upvote

points

by CaptainOfCoit2 days ago |
comments
upvoteby blibble2 days ago|
[-]
significant can mean anything ofcom want it to

their entire post is sophistry and wishful thinking, neither of which will work if ofcom decide to go after them

the intention of the OSA is to attempt to regulate user-to-user communications services, of which IRC is one

they're probably right that they're near bottom of the list though

(at least until this blog post ends up on their desk monday morning)

reply
upvoteby NoboruWataya2 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> significant can mean anything ofcom want it to

You're right in the sense that they can pursue whomever they want based on whatever interpretation of "significant" they may hold. But it is not Ofcom that ultimately decides on the meaning of the term, that is for a court to decide and that court would likely rely on the same authorities and principles that Libera's lawyers did in their advice.

reply
upvoteby blibble2 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> But it is not Ofcom that ultimately decides on the meaning of the term, that is for a court to decide and that court would likely rely on the same authorities and principles that Libera's lawyers did in their advice.

assuming of course libera don't fold the moment they receive a nastygram ("enforcement notice")

like they did when andrew lee commandeered freenode

reply
upvoteby wizzwizz42 days ago|
parent|
[-]
They weren't in a strong legal position then: a few mistakes over the course of decades substantially weakened their ability to fight back against Andrew Lee (without significant personal expense). Libera's legal structure is much stronger, and (importantly) the Ofcom has nothing to gain from going after them. (Libera aren't, after all, part of the problem.)
reply
upvoteby FridayoLeary2 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
I think you are putting too much faith in the courts. They are independent, but they have shown time and again that they will interpret the law how they like. They don't live in a vacuum and they certainly aren't free from, or blind to political considerations that influence their decisions, like the rest of us. Ofcom are very clearly the sort of people who want to apply the most open ended and widespread use of the powers they can in a misguided effort to save the public from themselves and i have very little confidence that our judges are not cut from the same cloth. I won't go so far as to say they would collude with ofcom, but i do think they are more likely to side with them over the defendants, however weak the case may be.

The problem is the law is worded in the vaguest way possible and ofcom in exceptionally bad faith have refused to give any clear guidance on what they will and won't prosecute. Our politicians in their arrogance have passed this law, so expect no help from them.

reply
upvoteby cft2 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
In these games involving companies with no physical presence in the UK, OfCom has only two realistic enforcement strategies:

1. Arrest the founders or officers at the UK border if they attempt to enter.

2. Direct UK ISPs to block access to their services.

Let's see if they are so PR-insensitive that they will want to actually do that.

reply
upvoteby shubb21 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Seems like ofcom picked thier targets to create precedent fur using ISP blocks against non compliant companies.

Case law is important in the UK because laws are vaguely written and thier specifics are established in court.

By going after entities that can't comply and don't have a big legal budget like 4chan, they can go through the motions and establish that ISP level blocks against non complying companies are okay.

They can then hit progressively more difficult targets until they get to X and tiktok.

reply
upvoteby chatmasta16 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
The end goal is obviously directing UK ISPs to block services. This whole game is just performative attempts at enforcement to create a paper trail when they propose the blocks.
reply
upvoteby pmontra2 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
3. Ask for extradition.
reply
upvoteby cft2 days ago|
parent|
[-]
"No US citizen was extradited for an alleged crime while the person was based in the US"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK%E2%80%93US_extradition_trea...

reply
upvoteby throwaway484762 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Many flights connect through London.
reply
upvoteby bccdee1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
Right, but that's option 1 (arrest them if they enter the uk).
reply
upvoteby f33d51732 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
According to tfa they're based in sweden
reply
upvoteby betaby1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
libera.chat servers are hosted by volunteers. Most of the libera.chat infra are the the same servers which were switched from freenode in 2021. Existence of the non-profit in Sweden changes nothing, that entity can be closed without any adverse effect for the IRC.
reply
upvoteby Daviey2 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
If they were persued, I assume they'd shut down. At the same time, a new IT service called "freechat" or "librenode" would start up.
reply
upvoteby cedws2 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Not sure why your comment has been received negatively when it seems to be obviously true. Yes, "significant" is ambiguous and I wouldn't be surprised if the intention is to give themselves discretion to go after whoever they choose. The OSA is insidious.
reply
upvoteby 2 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby neilv2 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Good insights.

1. Do you think that getting the legal advice was a good defensive measure?

(Something to point to, to establish that they were being responsible, if ever challenged.)

2. And do you think that publicizing it was a good idea?

(Probably they are drawing fire on Monday morning, like you said. But maybe it's a plausibly good tactical move because, just speculating here, someone now takes the time to pay attention to who they are, rather than them later land on some poorly-informed list of non-compliants that gets rubber-stamped for action.)

reply