6 ms·

Ofcom letter on restrictions on internet services for “designated persons” [pdf]

70 points by jstanley 4y ago

trevyn 4y ago
The letterhead: "Ofcom: making communications work for everyone" is pretty priceless here.
- salawat 4y ago
  Makes you wonder if the persons writing the bloody thing ever had even a moment of pause. Probably not.
gnfargbl 4y ago
I noticed that ria.ru (owned by Rossiya Segodnya) was blocked by my UK consumer ISP around the date of the letter, but it has remained accessible via a UK mobile network. Is the mobile provider exempt from the Ofcom ruling, or have they just failed to implement it?
- secondcoming 4y ago
  It's blocked for me on 3 but not on Vodafone.
- iso1631 4y ago
  https://ria.ru/ https://ria.ru/ works for me on my BT DSL, and they aren't shy of doing what they're told That site uses google tag manager too. If there are international sanctions should google really be providing services?
  - gnfargbl 4y ago
    Interesting, turns out it's blocked for me on BT DSL if I use BT's DNS servers -- but if I use Google DNS, it works fine.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      Many of these various governmental blocks are implemented (badly) via DNS restrictions.
    - salawat 4y ago
      Working as intended. DNS isn't supposed to be centralized. It's just morphed that way, because that's where the money/power is.
      - DaiPlusPlus 4y ago
        DNS is centralised, by-design: that’s what the root nameservers are. I feel it’s better described as a “delegated” rather than a “distributed” system.
  - DaiPlusPlus 4y ago
    Link works for me on my parents’ Virgin Media cable internet too, with stock DNS DHCP settings.
twelve40 4y ago
at this point, how is this different than the great Chinese firewall, that had so much righteous shit spewed over it?
- twelve40 4y ago
  P.S. my advisor in grad school had a whole project to help Chinese people to get around the nasty firewall. Looks like he can revive that project for the UK now! except this time the NSF is probably not going to fund it, my guess.
  - sys_64738 4y ago
    This type of mechanism only works so far until it is blocked. It doesn’t solve the censorship problem that the China Communists inflict on the population.
    - nopenopenopeno 4y ago
      >China Communists This is like calling Hitler a socialist because of his party's name.
      - slackfan 4y ago
        Just because he did abhorrent things does not make him not a socialist
        pessimizer 4y ago
        I guess that if you self-identify as a thing, you are that thing.
        vidarh 4y ago
        The fact that none of his policies were socialist, however, made him not a socialist. Not only was he not a socialist, and opposed the name change from DAP to NSDAP but didn't yet have the power to prevent it, but he so detested the "left" of NSDAP, which wanted to merge some left wing economic policies with far-right social views, that as his control over the party tightened he got them progressively expelled, until he was finally able to have the rest arrested and/or murdered during the Night of the Long Knives. That's how much he hated any hint of lifting socialist ideas. More importantly, nobody contemporary to were in any way confused about their position. It was right wingers like Von Papen and Hindenburg who let him form a government. It was only the right wing parties who voted with NSDAP. It was only the right wing press, both in Germany and abroad, who expressed support for him. This attempt at trying to conflate NSDAP with socialism first started after the war.
brainchild-adam 4y ago
I generally find this approach quite scary. It seems we are all slowly building our version of the Great Chinese Firewall. I am aware of the fact that information control is a central part of any power structure setup, and I assume that too many people lack the skills, the option, and even the desire to deeply and meaningfully engage with most topics, but I'd still love to be part of a society where ideas and opinions can be freely and respectfully shared and debated. I believe in the power of rational arguments, and am quite alarmed by any form of thinking-for-you as I'd prefer to think for myself. But then, this seems to be our lot as humans. Not even (the stories in) The Orville was free of power politics, as utopian as it was.
- iso1631 4y ago
  > and am quite alarmed by any form of thinking-for-you as I'd prefer to think for myself. This is a common refrain from people that think Bill Gates is inserting microchips into their brains and everyone else are sheeple that need to wake up. The problem is nobody can entirely think for themselves. People are manipulated by advertising and propaganda which reprograms on a subconcious basis to the point they will not be able to accept basic verifiable facts, let alone anything more complicated.
  - twelve40 4y ago
    > People are manipulated by advertising and propaganda So do you propose we double-down on this, with the help of the government? I'm ok with that, since I believe there is 0 chance anyone can do anything about it. But we can at least stop being two-faced about it.
  - SXX 4y ago
    Yeah there are people affected by propoganda and misinformation, but do you think government-level censorshop is good solution for this? 15 years ago in Russia repressions bagan with lagislation to "protect childern from information on internet".
  - dekken_ 4y ago
    > The problem is nobody can entirely think for themselves. Good luck proving that.
politelemon 4y ago
"Designated Persons" makes me think of people, rather than corporations as listed here. It must be some archaic usage that I've not encountered before. Maybe they ought to say "Designated Entities"?
- oriolid 4y ago
  I've understood it's pretty standard legal language. Actual people would be referred as "natural persons", as opposite of "legal persons".
- nitsky 4y ago
  No, in law the term “person” refers to both “natural persons” and “corporate persons”: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person. Remember the political fight over the phrase “corporations are people”? Well, they certainly are “persons”.
sys_64738 4y ago
This is what happens when you have an unwritten constitution. The ruling government tries to present itself and its choices as the choice of the people. Unless you can restrict or rescind onerous dictates like this then you are doomed to censorship chosen by the government of the day.
- Waterluvian 4y ago
  I’m not sure having a written Constitution helps much more if it’s constantly violated and the remedy occurs well after the damage is done, if at all.
  - salawat 4y ago
    See: Second, 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendments of the U.S. Federal Constitution. People in power are going to abuse it as long as they can get away with it. Period.
  - Asooka 4y ago
    Having the grounds for maybe getting a remedy is strictly better than not having it. It could be a lot better, but if we could have that first step of the government having (de jure) inviolable restrictions, it would be quite nice.
- themitigating 4y ago
  You can vote, it's a democracy.
  - FollowingTheDao 4y ago
    No. It is an oligarchy.
- toyg 4y ago
  No, this is what happens when you have a weak government that knows they won't be in power in 2 years: land grabs. They push outrageous stuff, effectively daring the opposition to rescind it later and face the relevant cries ("New government helps pedophiles!!11!"). It can happen anywhere.
codeulike 4y ago
Its worth clicking and reading this because "designated persons" does not mean what you might assume it to mean. And the "restrictions for" doesnt turn out to mean why you might expect either. I'm left wondering what "reasonable steps" means. Just DNS blocking?
FollowingTheDao 4y ago
In order to love a person, you must be able to understand them. In order to understand a person, you must be able to listen to them. IF they do not let you hear these people, there is no way you can love them. That is their goal, to try and remove your ability to love. They first tried it with straight propaganda. That did not work. So now they cut you off from them totally. If you all in the UK do not rise up against this, especially you techies who help write the code for all this stuff, then you get what you deserve. Demand your right to love another human, no matter where they are. Russia is not the enemy, the oligarchs of all countries are the enemy.

70 points by jstanley 4y ago

trevyn 4y ago

The letterhead: "Ofcom: making communications work for everyone" is pretty priceless here.

salawat 4y ago
Makes you wonder if the persons writing the bloody thing ever had even a moment of pause. Probably not.

gnfargbl 4y ago

I noticed that ria.ru (owned by Rossiya Segodnya) was blocked by my UK consumer ISP around the date of the letter, but it has remained accessible via a UK mobile network. Is the mobile provider exempt from the Ofcom ruling, or have they just failed to implement it?

secondcoming 4y ago
It's blocked for me on 3 but not on Vodafone.
iso1631 4y ago
https://ria.ru/ https://ria.ru/ works for me on my BT DSL, and they aren't shy of doing what they're told That site uses google tag manager too. If there are international sanctions should google really be providing services?
- gnfargbl 4y ago
  Interesting, turns out it's blocked for me on BT DSL if I use BT's DNS servers -- but if I use Google DNS, it works fine.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Many of these various governmental blocks are implemented (badly) via DNS restrictions.
  - salawat 4y ago
    Working as intended. DNS isn't supposed to be centralized. It's just morphed that way, because that's where the money/power is.
    - DaiPlusPlus 4y ago
      DNS is centralised, by-design: that’s what the root nameservers are. I feel it’s better described as a “delegated” rather than a “distributed” system.
- DaiPlusPlus 4y ago
  Link works for me on my parents’ Virgin Media cable internet too, with stock DNS DHCP settings.

twelve40 4y ago

at this point, how is this different than the great Chinese firewall, that had so much righteous shit spewed over it?

twelve40 4y ago
P.S. my advisor in grad school had a whole project to help Chinese people to get around the nasty firewall. Looks like he can revive that project for the UK now! except this time the NSF is probably not going to fund it, my guess.
- sys_64738 4y ago
  This type of mechanism only works so far until it is blocked. It doesn’t solve the censorship problem that the China Communists inflict on the population.
  - nopenopenopeno 4y ago
    >China Communists This is like calling Hitler a socialist because of his party's name.
    - slackfan 4y ago
      Just because he did abhorrent things does not make him not a socialist
      - pessimizer 4y ago
        I guess that if you self-identify as a thing, you are that thing.
      - vidarh 4y ago
        The fact that none of his policies were socialist, however, made him not a socialist. Not only was he not a socialist, and opposed the name change from DAP to NSDAP but didn't yet have the power to prevent it, but he so detested the "left" of NSDAP, which wanted to merge some left wing economic policies with far-right social views, that as his control over the party tightened he got them progressively expelled, until he was finally able to have the rest arrested and/or murdered during the Night of the Long Knives. That's how much he hated any hint of lifting socialist ideas. More importantly, nobody contemporary to were in any way confused about their position. It was right wingers like Von Papen and Hindenburg who let him form a government. It was only the right wing parties who voted with NSDAP. It was only the right wing press, both in Germany and abroad, who expressed support for him. This attempt at trying to conflate NSDAP with socialism first started after the war.

brainchild-adam 4y ago

I generally find this approach quite scary. It seems we are all slowly building our version of the Great Chinese Firewall. I am aware of the fact that information control is a central part of any power structure setup, and I assume that too many people lack the skills, the option, and even the desire to deeply and meaningfully engage with most topics, but I'd still love to be part of a society where ideas and opinions can be freely and respectfully shared and debated. I believe in the power of rational arguments, and am quite alarmed by any form of thinking-for-you as I'd prefer to think for myself. But then, this seems to be our lot as humans. Not even (the stories in) The Orville was free of power politics, as utopian as it was.

iso1631 4y ago
> and am quite alarmed by any form of thinking-for-you as I'd prefer to think for myself. This is a common refrain from people that think Bill Gates is inserting microchips into their brains and everyone else are sheeple that need to wake up. The problem is nobody can entirely think for themselves. People are manipulated by advertising and propaganda which reprograms on a subconcious basis to the point they will not be able to accept basic verifiable facts, let alone anything more complicated.
- twelve40 4y ago
  > People are manipulated by advertising and propaganda So do you propose we double-down on this, with the help of the government? I'm ok with that, since I believe there is 0 chance anyone can do anything about it. But we can at least stop being two-faced about it.
- SXX 4y ago
  Yeah there are people affected by propoganda and misinformation, but do you think government-level censorshop is good solution for this? 15 years ago in Russia repressions bagan with lagislation to "protect childern from information on internet".
- dekken_ 4y ago
  > The problem is nobody can entirely think for themselves. Good luck proving that.

politelemon 4y ago

"Designated Persons" makes me think of people, rather than corporations as listed here. It must be some archaic usage that I've not encountered before. Maybe they ought to say "Designated Entities"?

oriolid 4y ago
I've understood it's pretty standard legal language. Actual people would be referred as "natural persons", as opposite of "legal persons".
nitsky 4y ago
No, in law the term “person” refers to both “natural persons” and “corporate persons”: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person. Remember the political fight over the phrase “corporations are people”? Well, they certainly are “persons”.

sys_64738 4y ago

This is what happens when you have an unwritten constitution. The ruling government tries to present itself and its choices as the choice of the people. Unless you can restrict or rescind onerous dictates like this then you are doomed to censorship chosen by the government of the day.

Waterluvian 4y ago
I’m not sure having a written Constitution helps much more if it’s constantly violated and the remedy occurs well after the damage is done, if at all.
- salawat 4y ago
  See: Second, 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendments of the U.S. Federal Constitution. People in power are going to abuse it as long as they can get away with it. Period.
- Asooka 4y ago
  Having the grounds for maybe getting a remedy is strictly better than not having it. It could be a lot better, but if we could have that first step of the government having (de jure) inviolable restrictions, it would be quite nice.
themitigating 4y ago
You can vote, it's a democracy.
- FollowingTheDao 4y ago
  No. It is an oligarchy.
toyg 4y ago
No, this is what happens when you have a weak government that knows they won't be in power in 2 years: land grabs. They push outrageous stuff, effectively daring the opposition to rescind it later and face the relevant cries ("New government helps pedophiles!!11!"). It can happen anywhere.

codeulike 4y ago

Its worth clicking and reading this because "designated persons" does not mean what you might assume it to mean. And the "restrictions for" doesnt turn out to mean why you might expect either. I'm left wondering what "reasonable steps" means. Just DNS blocking?

FollowingTheDao 4y ago

In order to love a person, you must be able to understand them. In order to understand a person, you must be able to listen to them. IF they do not let you hear these people, there is no way you can love them. That is their goal, to try and remove your ability to love. They first tried it with straight propaganda. That did not work. So now they cut you off from them totally. If you all in the UK do not rise up against this, especially you techies who help write the code for all this stuff, then you get what you deserve. Demand your right to love another human, no matter where they are. Russia is not the enemy, the oligarchs of all countries are the enemy.