Comment by pushcx
4 months ago
In addition to the "you're not fooling anyone" bit about piercing the corporate veil that's already well-addressed, you missed provisions of the OSA.
There's a requirement to name a senior manager: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50/section/103
There's personal liability attached to being the named senior manager: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50/section/110
Other nearby sections have additional personal liabilities. Like Sec 109 (5) (a) probably criminalizes your exact suggested response of walking away from Ofcom's inquiries: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50/section/109 It depends on the legal definition of "permits the suppression of... any information required". We'd have to hire a UK lawyer for a confident answer.
All this is a couple sentences in the law. The law is 250 pages long. Ofcom's guidance was rounding 3,000 pages the last time I counted.
If you want to understand the OSA, I think the most accessible and valid writing available is by Neil Brown: https://onlinesafetyact.co.uk/ There's a lot developing as Ofcom continues to publish new rules and ignore questions, so I suggest reading the 'Replies' tab of his fediverse account.
"There's personal liability attached to being the named senior manager ..."
Thank you - that's a missing piece that helps.
"In addition to the "you're not fooling anyone" bit ..."
I don't suggest a corporate veil as a ruse - it's a tool that has a function and I think this is certainly it.
My sense is that enforcement for small operators is unlikely but the potential liabilities skew the risk dramatically. Pointing the initial enforcement at a corporate entity could change that risk assessment.
For those who do not know, Peter (pushcx) operates Lobste.rs, and even though he and the website is US-based, it looks like there will be repercussions too for them (basically geoblocking UK, for reference see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43152178)