4 ms·

Speaking as the person who pops up to defend the Online Safety Act (which regulates social media), I think the Investigatory Powers Act (which allows for this s

by cjs_ac 2y ago

Speaking as the person who pops up to defend the Online Safety Act (which regulates social media), I think the Investigatory Powers Act (which allows for this spat with Apple) is a terrible piece of legislation. The Online Safety Act is about internet systems that are akin to traditional publishing, and so it holds the operators of those systems to the same standards to which we hold traditional publishers, but the Investigatory Powers Act relates to individuals' private use of computer systems. It represents a serious breach of individuals' privacy, which is a foundation stone in the culture of a country as densely populated as the United Kingdom. The extraterritorial aspect of the legislation is not only uncouth in the twenty-first century, but presently unenforcible given the United Kingdom's diminished Armed Forces. Finally, choosing to pick this fight now was a poor choice given the current state of international politics.

porker 2y ago
> Speaking as the person who pops up to defend the Online Safety Act Do you defend the aims of the Act, the Act itself, or both? I'm having to figure out compliance for a volunteer run, donation funded forum, and I think the Act itself could (and should) have been better written. I don't think Ofcom can handle it better than they are, because until it's tested in court they haven't the ability to say what the vague and undefined terms mean.
- cjs_ac 2y ago
  The Online Safety Act is vague because its purpose is not to create a regulatory system, but instead to empower Ofcom to create a regulatory system that can effectively regulate a wide range of business models and online services, including those that do not exist and are currently inconceivable. If you're looking for advice on how to comply with the act, the go-to person is Heather Burns[0]. [0] https://heatherburns.tech/ https://heatherburns.tech/
  - JoshTriplett 2y ago
    > The Online Safety Act is vague because its purpose is not to create a regulatory system, but instead to empower Ofcom to create a regulatory system that can effectively regulate a wide range of business models and online services, including those that do not exist and are currently inconceivable. And that awful purpose is something you see fit to defend?
  - pmlnr 2y ago
    According to ofcom, the very site you just linked must have osa risk assessment. I can't find it there, can you?
    - pjc50 2y ago
      It's not a forum. Only sites which allow user-to-user comms are covered. (realistically the OSA kills the possibility of UK social media startups, which I'm sure everyone is fine with, right?)
      - pmlnr 2y ago
        You are wrong. Read this: https://onlinesafetyact.co.uk/ra_my_self_hosted_single_user_mastodon_instance https://onlinesafetyact.co.uk/ra_my_self_hosted_single_user_...
kelnos 2y ago
> The Online Safety Act is about internet systems that are akin to traditional publishing I won't consider myself an expert on this, but from what I've read, that's just not true. Perhaps that's the intent, but the vague wording makes it possible that all sorts of websites could be subject to it, even, for example, a small forum run by a hobbyist that has a few hundred members. Even if the intent behind the Act is good (debatable!), the implementation of it seems designed to scare everyone and allow for selective enforcement, while people get pushed to the big social media platforms as smaller niche communities feel pressured to shut down.
pjc50 2y ago
> it holds the operators of those systems to the same standards to which we hold traditional publishers This is not really true though, is it? Involving OFCOM holds the internet to broadcaster standards, which is very different from print standards. We ditched print censorship and "think of the children" in the Lady Chatterly case, long ago. > I think the Investigatory Powers Act (which allows for this spat with Apple) is a terrible piece of legislation. It is. Long ago I was briefly involved with the UK Campaign for Digital Rights campaigning against it. Nowadays that work is being done by the Open Rights Group (UK HN readers check it out!) The deeper problem is the UK security services got stuck in counterinsurgency mode during the Troubles, and then the War on Terror, and that infects everything with paranoia. There's no way to tell these people "you are fighting yesterday's threats".

by cjs_ac 2y ago

porker 2y ago

> Speaking as the person who pops up to defend the Online Safety Act Do you defend the aims of the Act, the Act itself, or both? I'm having to figure out compliance for a volunteer run, donation funded forum, and I think the Act itself could (and should) have been better written. I don't think Ofcom can handle it better than they are, because until it's tested in court they haven't the ability to say what the vague and undefined terms mean.

cjs_ac 2y ago
The Online Safety Act is vague because its purpose is not to create a regulatory system, but instead to empower Ofcom to create a regulatory system that can effectively regulate a wide range of business models and online services, including those that do not exist and are currently inconceivable. If you're looking for advice on how to comply with the act, the go-to person is Heather Burns[0]. [0] https://heatherburns.tech/ https://heatherburns.tech/
- JoshTriplett 2y ago
  > The Online Safety Act is vague because its purpose is not to create a regulatory system, but instead to empower Ofcom to create a regulatory system that can effectively regulate a wide range of business models and online services, including those that do not exist and are currently inconceivable. And that awful purpose is something you see fit to defend?
- pmlnr 2y ago
  According to ofcom, the very site you just linked must have osa risk assessment. I can't find it there, can you?
  - pjc50 2y ago
    It's not a forum. Only sites which allow user-to-user comms are covered. (realistically the OSA kills the possibility of UK social media startups, which I'm sure everyone is fine with, right?)
    - pmlnr 2y ago
      You are wrong. Read this: https://onlinesafetyact.co.uk/ra_my_self_hosted_single_user_mastodon_instance https://onlinesafetyact.co.uk/ra_my_self_hosted_single_user_...

kelnos 2y ago

> The Online Safety Act is about internet systems that are akin to traditional publishing I won't consider myself an expert on this, but from what I've read, that's just not true. Perhaps that's the intent, but the vague wording makes it possible that all sorts of websites could be subject to it, even, for example, a small forum run by a hobbyist that has a few hundred members. Even if the intent behind the Act is good (debatable!), the implementation of it seems designed to scare everyone and allow for selective enforcement, while people get pushed to the big social media platforms as smaller niche communities feel pressured to shut down.

pjc50 2y ago

> it holds the operators of those systems to the same standards to which we hold traditional publishers This is not really true though, is it? Involving OFCOM holds the internet to broadcaster standards, which is very different from print standards. We ditched print censorship and "think of the children" in the Lady Chatterly case, long ago. > I think the Investigatory Powers Act (which allows for this spat with Apple) is a terrible piece of legislation. It is. Long ago I was briefly involved with the UK Campaign for Digital Rights campaigning against it. Nowadays that work is being done by the Open Rights Group (UK HN readers check it out!) The deeper problem is the UK security services got stuck in counterinsurgency mode during the Troubles, and then the War on Terror, and that infects everything with paranoia. There's no way to tell these people "you are fighting yesterday's threats".