd _still_ find reasons to | need to crush some people just to keep people reminded of | who has the guns. | omginternets wrote: | The "men with guns" bit cuts both ways, though. | jerf wrote: | Not in the UK. | omginternets wrote: | I wouldn't be so sure. Riots don't require guns to have | an effect, as the UK has seen quite recently. Point | being: an analysis that draws its conclusion from the | presence of state violence is incomplete if it doesn't | also consider violence on the part of citizens/subjects. | swayvil wrote: | High altitude balloon laser net | trasz wrote: | It's very effective because people just use (illegal) | streaming services instead :-) | | Otherwise one can run p2p over VPNs, like for many other | things. | [deleted] | JacobThreeThree wrote: | Exactly. P2P file sharing only died due to the advent of | streaming services. | getSood666 wrote: | There are options to take things dark | https://github.com/squat/kilo | | The right bash script can set that up with a UI on all 3 major | OSs. iDevices work with Wireguard | | The "open web" would suffer but so would the panopticon which | is more valuable to the masses long term | | A new counter culture is needed. The old one went corpo rent | seeking, as hippies do when they age. | pclmulqdq wrote: | Peer to peer needs a business model. E2EE social media involves | storing tons of large binary blobs (images and video) for | people, and they need to cover that cost somehow. Since it's | already been established that social media is supposed to be | free, a lot of people aren't going to want you to charge for | it, no matter what advantages you have over other market | participants. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-07-11 23:00 UTC)