all 34 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 63 points 1 year ago (16 children)

Wow :

"We have been clear that exiting the UK does not allow an organisation to avoid responsibility for any prior infringement of data protection law, and our investigation remains ongoing."

It's insane. They could be fined even after entirely leaving the country ?

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    If it's like GDPR, it applies to the citizens currently residing in the country, the location of the company or servers do not matter. Now if Imgur doesn't have anyone there, no business happening and the website is already blocked, I don't think they have much leverage.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    What I'm understanding is imgur could get fine even if they dont offer their service anymore in the UK.

    They could go back to just after the law passed and tell them "hey you were infringing on this extremely disrupting law that would completely change your business in the UK so pay up".

    I mean if a business just decides to not serve UK customer they should leave them alone... Especially such a complex law for something like Imgur...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    The law was announced a long time before it came into effect, so companies that didn't do anything to become compliant in advance were playing chicken in the hope that it'd be repealed before they ever had to obey it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    It's not actually a bad strategy, ultimately the law is probably going to get slapped down as unworkable and there's pretty good evidence to suggest that they knew it wouldn't work even before they implemented it, which won't make them look good.

    Unfortunately the courts move so slowly that none of this has happened yet and the law has now gone into effect because the timer ran out, but in theory they could have done all the work to comply only for the law never to have happened.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The law was announced a long time before it came into effect,

    Isn't one of the basic principles of law that laws can not be made retroactive so as to arbitrarily extract punishment? if someone tells me "we'll implement this law in 2026" and they do commit, then I'm unconcerned until 2025-12-31.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    But if you break the law after on 2026 you don't get any excuse for not having time to adapt to the new circumstances.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Why sure but, how could they force Imgur to pay up?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    Practically they can't. In theory they could complain to the United States that a US business is attempting to circumvent UK law, but I can't imagine that having much effect at the moment.

    In theory it all works because companies would be more inclined to pay the fine than to lose UK customers, in reality of course it doesn't work because everybody would just use a VPN anyway, but the people who wrote these laws don't know about VPNs because they think computers run on magic smoke.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Well technically, yeah

    Practically: good luck getting that money.

    On the other side, does the UK now require age of for every website out there, including the millions of semi amateur porn sites?

    Because; good luck with that too, that ain't never going to happen

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    This law was thought up by idiots they actually got consultants in who all told them that this wouldn't work but they decided to ignore the consultants because they wanted to implement the law anyway.

    So yeah genuine idiots.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    They got lots of consultants in from MindGeek who own Pornhub etc. and several age-verification services. They told the government that the consultants who were raising issues were overreacting, and the government believed them because obviously the world's largest porn company wouldn't encourage them to enact a law that would do bad things to the porn industry. They didn't stop to think that the law as written means there's now a requirement for smaller compliant porn sites to either spend more than their total revenue implementing an age-verification system or buy in one of the ones MindGeek own.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Ignore for a second the law in question. Suppose Temu started importing harmful goods into your country in the knowledge that they were going to poison kids. (This doesn't seem too much of a stretch...) Should it be OK for Temu to just say, "OK, we'll just stop importing to the UK then"? Shouldn't they face the consequences for breaking the law?

    I think this take is motivated by disagreement with the law in question (although it's not actually clear exactly what they're alleged to have done - the ICO released a statement saying it relates to an investigation from March, so before the age verification requirement).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Technically Temu doesn't import anything. They're allowed to sell toxic or otherwise dangerous goods because the customer's the one importing them, and there are plenty of things you're allowed to import for personal use that you wouldn't be allowed to import for retail. The EU's working on closing this loophole, but the UK isn't in the EU anymore.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago

    This kind of malicious compliance is exactly what this dogshit Think Of The Children Act needs. Convenience is everything to the majority of population.

    If other major sites and resources do this, then the pressure from the people impacted by it will force UK PLC to un-fuck this awful legislation.

  • source
  • [–] 39 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    The title is a little bit misleading, it's mostly about Imgur not adding the age checking that the UK's infamously disliked new law requires on possibly mature content.

    Age verification is a notoriously difficult problem to solve in a privacy-respecting way, and Imgur is literally about unobtrusive image embeds so I doubt they could even make this work.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The title is completely in line with the known facts. This is the ICO statement which does not mention anything about age checking.

    There has been widespread speculation that this is related to age-verification but so far I've seen no evidence of this, and the fact that the investigation started in March makes it seem unlikely.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Thanks for sharing. I should push back on your statement a little.

    The investigation relates to how MediaLab’s Imgur social media platform uses children’s information and its approach to age assurance.

    And in the Children’s code strategy progress update mentioned.

    One platform has committed to introduce age assurance methods, to help ensure that children have an age-appropriate online experience.

    To comply with child data protection rules, you necessarily have to either:

    • Know that they are a child by checking their age
    • Not collect information on anyone

    It does look like the focus is mostly on data collection, not content moderation, so I will concede on that point. I should have read a bit more into this before commenting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    That's true, but the age assurance they're talking about here seems much lighter than the age verification mandated by the OSA. This page has information from the ICO on this - searching through for "age assurance" it seems clear to me that the ICO is talking about either taking an age field on account creation, or on using some other algorithmic means to estimate users' ages.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    How long until parliament decides to push the undo button on this stupid law?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    I can’t see them actually undoing it. It will just become a thing that is no longer enforced. Once one company stands up to it and refuses to pay the fine, and the uk can’t force them to pay, others will do it. Once enough do it the UK will stop trying (hopefully)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Can't happen soon enough. However this is actually about control so any collateral damage is irrelevant

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Well it is about control they have to at least maintain the illusion that it's about child protection. They have to at least maintain the veneer of legitimacy. So if enough people make enough noise about how this is actually a privacy violating nightmare (even though that's actually the point) they will have to pretend to be concerned about that.

    Anyway they have an out, this is mostly a Tory policy anyway that just got implemented under labour, so if it becomes a noose around there necks they can just get rid of the unpopular Tory policy and now they're the heroes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    The only way this law stands is if they're being paid more to keep it than... oh shit.

  • source
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yeah, I just uninstalled the app. I barely went on it anyway, as I'd be a bit apprehensive about what thirsty content was currently trending.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    So you've uninstalled the app because you are concerned about the content they may be hosting, yet you had the app installed on your phone already. Eh? How does that work.

    Anyway everyone knows that DeviantArt is where you go for that kind of thing anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Yeah I had it installed because it was linked to an old Reddit account. Reddit used to use Imgur as the hosting site, so it had a fair few pictures I had uploaded for posts. When they separated, I kept the Imgur account. But I barely used it...

  • source
  • parent
  • 8 comments in c/technology@beehaw.org view that post
    [–] 10 points 1 year ago*

    I was wondering why so many stuff posted on Lemmy were just pictures saying "this is unavailable in your region"

    1000087461

    Having broken assets reminds me of using the Web in China, when a lot of sites using Google Fonts had broken fonts. Lol.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    These ads for VPNs are starting to get over the top.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    What I wonder: are the majority of UK citizens OK with this law?

    Not that it matters probably, as UK isn't a democracy in practice...

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    ...it will be interesting to read the judgements when when they refuse to pay the fine. And I'd be willing to bet a fiver that a judge says that global blocking is not sufficient to remove a website from responsibility.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Thank goodness rimgo exists.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Blows my mind that this the UK is doing this. I hope it gets reverted at some point.

  • source