UK Government To Speed Up Criminal Sanctions for Tech Bosses With New Online Safety Laws (cnbc.com) 22
Executives at companies like Meta, Google, Twitter and TikTok could face jail time sooner than anticipated if they fail to cooperate with the U.K. internet regulator, Ofcom. From a report: The U.K. government announced Wednesday that executives may face prosecution or jail time within two months of the new Online Safety Bill becoming law, instead of two years as it was previously drafted. The Online Safety Bill will be presented to lawmakers in Parliament on Thursday and could become law later this year. It aims to make it mandatory for social media services, search engines and other platforms that allow people to share their own content to protect children, tackle illegal activity and uphold their stated terms and conditions. The government said Wednesday that a range of new offenses had been added to the bill that makes the senior managers at tech firms criminally liable for destroying evidence, failing to attend or providing false information in interviews with Ofcom, and for obstructing the watchdog when it enters company offices.
Be careful what you wish for (Score:1)
Companies might decide to just "not do business there" because of the regulatory risks.
I don't see established companies pulling out, but if I were a startup, I'd seriously consider geo-fencing out anyone from the U.K. and putting it in my terms and conditions that the service was not available in the U.K., at least until I got big enough to afford the cost of legal compliance.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Or, you could, you know, just not break the fucking law?
Re: (Score:3)
Jerry Falwell tried to get the Moral Majority going again but then he died, so that's nice.
He did try to leave his empire to his sons, but of course, like all those cancel culture people, Jerry jr. turned out to be a corrupt pervert.
Not that I really care if he gets off watching other men screw his wife, that's none of my business, but I do object to him casting judgement on other people's lifestyles.
Those ca
Re: (Score:1)
by splutty ( 43475 ) on Thursday March 17, 2022 @01:12PM (#62366521)
Or, you could, you know, just not break the fucking law?
Says the criminal posting to social media under a false name, and making the post public as to flaunt your crime...
Yes posting under anything but your legal given name is a crime.
Also yes, I'm aware you didn't *choose* to make your post public, but the law doesn't care if you actually have that choice, it just makes it a crime for not choosing an option unavailable to you.
Re: (Score:2)
No idea what country you're from, but here such a 'law' does not exist.
Since that would make all writers who are writing under a different name criminals, in your world.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah fuck all those things getting in the way, like building codes. Oh wait... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see established companies pulling out, but if I were a startup, I'd seriously consider geo-fencing out anyone from the U.K. and putting it in my terms and conditions that the service was not available in the U.K., at least until I got big enough to afford the cost of legal compliance.
According to the summary, "It aims to make it mandatory for social media services, search engines and other platforms that allow people to share their own content to protect children, tackle illegal activity and uphold their stated terms and conditions." So putting it in your terms and conditions that the service is not available in the U.K. will not only not help you, but might hurt you, as you would then be legally responsible for ensuring users from the U.K. couldn't use your service!
Simple.. (Score:2)
That would solve a lot of their problems and address findings that social media *is* hurting kids.
For the rest of it, I think I might close my office in the UK so as not to have a physical presence there.
There goes anonymity (Score:1)
"You must be 18 or over" doesn't pair well with anonymity.
This is fine if you don't care about anonymity, but it doesn't bode well for whistleblowers and other situations that require it.
Rhetorical questions of the day: How many under-18s, under-21s, and under-13s have lied to get access to an age-restricted web site or app. How many of them were asked for proof of age? How many of those provided fraudulent/stolen credentials?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course no system is perfect, I mean, we have laws in the US against minors under 21yrs buying and consuming alcohol.
Yes, some teens still get booze, but it cuts down on the consumption, etc.
If we make it harder for them to get on social media, there will be less
'Net Nanny' with criminal consequences? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
sounds to me like a loophole through which they can decide pretty much anything
Yes, obviously. Obstructing the prevailing moral panic? Throw'em in the clink!
Re: 'Net Nanny' with criminal consequences? (Score:1)
108 Arrested in child exploitation sting. (Score:2)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/f... [cbsnews.com]
Disney employees and former judge among 108 arrested in human trafficking sting. During their operation, which they called "Operation March Sadness 2," detectives found prostitutes who had posted online advertisements through various websites and social media platforms to identify people who were seeking them out. They also identified adults who they thought were inappropriately communicating with children.
Authorities have arrested [polksheriff.org] 108 people, including alleged child sexual
Re: (Score:2)
The level of moral corruption with these "officials" is staggering. Prostitution without coercion (the standard case except in the minds of the hysterically deranged) is not a problem and it is never going away. Throwing this together with people going after children is so fundamentally dishonest it is absolutely staggering. These assholes are making the world a worse place and are proud of it.
Also note the fuzzy language about "child predators" and "they thought were inappropriately communicating with chil
When ... (Score:2)
The UK government tries to extradite US citizens ... silence ... ... complaints...followed by threats .. ...nothing will happen ...
They try and arrest them when they visit
A better question (Score:2)
Apple love the Apples to Oranges comparisons (pun intended).
A better question to ask is: for what use cases is a Mac Studio with M1 Ultra sufficiently powerful (what sort of graphics, what sort of video editing, what kind of games)? For those where the answer is "no", which are ones where a 12900K with a 3090Ti is sufficient? And comparing a (physically much bigger) workstation with a 3090 to a Mac Studio, when is a Mac a better option? (And vice versa -- it's all about what you can do with them, not a stra