tech

Tech leaders face threat of prison under new UK online bill

23 Comments
By KELVIN CHAN

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

23 Comments
Login to comment

Good, about time they faced up to their responsibility.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

The UK Parliament can pass such laws because UK along with many Commonwealth members have no formal written bill of rights or similar protections of basic human rights. In UK your "rights" are whatever the Parliament of the time deigns them to be. I suspect such a law would never survive the courts and if passed it will set up an almost immediate conflict with US law. But the UK government is arrogant and unconstrained so it is to be expected. This law will be twisted to enforce political orthodoxy and punish political opposition.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

I should have said "I suspect if such a law were passed in the US it wound never survive the courts". Sorry for the error.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

The Internet Censorship Bill is indicative of the increasingly Chinese behaviour of Western governments, determined to build walls in cyberspace and 'take back control' of their digital borders, finally putting the dream of the 'global village' - which would have been the highpoint of our civilisation - to the sword. The UK isn't an exception, it's just first. You will all be subject to this sort of thing soon.

VPNs may allow you to dodge some of it for a while, and some parts of it will be a train wreck, but the days of Web 2.0 and comments sections like this are numbered.

Governments have been implementing increasing restrictions for years now, manipulating and censoring search engines, using 'privacy', 'public health' and 'national security' to block sites, implement controls upon payment systems, and block ebay stores. The best analogy is that, instead of building walls nearby that everyone could see going up and complain about, they built the walls a long way off. They looked small and nobody worried about them. And then they moved them a little nearer each week. Now they look a lot bigger, you can't see over them or round them, and you will start to bump up against them. Too late to complain now.

If you have friends in other countries on social media, get hold of their postal addresses if you want to stay in touch (although international postal services are now subject to increased restrictions). And time to start buying some memory cards to swap stuff on, like the Chinese too. We need to learn from the Chinese people - they are good at dealing with this sort of thing.

The best revolutions are the ones that nobody notices until it is too late. Western governments honed their skills at colonialisation over several centuries. Now they are implementing them upon their own citizens on their own turf. It would be easier to be impressed if we were not all on the wrong end of it.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Google, Apple, Samsung needs to leave Russia, and block access.... send them back to the stone ages.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

DT you obviously have absolutely no idea how the British constitution and legal system works and has done so effectively since before the USA was thought of. The checks and balances inherent in the system are more complex and the system more flexible than any simplistic bit of paper.

“Conflict with US law” another example of the USA thinking it has a right of extra territoriality in respect of its domestic laws. US law is domestic, applicable to the confines of the country, it has no meaning outwith those borders.

Every other publisher has always taken responsibility for what they publish, this law merely seeks to bring new media in to line with that and prevent the exploitation of criminality for profit that mega online corporations have cynically exploited under the guise of freedom of information.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

zichiMar. 18  08:44 am JST

UK bill of rights 1689 existed before America was created.

Incorrect, as the UK did not exist in 1689.

https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/legislativescrutiny/act-of-union-1707/

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

zichiToday  10:05 am JST

It is an original Act of the English Parliament and has been in the custody of Parliament since its creation.

So you are admitting that the UK was created in 1707, not 1689?

Because that is what my link showed--according to the UK gov website--or are they wrong?

As for the English Parliament---doesn't UK stand for "United Kingdom" and include more than one country?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Back on topic please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I should have said "I suspect if such a law were passed in the US it wound never survive the courts"

In the US Section 230 provides immunity to these tech companies, and this is what needs to be amended.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I don't use social media, but I generally view it as a modern equivalent of public notice boards. I don't think we are surprised that we can't post anything we like on such notice boards - we generally accept the censorship. My big question is the practicalities - how on earth can a company monitor everything that is posted on social media? Would you not need a massive army of people checking everything?

I'm assuming the law won't apply to individual web sites (but not sure). But if you want to broadcast your opinion, is having your own web site not the better approach. That's more the equivalent of standing on a soap box and telling the world what you think.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The ambitious but controversial online safety bill would give regulators wide-ranging powers to crack down on digital and social media companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter and TikTok.

Powers that China already has?

Tech companies would have to proactively take down illegal content involving revenge porn, hate crime, fraud, ads for drugs or weapons, suicide promotion or assistance, human trafficking and sexual exploitation, on top of the originally proposed terrorism and child sexual abuse material.

This would be taking place not in China, but in the UK?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Every other publisher has always taken responsibility for what they publish,

For that to apply to internet discussions you have to assume something like Facebook or Discus are publishers. They are not. You are trying to apply an 18th Century model of paper publishing to a 21st Century technology. It is wrong to do so. A webhost is not a publisher. If you force them to be a publisher they will very likely cease allowing public comments. The reality is that each and every one of us who write a comment on a discussion board are the publisher of our comment. Not the discussion board, but the actual individual who posts. And obtw, no level of government has any right to censor anything anyone says. If you don't like what someone says, come up with a better argument.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

“Conflict with US law” another example of the USA thinking it has a right of extra territoriality in respect of its domestic laws

No. The conflict occurs when a UK court attempts to convict the US based owner/management of a US tech firm for a post that under US law is protected free speech. Under US law short of calling for a revolution or the killing of specific individuals, your political opinion even if it is hateful is still protected by the First Amendment. Some statements that are legally protected free speech under US law is illegal in European nations. The UK cannot expect to punish a US tech firm or its owners for allowing speech that is legal under US law and in fact it would be illegal for a government agency at any level to attempt to censor such speech. The UK law sets up the probability of the UK prosecuting American tech firms and their owners for posters saying things that are legally protected free speech in the US. UK cannot do that.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

DT, what they publish in the USA is their problem but if it is published in the UK it falls under UK courts jurisdiction. The corporation as a legal person has a presence in the UK and as such is subject to that jurisdiction, as are its employees and local management.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

DT, what they publish in the USA is their problem but if it is published in the UK it falls under UK courts jurisdiction. 

Um, it is not as if discussion boards have geographic restrictions. Example, this is a Japanese discussion board but I don't live in Japan and am not subject to Japanese law. I could just as easily post on a UK based discussion board. If I say something that upsets the tender sensibilities of the UK internet censors from my home in the US, tough luck for the UK. They can't sue me here for protected free speech and they darn well have no right suing the owners of Facebook or what have you for my post. It is complete nonsense.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites