[HN Gopher] Ofcom letter on restrictions on internet services fo...
___________________________________________________________________
Ofcom letter on restrictions on internet services for "designated
persons" [pdf]
Author : jstanley
Score : 60 points
Date : 2022-12-03 11:40 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.ofcom.org.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.ofcom.org.uk)
| trevyn wrote:
| The letterhead: "Ofcom: making communications work _for everyone_
| " is pretty priceless here.
| salawat wrote:
| Makes you wonder if the persons writing the bloody thing ever
| had even a moment of pause. Probably not.
| gnfargbl wrote:
| I noticed that ria.ru (owned by Rossiya Segodnya) was blocked by
| my UK consumer ISP around the date of the letter, but it has
| remained accessible via a UK mobile network. Is the mobile
| provider exempt from the Ofcom ruling, or have they just failed
| to implement it?
| secondcoming wrote:
| It's blocked for me on 3 but not on Vodafone.
| iso1631 wrote:
| https://ria.ru/ works for me on my BT DSL, and they aren't shy
| of doing what they're told
|
| That site uses google tag manager too. If there are
| international sanctions should google really be providing
| services?
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| Link works for me on my parents' Virgin Media cable internet
| too, with stock DNS DHCP settings.
| gnfargbl wrote:
| Interesting, turns out it's blocked for me on BT DSL if I use
| BT's DNS servers -- but if I use Google DNS, it works fine.
| bombcar wrote:
| Many of these various governmental blocks are implemented
| (badly) via DNS restrictions.
| salawat wrote:
| Working as intended. DNS isn't supposed to be centralized.
|
| It's just morphed that way, because that's where the
| money/power is.
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| DNS is centralised, by-design: that's what the root
| nameservers are. I feel it's better described as a
| "delegated" rather than a "distributed" system.
| twelve40 wrote:
| at this point, how is this different than the great Chinese
| firewall, that had so much righteous shit spewed over it?
| daneel_w wrote:
| The immediate difference is that everyone is affected by the
| Great Firewall, not just "designated persons". How it turns out
| in practical use surely remains to be seen.
| nippoo wrote:
| The title is misleading - this requires all ISPs in the UK to
| ban anyone from visiting rt.com, not just "designated
| persons". And indeed it works - I'm in the UK and trying to
| visit that website times out on mobile or cable broadband.
| ectopod wrote:
| EE has just removed the DNS entry from their server.
| 1.1.1.1 still works.
| twelve40 wrote:
| no, that is not a difference that exists.
| twelve40 wrote:
| P.S. my advisor in grad school had a whole project to help
| Chinese people to get around the nasty firewall. Looks like he
| can revive that project for the UK now! except this time the
| NSF is probably not going to fund it, my guess.
| trasz2 wrote:
| Being able to get around doesn't matter - what matters is
| whether it's inconvenient enough to make the propaganda
| business unprofitable.
| sys_64738 wrote:
| This type of mechanism only works so far until it is blocked.
| It doesn't solve the censorship problem that the China
| Communists inflict on the population.
| twelve40 wrote:
| it's great to see an article about Chinese-style censorship
| *in the UK* and the comments are still banging on about the
| evil CCP commies :facepalm:
| nopenopenopeno wrote:
| >China Communists
|
| This is like calling Hitler a socialist because of his
| party's name.
| slackfan wrote:
| Just because he did abhorrent things does not make him
| not a socialist
| pessimizer wrote:
| I guess that if you self-identify as a thing, you are
| that thing.
| vidarh wrote:
| The fact that none of his policies were socialist,
| however, made him not a socialist.
|
| Not only was he not a socialist, and opposed the name
| change from DAP to NSDAP but didn't yet have the power to
| prevent it, but he so detested the "left" of NSDAP, which
| wanted to merge _some_ left wing economic policies with
| far-right social views, that as his control over the
| party tightened he got them progressively expelled, until
| he was finally able to have the rest arrested and /or
| murdered during the Night of the Long Knives.
|
| That's how much he hated any hint of lifting socialist
| ideas.
|
| More importantly, nobody contemporary to were in any way
| confused about their position. It was right wingers like
| Von Papen and Hindenburg who let him form a government.
| It was only the right wing parties who voted with NSDAP.
| It was only the right wing press, both in Germany and
| abroad, who expressed support for him. This attempt at
| trying to conflate NSDAP with socialism first started
| after the war.
| thedrbrian wrote:
| it's ok when _we_ do it
| themitigating wrote:
| Because that applies to almost everyone?
| twelve40 wrote:
| these restrictions if you haven't read from TFA apply to
| everyone as well. As much as they have competence to
| implement that.
| brainchild-adam wrote:
| I generally find this approach quite scary. It seems we are all
| slowly building our version of the Great Chinese Firewall.
|
| I am aware of the fact that information control is a central part
| of any power structure setup, and I assume that too many people
| lack the skills, the option, and even the desire to deeply and
| meaningfully engage with most topics, but I'd still love to be
| part of a society where ideas and opinions can be freely and
| respectfully shared and debated.
|
| I believe in the power of rational arguments, and am quite
| alarmed by any form of thinking-for-you as I'd prefer to think
| for myself.
|
| But then, this seems to be our lot as humans. Not even (the
| stories in) The Orville was free of power politics, as utopian as
| it was.
| clnq wrote:
| We are not building the Great Chinese Firewall. That is a
| slippery slope-style assumption and fallacy.
|
| Many people are in support of banning propaganda websites and
| for good reasons. They sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt and
| advance foreign information warfare goals. The British people
| would undoubtedly be against implementing a Great Firewall or
| anything similar. Ideas like that would face a lot of
| opposition and scrutiny. Too much to succeed in any meaningful
| way.
|
| We still have enough discussion in media and public forums in
| the UK to engage deeply and meaningfully with most topics. And
| to share opinions freely and respectfully. You are painting
| Ofcom's/Foreign Secretary's move as far more sinister and
| impactful than it is. Although it is a move in the direction of
| government control, not all such actions are unwelcome by
| people; not everyone is so libertarian. Sometimes the
| government has powers that individuals don't, and that can help
| everyone.
| brainchild-adam wrote:
| I agree that it's not simple, if that's part of what you are
| saying. Which makes it such a problem in my view. I look at
| the principle more than the specifics, and another entity
| deciding what _I_ as an adult am _allowed_ to interact with,
| that is one of the central stumbling blocks for me. I have a
| very strong desire for autonomy, and that includes coming to
| my own conclusions.
|
| What's good for society as a whole seems a lot more difficult
| to answer.
|
| This way or that way, I'm not sure most or even many
| supporters of this kind of access control think its
| consequences through to such an extent that they would have
| formed an opinion that I would consider well-founded.
| clnq wrote:
| You say that another entity deciding what you, as an adult,
| can interact with is unacceptable. But the government has
| many laws that prohibit interactions with many things. You
| cannot trespass in many places, for example, to make things
| easier and safer for everyone.
|
| I am not as libertarian as you, and many people are not.
| It's not that they don't think ideas through enough to have
| a well-founded opinion, as you say. They disagree with you.
| brainchild-adam wrote:
| > You say that another entity deciding what you, as an
| adult, can interact with is unacceptable.
|
| To be a bit more precise, what I am saying is that I
| prefer a higher level of autonomy in general.
|
| Any society needs to agree on how to organize itself, and
| questions of power seem central to this.
|
| What I am saying is that I prefer
|
| (a) to be consulted about decisions that affect me, and
|
| (b) that I'd like for these decisions to be based on
| rational, open-minded, curious, where possible fact-based
| dialog and eventual agreement rather than power politics
| or undisclosed, possibly questionable reasoning.
|
| I like to have a say in things, and I like to do so based
| on arguments I can follow.
|
| > It's not that they don't think ideas through enough to
| have a well-founded opinion, as you say. They disagree
| with you.
|
| I question the basis of the disagreement, not the
| disagreement itself.
|
| Why, exactly, do we disagree?
|
| Here I am just not convinced that it's impossible to move
| beyond said disagreement if both parties are willing to
| approach the topic in question with an open mind and, and
| this seems to be a big challenge, in agreement as to the
| frame and approach and reference points for said
| discussion.
|
| In other words, there seem to be people who are quite
| content with being more impulsive and judgmental when
| forming their opinions, who feel the need to question
| themselves and others to a far lesser extent than I seem
| to do.
|
| There seem to be people who are quite happy to make
| assumptions I would question.
|
| And there seem to be quite a lot of people who dislike
| being questioned or shown the flaws of their reasoning.
|
| Even if emotionally unpleasant, I prefer to be questioned
| in good faith than just being agreed with. It's one way
| for me to learn and grow.
|
| This, in part, seems to drive a lot of disagreements.
| cto_of_antifa wrote:
| kmlx wrote:
| > I am aware of the fact that information control is a central
| part of any power structure setup, and I assume that too many
| people lack the skills, the option, and even the desire to
| deeply and meaningfully engage with most topics, but I'd still
| love to be part of a society where ideas and opinions can be
| freely and respectfully shared and debated.
|
| the covid fiasco happened a few years ago. people were fired
| and some were imprisoned for not towing the line. there were
| mayors of towns harassing their voters on the streets. the
| general population was by and large very supportive of the
| politicians who were imposing restrictions :)
|
| the age of "free and respectful opinions" is gone. see the USA
| for an extreme example.
| iso1631 wrote:
| > and am quite alarmed by any form of thinking-for-you as I'd
| prefer to think for myself.
|
| This is a common refrain from people that think Bill Gates is
| inserting microchips into their brains and everyone else are
| sheeple that need to wake up.
|
| The problem is nobody can entirely think for themselves. People
| are manipulated by advertising and propaganda which reprograms
| on a subconcious basis to the point they will not be able to
| accept basic verifiable facts, let alone anything more
| complicated.
| brainchild-adam wrote:
| > The problem is nobody can entirely think for themselves.
| People are manipulated by advertising and propaganda which
| reprograms on a subconcious basis to the point they will not
| be able to accept basic verifiable facts, let alone anything
| more complicated.
|
| Could you point me towards any supporting evidence or
| fleshed-out theories regarding your conclusion in the second
| sentence of my quote?
|
| I find it difficult to go from "advertising and propaganda",
| which clearly exist and which can be argued to have an
| effect, to completely losing the ability to "accept basic
| verifiable facts".
| jasonjayr wrote:
| "Flat Earthers" are an example that readily comes to mind
| as a group of folks who are lose or actively deny the
| ability to "accept basic verifiable facts".
| brainchild-adam wrote:
| I fail to understand how this example argues for the
| claim I was questioning.
|
| Am I missing something?
| SXX wrote:
| Yeah there are people affected by propoganda and
| misinformation, but do you think government-level censorshop
| is good solution for this?
|
| 15 years ago in Russia repressions bagan with lagislation to
| "protect childern from information on internet".
| dekken_ wrote:
| > The problem is nobody can entirely think for themselves.
|
| Good luck proving that.
| zosima wrote:
| So you are saying that everyone is being manipulated, and
| your in-group's manipulation must have first priority?
|
| How about removing the log from you own eye, before
| attempting to remove the speck from your neighbour's eye?
| slackfan wrote:
| "Because I cannot think for myself therefore everybody cannot
| think for themselves."
| twelve40 wrote:
| > People are manipulated by advertising and propaganda
|
| So do you propose we double-down on this, with the help of
| the government? I'm ok with that, since I believe there is 0
| chance anyone can do anything about it. But we can at least
| stop being two-faced about it.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Not even (the stories in) The Orville was free of power
| politics, as utopian as it was.
|
| The Orville is basically a _less_ utopian version of _Star
| Trek: The Next Generation_. (Or, perhaps, "Roddenberry-era
| _Star Trek_ " more generally.)
| someweirdperson wrote:
| > Not even (the stories in) The Orville was free of power
| politics, as utopian as it was.
|
| I had always seen The Orville as a simple form of
| entertainment. I didn't notice there was some deeper meaning
| where it wants to teach us about some utopian future. At the
| very least not to a degree that makes it a prime example for
| that.
| vidarh wrote:
| MacFarlane is a massive Trekkie, and has not exactly been
| subtle about copying early Trek's "morality play in space"
| model.
| brainchild-adam wrote:
| It was simply my first, slightly tongue-in-cheek go-to, since
| I appreciate the show's setup so much.
|
| On that note, what would you suggest as a prime example for
| some utiopian future?
| at_a_remove wrote:
| Bear in mind this: every dystopian fic or film you'll read
| always started off as _somebody 's_ utopia. Someone thought
| it was a grand idea, and got others go along with them.
|
| Utopias, I think, are probably more personal than your
| underwear.
| codeulike wrote:
| _what would you suggest as a prime example for some
| utiopian future?_
|
| Good question, there aren't many these days.
|
| First thing that springs to mind is Iain M Banks "Culture"
| series.
| brainchild-adam wrote:
| Thanks! I will check them out.
| codeulike wrote:
| Its hard to have a plot in a utopia, so most of the books
| are about Contact between the Culture and other
| societies. Some of it is 30 years old now so perhaps my
| enthusiasm for the early ones is because I was 30 years
| younger when I read them. But still they stick in my head
| as a positive vision of future society. I can't think of
| that many other futures that have stuck with me in the
| same way.
|
| You can read them in any order. The earliest one
| (Consider Phlebas) I never much liked. Use Of Weapons was
| my favourite. Player Of Games was good too. If you were
| only going to read one, probably Excession - it is the
| most sweeping, epic one. Some of the later ones are good.
| If you just want the overarching ideas, they are
| explained in an essay called A Few Notes On The Culture
| which he posted to newsgroup rec.arts.sf.written in 1994.
| Copied here:
| http://www.vavatch.co.uk/books/banks/cultnote.htm
| TheSpiceIsLife wrote:
| The Orville definitely has done a lot of socio- / politico- /
| econo- commentary.
|
| I'd have thought it was hard to miss, especially with the
| discussion of genocide against the Kaylon.
|
| It also features a race of homosexuals who have a thing going
| on with gender reassignment surgery.
|
| The Orville teaches us that, throughout history, and with all
| likelihood in to the furthest reaches of time, humanity will
| struggle, or not, with approximately foibles and
| philosophical issues.
|
| Probably nothing new to most viewers of the overall genre.
| Star Trek TNG wasn't particularly funny, certainly not
| comedy. It'd have been great if The Orville was on when I was
| watching TNG the first time.
| FollowingTheDao wrote:
| In order to love a person, you must be able to understand them.
|
| In order to understand a person, you must be able to listen to
| them.
|
| IF they do not let you hear these people, there is no way you can
| love them.
|
| That is their goal, to try and remove your ability to love.
|
| They first tried it with straight propaganda. That did not work.
| So now they cut you off from them totally.
|
| If you all in the UK do not rise up against this, especially you
| techies who help write the code for all this stuff, then you get
| what you deserve.
|
| Demand your right to love another human, no matter where they
| are. Russia is not the enemy, the oligarchs of all countries are
| the enemy.
| codeulike wrote:
| Its worth clicking and reading this because "designated persons"
| does not mean what you might assume it to mean. And the
| "restrictions for" doesnt turn out to mean why you might expect
| either.
|
| I'm left wondering what "reasonable steps" means. Just DNS
| blocking?
| politelemon wrote:
| "Designated Persons" makes me think of people, rather than
| corporations as listed here. It must be some archaic usage that
| I've not encountered before. Maybe they ought to say "Designated
| Entities"?
| oriolid wrote:
| I've understood it's pretty standard legal language. Actual
| people would be referred as "natural persons", as opposite of
| "legal persons".
| nitsky wrote:
| No, in law the term "person" refers to both "natural persons"
| and "corporate persons":
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person.
|
| Remember the political fight over the phrase "corporations are
| people"? Well, they certainly are "persons".
| sys_64738 wrote:
| This is what happens when you have an unwritten constitution. The
| ruling government tries to present itself and its choices as the
| choice of the people. Unless you can restrict or rescind onerous
| dictates like this then you are doomed to censorship chosen by
| the government of the day.
| toyg wrote:
| No, this is what happens when you have a weak government that
| knows they won't be in power in 2 years: land grabs. They push
| outrageous stuff, effectively daring the opposition to rescind
| it later and face the relevant cries ("New government helps
| pedophiles!!11!"). It can happen anywhere.
| codeulike wrote:
| Did you read the article?
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| It's not an article, it's a letter.
| [deleted]
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I'm not sure having a written Constitution helps much more if
| it's constantly violated and the remedy occurs well after the
| damage is done, if at all.
| Asooka wrote:
| Having the grounds for maybe getting a remedy is strictly
| better than not having it. It could be a lot better, but if
| we could have that first step of the government having (de
| jure) inviolable restrictions, it would be quite nice.
| salawat wrote:
| See: Second, 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendments of the U.S.
| Federal Constitution.
|
| People in power are going to abuse it as long as they can get
| away with it. Period.
| themitigating wrote:
| You can vote, it's a democracy.
| FollowingTheDao wrote:
| No. It is an oligarchy.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-03 23:01 UTC)