Comment by nickslaughter02
7 months ago
> Mr Capel said: “We have been clear that exiting the UK does not allow an organisation to avoid responsibility for any prior infringement of data protection law, and our investigation remains ongoing.
Block UK access now just in case.
As somebody from the UK, I think this is a great form of protest against the government.
Same - frankly google/alphabet should just HTTP 451 the UK (and I say that as a brit/someone in the UK).
It'd be interesting to see how fast the policy would get reversed then.
This was always a stupid policy and so protesting it by pulling services is one way to draw attention to that.
If big tech wants a reaction, pull all investment out of the UK.
Microsoft + Google + Amazon + Nvidia + Meta + Apple = $630 billion in annual operating income.
They'll react to a change in capital investment faster than anything else.
6 replies →
> should just HTTP 451 the UK
Didn't something like that happen about 15 years ago maybe due to net neutrality? Or maybe it was wikipedia's black outs over SOPA.
I do worry that the ability of people to understand that there is more than one law that affects internet services.
the first clue is that its the ICO that is running this. the ICO has nothing to do with the online safety act.
Secondly asking a commercial company to conform to basic data protection isn't that onerous.
Honestly its almost like HN has tumbler level reading comprehension.
1 reply →
How about officially starting one on HN? If we could gather a list of sites to join.
Wait you're against GDPR?
Of course, I have a brain
8 replies →
It's clear to me, it's a huge risk for any company to allow access to UK visitors at this stage. All companies should be blocking all UK visitors. It's just too much risk for them to take.
The fault is obviously an incompetent and authoritarian UK government, but that's what the UK overlords have agreed.
It's not specific to the UK: many developed countries are cracking down on Internet businesses. There's going to be an awful lot of regulation, and it will be incompatible between different countries. The one-model-fits-the-whole-world style of business is over: you're going to be confined to national borders again.
The opinion polls are clear: the normies want this.
> The opinion polls are clear: the normies want this.
Giving normies the vote was a mistake.
7 replies →
Where do you get your conclusion from?
4 replies →
shouldn't it be the other way round? if the UK doesn't like something a non-UK company is doing it should be them that go through the trouble of blocking it.
If I have a website I'm pretty sure I'm bound to break some random country's law without knowing
Answering my own question, I guess it's exceptionalism of the powerful countries where they can just bully you into following their law
> shouldn't it be the other way round? if the UK doesn't like something a non-UK company is doing it should be them that go through the trouble of blocking it.
They're clearly working up to this; it's what happened with Pirate Bay, etc.
1 reply →
Why should they do anything when they can push the burden of compliance onto you?
It would be much better to not block them rather serve them a single screen that explains why the rest of the site is unavailable to them citing the specific laws that make the action necessary
Now:
> {"data":{"error":"Content not available in your region."},"success":false,"status":400}
7 replies →
So GDPR, which protects people from companies abusing personal data (which this case is about, not the online safety act) should be repealed?
(no, its not the cookie law either.)
No because GDPR is better implemented and there are clear and reasonable guidelines to follow. This is just clueless policy makers fucking around.
1 reply →
It is exactly the same with the EU's GDPR, by the way...
That's the funny or hypocritical thing: Both laws have the same reach but people here tend to praise the GDPR for it while being furious about the Online Safety Act.