3 ms·

I just basically struggle with the concept of "x people form our country chose to talk to your web server (hosted elsewhere, responds to anybody) so we now clai

I just basically struggle with the concept of "x people form our country chose to talk to your web server (hosted elsewhere, responds to anybody) so we now claim jurisdiction (with possible criminal penalties) over that server (hosted elsewhere) and you (who lives elsewhere)."

arlcode 1y ago
That particular approach is actually pretty sensible if you (as a law maker) want to get any results. Otherwise everyone from small sites to Facebook would just shop around jurisdictions and formally operate their websites from wherever fits them best. And if a service is used by citizens of your country it makes sense to scale requirements by the impact it is having on them. This particular law may not be great overall but I've got no issues with this method. As a site provider outside the UK it's trivially easy to avoid liability (by blocking people)
- landl0rd 1y ago
  Except we're not dealing with one of the web servers running out of reg-shopped countries where you can host just about anything. We're dealing with stuff that's legal as-is in most developed countries, including America. Aside from the basic question of whether it's ethical to regulate in that way (you're correct it's practical, but there are plenty of things that get results but are morally wrong) it doesn't bear on this case.
  - arlcode 1y ago
    I think this is a heavy handed law which entrenches big tech companies. However I'd argue that from the UK perspective any of these developed countries would be considered reg-shoped. They don't consider other countries' laws as sufficient to protect their citizens (which I probably wouldn't agree with). I'm struggling to see a better approach to make sure any law applicable to online services is actually effective. It seems like there are only a few options: 1. Only pass globally agreed upon laws (which is basically nothing and not realistic) 2. Only regulate domestic providers (which would severely disadvantage them and not resolve the underlying issues) 3. Block all foreign services (which is even more drastic). In the end a states' power is tied to its territory and the people living within it. If not being active in that state at all releases you from it's laws I would consider this appropriate. This is on the UK to fix (or not fix) for themselves.
pseudo0 1y ago
Realistically they can't, unless the service owner lives in a country with an extradition treaty with the UK, and that country has an equivalent law in place. But most service operators don't want to deal with that stress, so they will just IP block the UK and Brits who know how to use a VPN will just keep using the service. I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up being a topic in trade negotiations with the US in the future though, since this is a trade barrier that imposes significant regulatory cost on US companies for content that is legal in the US. Eg. the proscribed categories of illegal content include knives and firearms, hate, etc.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
lmz 1y ago
Hey, it worked for the GDPR...

arlcode 1y ago

That particular approach is actually pretty sensible if you (as a law maker) want to get any results. Otherwise everyone from small sites to Facebook would just shop around jurisdictions and formally operate their websites from wherever fits them best. And if a service is used by citizens of your country it makes sense to scale requirements by the impact it is having on them. This particular law may not be great overall but I've got no issues with this method. As a site provider outside the UK it's trivially easy to avoid liability (by blocking people)

landl0rd 1y ago
Except we're not dealing with one of the web servers running out of reg-shopped countries where you can host just about anything. We're dealing with stuff that's legal as-is in most developed countries, including America. Aside from the basic question of whether it's ethical to regulate in that way (you're correct it's practical, but there are plenty of things that get results but are morally wrong) it doesn't bear on this case.
- arlcode 1y ago
  I think this is a heavy handed law which entrenches big tech companies. However I'd argue that from the UK perspective any of these developed countries would be considered reg-shoped. They don't consider other countries' laws as sufficient to protect their citizens (which I probably wouldn't agree with). I'm struggling to see a better approach to make sure any law applicable to online services is actually effective. It seems like there are only a few options: 1. Only pass globally agreed upon laws (which is basically nothing and not realistic) 2. Only regulate domestic providers (which would severely disadvantage them and not resolve the underlying issues) 3. Block all foreign services (which is even more drastic). In the end a states' power is tied to its territory and the people living within it. If not being active in that state at all releases you from it's laws I would consider this appropriate. This is on the UK to fix (or not fix) for themselves.

pseudo0 1y ago

Realistically they can't, unless the service owner lives in a country with an extradition treaty with the UK, and that country has an equivalent law in place. But most service operators don't want to deal with that stress, so they will just IP block the UK and Brits who know how to use a VPN will just keep using the service. I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up being a topic in trade negotiations with the US in the future though, since this is a trade barrier that imposes significant regulatory cost on US companies for content that is legal in the US. Eg. the proscribed categories of illegal content include knives and firearms, hate, etc.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

lmz 1y ago

Hey, it worked for the GDPR...