Somehow I have the deja-vu of when Theresa May (as a Home Secretary) tried to ban personal encryption altogether. Let me remind everyone this is in a country that already has a law that says you're legally required to give your encryption key to the police and if you do not, even if there is no other crime you can get 2 years in jail...
This told me all I needed to know about her level of understanding of complex topics. It only went downhill from there.
Meanwhile encryption was actually forbidden in France in the mid 90s. I remember snickering about the whole thing back then, in a much smaller but also quite similar forum.
> Until 1996 anyone wishing to encrypt any document had to first receive an official sanction or risk fines from F6000 to F500,000 ($1000 to $89,300) and a 2-6 month jail term. Right now, apart from a handful of exemptions, any unauthorised use of encryption software is illegal.
These two former empires seem/seemed to have an over-inflated sense of relevance and ability to control the world.
pjc50 · 47m ago
There was also in the 90s the weird period of export control of encryption software from the US, leading to the "this tshirt is a munition" shirts with the algorithm printed on them. And the (thankfully failed) "clipper chip" mandate.
dcow · 19m ago
Those controls all still exist. You just get a pass if you’re using “standard crypto”. Or if your implementation is open source.
Quarrel · 14m ago
Export controls still exist, but we're at least a far cry from the days of "This version of Mozilla is illegal to download if you are outside the USA. Please don't do it."
(and before that PGP!)
lysace · 14m ago
The US managed to impose those export controls to many countries, including mine.
I ended up being working with our country’s ’Inspectorate of strategic products’ to get our free software with proper cryptography downloadable. Many odd meetings with very serious officials. They wanted postal applications, possibly fax. We built them a nice web interface. They loved it.
braiamp · 1h ago
> The Wikimedia Foundation shares the UK government’s commitment to promoting online environments where everyone can safely participate. The organization is not bringing a general challenge to the OSA as a whole, nor to the existence of the Category 1 duties themselves. Rather, the legal challenge focuses solely on the new Categorisation Regulations that risk imposing Category 1 duties (the OSA’s most stringent obligations) on Wikipedia.
Guys, this right here is Wikipedia standing. It is that under the current law, Wikipedia would fall under cat 1 rules, even if by the law own admission it should not.
chippiewill · 2h ago
I'm skeptical this goes anywhere legally speaking.
The categorisation regulations are a statutory instrument rather than primary legislation, so they _are_ open to judicial review. But the Wikimedia foundation haven't presented an argument as to why the regulations are unlawful, just an argument for why they disagree with them.
It should be noted that even if they succeed (which seems a long shot), this wouldn't affect the main thrust of the Online Safety Act which _is_ primary legislation and includes the bit making the rounds about adult content being locked behind age verification.
Quarrel · 9m ago
I'm not sure what you're basing that on?
Have the court filings become available?
Of course, the random PR in the OP isn't going to go through their barrister's arguments.
While I agree that the main thrust of the legislation won't be affected either way, the regulatory framework really matters for this sort of thing.
Plus, win or lose, this will shine a light on some the stupidity of the legislation. Lots of random Wikipedia articles would offend the puritans.
graemep · 1h ago
The problem with the focus being on porn behind age verification as the main effect, is that it ignores all the other effects. Closing community forums and wikis. Uncertainty about blog comments.
It is actually (as noted in many previous discussion about the Online Safety Act) pushing people to using big tech platforms, because they can no longer afford the compliance cost and risk of running their own.
mytailorisrich · 14m ago
I am very skeptical that the Online Safety Act forces community forums and wikis to close. By and large the Act forces forums to have strong moderation and perhaps manual checks before publishing files and pictures uploaded by users, and that's about it.
ekianjo · 1h ago
> pushing people to using big tech platforms
so big tech platforms will cheerfully embrace it. as expected, major players love regulations.
miohtama · 51m ago
GDPR killed small and medium online advertising businesses and handed everything to Google and Facebook.
the_other · 33m ago
Frankly, that's their fault for pursuing individually targeted advertising. The sad thing isn't that some small shitty businesses lost out, it's that some large shitty businesses didn't.
It seems to be a fairly standard judicial review: if OFCOM(?) class them as "category 1", they are under a very serious burden, so they want the categorization decision reviewed in court.
ZiiS · 2h ago
I can't see any language in the statutory instrument suggesting anyone had any intention of applying it to Wikimedia? The most likely outcome is the court will reassure them of that. This might help other people running similar websites by citing the case rather than having to pay for all the experts but isn't going to magically stop it applying to Meta as intended.
lysace · 1h ago
Wikimedia hosts what UK puritans consider pornographic content.
A lot of it. Often in high quality and with a permissible license.
I would link to relevant meta pages but I want to be able travel through LHR.
noodlesUK · 2h ago
I don't like the OSA and associated regulations as much as the next person -- I think we could have gotten a long way by saying you need to include a X-Age-Rating in http responses and calling it a day. The law itself is incoherently long and it's very difficult to know what duties you have.
However, I don't see what the legal basis of Wikimedia's challenge is. The OSA is primary legislation, so can't be challenged except under the HRA, which I don't really see working. The regulations are secondary regulation and are more open to challenge, but it's not clear what the basis of the challenge is. Are they saying the regulations are outside the scope of the statutory authority (doubtful)? You can't really challenge law or regulation in the UK on the basis of "I don't like it".
gorgoiler · 42m ago
X-Age-Rating would only work if the server could be sure of the jurisdictions under which the recipient was bound.
To continue the thought experiment though: another implementation would be to list up to N tags that best describe the content being served. You could base these on various agreed tagging systems such as UN ISIC tagging (6010 Broadcasting Pop Music) or UDC, the successor to the Dewey Decimal System (657 Accountancy, 797 Water Sports etc.) The more popular sites could just grandfather in their own tag zoologies.
A cartoon song about wind surfing:
X-Content-Tags: ISIC:6010 UDC:797 YouTube:KidsTV
It’s then up to the recipient’s device to warn them of incoming illegal-in-your-state content.
The USA has twenty-fucking-five different laws we might be bound by, and AFAIK the silliest one (Texas) has been upheld by the USSC.
Look I get it, Hacker News has a no-politics-unless-it's-the-EU-or-UK rule and HNers generally seem to hate Brits.
But I think what we're witnessing here is little more than performative self-soothing. The entire foundations of US freedom are being ripped apart in an incredibly short time so hey, let's snark at the perfidious Brits.
master-lincoln · 38m ago
I think you both have a point. Why not block foreign access to your internet service if the laws of that foreign country are nothing you want to be concerned with?
It might be a bit disruptive in the beginning, but in the long run I think we all benefit from that. It increases the chance of politicians to realize their over-boarding decisions by having public pressure from previous users of those services and it increases the likelihood of local competitors of those services opening.
nemomarx · 37m ago
Yeah, you should probably try to do something about the rising fascist tendencies in the US? Why wouldn't you?
Rolling over for it isn't going to do the EU or other allies any favors. The administration won't reward loyalty with good deals or whatever
sealeck · 1h ago
It may well come to that (and the fact that Wikipedia ends up being banned in the UK will potentially bring people to their senses).
kypro · 2h ago
As a Brit, ultimately I think this is the only thing that's going to get through to the government and public.
No comments yet
miohtama · 1h ago
In related news, the Labour party is already considering banning VPNs. We almost got like two days of Online Safety Act in effect.
I hate the Online Safety Act as much as the next person, but:
- Labour have made no plans to ban VPNs.
- One MP wanted to add a clause for a government review into the impact of VPNs on the bill after 6 months, with no direction on what that would mean.
- I have no idea if this clause actually got added, but it'd make sense. If you're going to introduce a stupid law you should at least plan to review if the stupid law is having any impact.
- GB news is bottom of the barrel propaganda.
ekianjo · 1h ago
> clause for a government review into the impact of VPNs on the bill after 6 months
thats government speak for deciding to do something about the VPN problem. because there is no way a commission will not find a good reason to ban VPNs when you reach that point, because you could argue they help avoid UK restrictions.
tomck · 1h ago
You're repeating propaganda from a far right newspaper headline, written misleadingly to make it sound like labour have said something recently about VPNs (they haven't)
7952 · 1h ago
I think that article references a discussion from 2022 rather than something new as the headline implies.
crtasm · 25m ago
So the hearing was on 22+23rd, is there a writeup of how it went and when we might hear the outcome?
mikeyouse · 15m ago
Yep case was heard last week but no decision returned yet:
All this is of course bullshit. The only response that would have a chance of succeeding would have been if most websites collectively just blocked everyone from the UK. Imagine if 60-70% of the internet just stopped working for UK People. The law would be toppled tomorrow.
Every Company that implemented any compliance is a traitor to the free internet and should be treated as such.
blitzar · 2h ago
The UK is the perfect target - globally relevant enough to make the news, small enough that its a financial rounding error. Take action, carry through with the threat and if your product actually matters - attitudes can change globally.
While the law would not be toppled tomorrow, the companies of the internet need to stop being so desperate for small scraps of money and eyeballs.
The internet might be free if companies instead of trying to skirt laws and regulations just operated where they are welcome. Good for the internet but bad for the VCs so it wont happen.
Swinx43 · 2h ago
I live in the UK. Please for the love of all that is sweet and holy DO THIS! The only way our politicians will learn is if the public outcry is so fierce it makes them fear for their jobs.
A UK internet blockade might just get this going.
IlikeKitties · 2h ago
The issue here is that the internet is dominated by large companies that have a huge incentive to use this as a way to ensure regulatory capture of the free internet.
drcongo · 24m ago
I'm not following the logic, how would this work?
graemep · 1h ago
Most websites, for most people, are big tech. Big tech loves this regulation because imposing compliance costs reduces competition.
ajsnigrutin · 1h ago
The problem is, that both pornhub and facebook also love underage (well, too young) users, because those users will stay there.
Cutting off UK for a few weeks won't cause that much damage but might help them in the long run.
wizzwizz4 · 46m ago
These laws don't cause any problems for PornHub or Facebook. People are moving from independent forums to Facebook.
lukan · 2h ago
"Every Company that implemented any compliance is a traitor to the free internet and should be treated as such."
What would be the punishment for that?
IlikeKitties · 2h ago
> What would be the punishment for that?
On a legal level? None. On a personal level? Don't give them money or your business. Avoid them completely or ensure you use ad blockers on their sites and throw away accounts if necessary. Do not contribute to their content.
In short: you take whatever they give you, and you give nothing in return.
This is full of contradictions and both-sides-of-the-mouth speech. You can't coherently argue for an "open internet" "for everyone", and simultaneously plead exceptionalism for your own website, due its special virtues[0]. An "open internet" for websites with sterling reputations is a closed internet. It's an internet where censorship segregates the desirable from undesirable; where websites must plead their case to the state, "please let me exist, for this reason: ..." That's not what "open" means!
And moreover: WF's special pleading is[1], paraphrased, "because we already strongly moderate in exactly the ways this government wants, so there's no need to regulate *us* in particular". That's capitulation; or, they were never really adverse in the first place.
Wikimedia's counsel is of course pleading Wikimedia's own interests[2]. Their interests are not the same as the public's interest. Don't confuse ourselves: if you are not a centimillionaire entity with sacks full of lawyers, you are not Wikimedia Foundation's peer group.
[0] ("It’s the only top-ten website operated by a non-profit and one of the highest-quality datasets used in training Large Language Models (LLMs)"—to the extent anyone parses that as virtuous)
[1] ("These volunteers set and enforce policies to ensure that information on the platform is fact-based, neutral, and attributed to reliable sources.")
[2] ("The organization is not bringing a general challenge to the OSA as a whole, nor to the existence of the Category 1 duties themselves. Rather, the legal challenge focuses solely on the new Categorisation Regulations that risk imposing Category 1 duties (the OSA’s most stringent obligations) on Wikipedia.")
Towaway69 · 2h ago
This is a fine sentiment, could you also please provide an alternative approach?
The law has passed, Wikipedia has to enforce that law but don’t wish to because of privacy concerns.
What should Wikimedia now do? Give up? Ignore the laws of the UK? Shutdown in the UK? What exactly are the options for wikimedia?
perihelions · 2h ago
> "This is a fine sentiment, could you also please provide an alternative approach?"
Shut down in the UK seems like a reasonable approach.
If UK wants to be more like China: let them.
raincole · 2h ago
Warn the UK users during the grace period as best as they can.
And after the grace period... yeah, I think blocking UK IPs is the "correct" thing to do. If the government doesn't make them an exception than they'll have to do that, correct or not, anyway.
Towaway69 · 1h ago
I think the people of the UK have little or nothing to do with this.
UK is a representative democracy meaning that voters get a voice every X years to vote for a representative that they assume will act in their favour and on their behalf.
What this representative does in their time in power is very much left to the representative and not the voters.
On the other hand, if this were to be a direct democracy then the voters would have been asked before this law was voted on. For example, a referendum might well have been held.
Perhaps a more nuanced approach would be to block all IPs of government organisations - difficult but far more approriate.
iLoveOncall · 1h ago
> Shutdown in the UK?
Yes. This is what every single large company which is subject to this distopian law should do. They should do everything they can to block any traffic from the UK, until the law is repelled.
graemep · 1h ago
large companies love this law.
By imposing costs and risk on self hosting, and reducing the number of supplies (because many small and medium companies and organisation will block the UK), it reduces competition.
iLoveOncall · 1h ago
The reality is the vast majority of users will just not submit their ID and the large companies will lose most of their UK traffic.
There was a study by Amazon [1] that showed that every 100ms of extra load time of a page cost 1% of revenue. How much revenue do you think adding an ID verification that takes 10 minutes to complete cost???
The grapevine says that independent sex workers are struggling as a result of the Online Safety Act. Unless the law has significantly reduced the tendency for UK people to engage with internet porn (which I doubt), then yes, PornHub is benefiting from this law.
exe34 · 1h ago
> Shutdown in the UK?
That might actually be one of the few things that would help.
jojobas · 2h ago
Laws get challenged and overturned all the time. I doubt it will happen this time, can't have wrongthink.
ZiiS · 2h ago
They can build a solid legal case on their exceptionalism _and_ hope the court uses it as an opportunity to more widely protect the open Internet.
The fact that the letter of the law means you can't have an open Internet isn't their fault.
jonathantf2 · 2h ago
I'm surprised they haven't deployed a big banner à la Jimmy Wales begging for donations to UK users re this law yet
bawolff · 2h ago
I think most Wikimedia users would consider it inapropriate to mix fundraising and public policy initiatives.
weberer · 2h ago
They previously did a 24 hour blackout to protest SOPA.
Literally more then a decade ago. Also they didn't mix it together with fundraiser.
mminer237 · 1h ago
I believe public policy initiatives are already Wikimedia's second-biggest expenses, after salaries, so I don't see how that would be much more different than usual fundraising except for making it more transparent.
bawolff · 46m ago
In 2023 (most recent year i could find a tax statement for) Wikimedia foundation had a budget of $178,588,294. They spent $92,616 of it on lobbying. That is 0.05% of their budget. So i think its pretty clear its not their second biggest expense.
"The organization is not bringing a general challenge to the OSA as a whole, nor to the existence of the Category 1 duties themselves. Rather, the legal challenge focuses solely on the new Categorisation Regulations that risk imposing Category 1 duties (the OSA’s most stringent obligations) on Wikipedia."
I find this a very unprincipled stance.
cubefox · 2h ago
The headline seems a little misleading. From the article:
> The Wikimedia Foundation shares the UK government’s commitment to promoting online environments where everyone can safely participate. The organization is not bringing a general challenge to the OSA as a whole, nor to the existence of the Category 1 duties themselves. Rather, the legal challenge focuses solely on the new Categorisation Regulations that risk imposing Category 1 duties (the OSA’s most stringent obligations) on Wikipedia.
How is "algorithmic feed" related to safety? Or is it, along with seemingly arbitrary numbers like 7 or 34 millions, a way to target a specific platform for those who are afraid to spell the name explicitly?
This told me all I needed to know about her level of understanding of complex topics. It only went downhill from there.
"The Home Secretary's husband has said sorry for embarrassing his wife after two adult films were viewed at their home, then claimed for on expenses."
The follow up article has some fun nuggets too http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8145935.stm
https://www.theregister.com/1999/01/15/france_to_end_severe_...
> Until 1996 anyone wishing to encrypt any document had to first receive an official sanction or risk fines from F6000 to F500,000 ($1000 to $89,300) and a 2-6 month jail term. Right now, apart from a handful of exemptions, any unauthorised use of encryption software is illegal.
These two former empires seem/seemed to have an over-inflated sense of relevance and ability to control the world.
(and before that PGP!)
I ended up being working with our country’s ’Inspectorate of strategic products’ to get our free software with proper cryptography downloadable. Many odd meetings with very serious officials. They wanted postal applications, possibly fax. We built them a nice web interface. They loved it.
Guys, this right here is Wikipedia standing. It is that under the current law, Wikipedia would fall under cat 1 rules, even if by the law own admission it should not.
The categorisation regulations are a statutory instrument rather than primary legislation, so they _are_ open to judicial review. But the Wikimedia foundation haven't presented an argument as to why the regulations are unlawful, just an argument for why they disagree with them.
It should be noted that even if they succeed (which seems a long shot), this wouldn't affect the main thrust of the Online Safety Act which _is_ primary legislation and includes the bit making the rounds about adult content being locked behind age verification.
Have the court filings become available?
Of course, the random PR in the OP isn't going to go through their barrister's arguments.
While I agree that the main thrust of the legislation won't be affected either way, the regulatory framework really matters for this sort of thing.
Plus, win or lose, this will shine a light on some the stupidity of the legislation. Lots of random Wikipedia articles would offend the puritans.
It is actually (as noted in many previous discussion about the Online Safety Act) pushing people to using big tech platforms, because they can no longer afford the compliance cost and risk of running their own.
so big tech platforms will cheerfully embrace it. as expected, major players love regulations.
It seems to be a fairly standard judicial review: if OFCOM(?) class them as "category 1", they are under a very serious burden, so they want the categorization decision reviewed in court.
A lot of it. Often in high quality and with a permissible license.
I would link to relevant meta pages but I want to be able travel through LHR.
However, I don't see what the legal basis of Wikimedia's challenge is. The OSA is primary legislation, so can't be challenged except under the HRA, which I don't really see working. The regulations are secondary regulation and are more open to challenge, but it's not clear what the basis of the challenge is. Are they saying the regulations are outside the scope of the statutory authority (doubtful)? You can't really challenge law or regulation in the UK on the basis of "I don't like it".
To continue the thought experiment though: another implementation would be to list up to N tags that best describe the content being served. You could base these on various agreed tagging systems such as UN ISIC tagging (6010 Broadcasting Pop Music) or UDC, the successor to the Dewey Decimal System (657 Accountancy, 797 Water Sports etc.) The more popular sites could just grandfather in their own tag zoologies.
A cartoon song about wind surfing:
It’s then up to the recipient’s device to warn them of incoming illegal-in-your-state content.https://avpassociation.com/4271-2/
The USA has twenty-fucking-five different laws we might be bound by, and AFAIK the silliest one (Texas) has been upheld by the USSC.
Look I get it, Hacker News has a no-politics-unless-it's-the-EU-or-UK rule and HNers generally seem to hate Brits.
But I think what we're witnessing here is little more than performative self-soothing. The entire foundations of US freedom are being ripped apart in an incredibly short time so hey, let's snark at the perfidious Brits.
It might be a bit disruptive in the beginning, but in the long run I think we all benefit from that. It increases the chance of politicians to realize their over-boarding decisions by having public pressure from previous users of those services and it increases the likelihood of local competitors of those services opening.
Rolling over for it isn't going to do the EU or other allies any favors. The administration won't reward loyalty with good deals or whatever
No comments yet
https://www.gbnews.com/politics/labour-ban-vpn-online-safety...
- Labour have made no plans to ban VPNs.
- One MP wanted to add a clause for a government review into the impact of VPNs on the bill after 6 months, with no direction on what that would mean.
- I have no idea if this clause actually got added, but it'd make sense. If you're going to introduce a stupid law you should at least plan to review if the stupid law is having any impact.
- GB news is bottom of the barrel propaganda.
thats government speak for deciding to do something about the VPN problem. because there is no way a commission will not find a good reason to ban VPNs when you reach that point, because you could argue they help avoid UK restrictions.
https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/uk/online-safety...
Every Company that implemented any compliance is a traitor to the free internet and should be treated as such.
While the law would not be toppled tomorrow, the companies of the internet need to stop being so desperate for small scraps of money and eyeballs.
The internet might be free if companies instead of trying to skirt laws and regulations just operated where they are welcome. Good for the internet but bad for the VCs so it wont happen.
A UK internet blockade might just get this going.
Cutting off UK for a few weeks won't cause that much damage but might help them in the long run.
What would be the punishment for that?
On a legal level? None. On a personal level? Don't give them money or your business. Avoid them completely or ensure you use ad blockers on their sites and throw away accounts if necessary. Do not contribute to their content.
In short: you take whatever they give you, and you give nothing in return.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_voting
And moreover: WF's special pleading is[1], paraphrased, "because we already strongly moderate in exactly the ways this government wants, so there's no need to regulate *us* in particular". That's capitulation; or, they were never really adverse in the first place.
Wikimedia's counsel is of course pleading Wikimedia's own interests[2]. Their interests are not the same as the public's interest. Don't confuse ourselves: if you are not a centimillionaire entity with sacks full of lawyers, you are not Wikimedia Foundation's peer group.
[0] ("It’s the only top-ten website operated by a non-profit and one of the highest-quality datasets used in training Large Language Models (LLMs)"—to the extent anyone parses that as virtuous)
[1] ("These volunteers set and enforce policies to ensure that information on the platform is fact-based, neutral, and attributed to reliable sources.")
[2] ("The organization is not bringing a general challenge to the OSA as a whole, nor to the existence of the Category 1 duties themselves. Rather, the legal challenge focuses solely on the new Categorisation Regulations that risk imposing Category 1 duties (the OSA’s most stringent obligations) on Wikipedia.")
The law has passed, Wikipedia has to enforce that law but don’t wish to because of privacy concerns.
What should Wikimedia now do? Give up? Ignore the laws of the UK? Shutdown in the UK? What exactly are the options for wikimedia?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3477966 ("Wikipedia blackout page (wikipedia.org)" (2012))
Wikimedia weren't always a giant ambulating pile of cash; they used to be activists. Long ago.
Your point is moot because this wasn’t a WMF initiative, it was an enwiki community initiative which WMF agreed to accommodate.
The history is detailed… on Wikipedia… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA...
If UK wants to be more like China: let them.
And after the grace period... yeah, I think blocking UK IPs is the "correct" thing to do. If the government doesn't make them an exception than they'll have to do that, correct or not, anyway.
UK is a representative democracy meaning that voters get a voice every X years to vote for a representative that they assume will act in their favour and on their behalf.
What this representative does in their time in power is very much left to the representative and not the voters.
On the other hand, if this were to be a direct democracy then the voters would have been asked before this law was voted on. For example, a referendum might well have been held.
Perhaps a more nuanced approach would be to block all IPs of government organisations - difficult but far more approriate.
Yes. This is what every single large company which is subject to this distopian law should do. They should do everything they can to block any traffic from the UK, until the law is repelled.
By imposing costs and risk on self hosting, and reducing the number of supplies (because many small and medium companies and organisation will block the UK), it reduces competition.
There was a study by Amazon [1] that showed that every 100ms of extra load time of a page cost 1% of revenue. How much revenue do you think adding an ID verification that takes 10 minutes to complete cost???
You think PornHub loves this law???
[1] https://www.conductor.com/academy/page-speed-resources/faq/a...
That might actually be one of the few things that would help.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/d/d9/Wikim...
I find this a very unprincipled stance.
> The Wikimedia Foundation shares the UK government’s commitment to promoting online environments where everyone can safely participate. The organization is not bringing a general challenge to the OSA as a whole, nor to the existence of the Category 1 duties themselves. Rather, the legal challenge focuses solely on the new Categorisation Regulations that risk imposing Category 1 duties (the OSA’s most stringent obligations) on Wikipedia.
Seems to require an algorithmic feed to be Category 1 - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2025/9780348267174