That's not how jurisdiction works. It's been a long time since Britain ruled the world. Have those island retards not noticed they don't have an empire anymore?
Yes I don't find this to be a very compelling request to a foreign government: "someone from the UK broke our laws and pretended to be from another country to access a website owned by someone in your country that doesn't offer services in the UK. Please assist us in levying a ruinous fine on the company based out of your country that doesn't do business in the UK."
The US in particular under Trump would almost assuredly tell them to go fuck themselves.
As far as Ofcom and the law is concerned, a website is responsible for content served to a UK citizen, regardless if that individual is using a VPN or not. The problem is, how would a website tell if a VPN user is from the UK or not? At this moment, websites are just saying "don't care" but all it will take is one investigation that finds a UK citizen viewed a website via a VPN and they're stuffed.
Now a website could tell Ofcom to jog on but then we go down the murky road that Brazil faced with X.
British law may say that those snaggle-toothed humanoids have global jurisdiction, but good luck enforcing it when every other nation claims sovereignty over their own lands.
Enforcing any sort of punishment outside of their jurisdiction is going to require the cooperation of the country where the website is actually based.
Now, countries do often assist each other in law enforcement, but in a situation like this it's most probable that the host country will simply check to see if the website met their own standards of due diligence in attempting to comply with UK law- which would probably be simply blocking all traffic from the UK.
I can't see any country requiring their website operators to employ expensive and sophisticated technology to attempt to suss out whether or not a connection is a VPN and whether or not it ultimately redirects to the UK. They have a vested interest in the economic success of their companies, and they are not going to make them take unreasonable measures to comply with obtuse foreign laws.
LOL. Gab is constantly faced with these "lawful orders". Andrew Torba posts them regularly along with his reply to go pound sand as it's not his duty to obey foreign laws. Germany has been hilariously hounding him for years to supply data on suspected German citizens that have committed wrongthink. He often replies with the same memes the German government has deemed illegal.
a website is responsible for content served to a UK citizen
Why the focus on VPNs? If that statement is accurate, then no website can detect if content is served to a UK citizen traveling abroad. Which would make even blacklisting the entire UK and all known VPNs insufficient. Which is probably the interpretation they're hoping for.
The Labour Party as the opposition at the time wanted to ban VPN's outright when the Online Safety Bill was going through Parliament but the amendment failed. The rationale being is that the law would be widely circumvented by VPN's. There are plans to bring in a new law which would ban then outright.
You have to remember that online safety laws are crafted by individuals who a) don't understand the technology they want to regulate, b) want to "protect the safety of children and women" at any cost, c) don't care about the consequences as long as the ends are met and d) will implement more legislation if any loopholes (ie. VPN usage to circumvent the law) are discovered.
They still have a lot of influence. About half of India considers itself British. About half of England thinks Scotland is British and should be ruled over it like they do the rest of the North.
I think one of the reasons why Ireland is reacting is because they had multiple attempts in the last century or two to be replaced by 'British'.
That's not how jurisdiction works. It's been a long time since Britain ruled the world. Have those island retards not noticed they don't have an empire anymore?
Yes I don't find this to be a very compelling request to a foreign government: "someone from the UK broke our laws and pretended to be from another country to access a website owned by someone in your country that doesn't offer services in the UK. Please assist us in levying a ruinous fine on the company based out of your country that doesn't do business in the UK."
The US in particular under Trump would almost assuredly tell them to go fuck themselves.
As far as Ofcom and the law is concerned, a website is responsible for content served to a UK citizen, regardless if that individual is using a VPN or not. The problem is, how would a website tell if a VPN user is from the UK or not? At this moment, websites are just saying "don't care" but all it will take is one investigation that finds a UK citizen viewed a website via a VPN and they're stuffed.
Now a website could tell Ofcom to jog on but then we go down the murky road that Brazil faced with X.
British law may say that those snaggle-toothed humanoids have global jurisdiction, but good luck enforcing it when every other nation claims sovereignty over their own lands.
Enforcing any sort of punishment outside of their jurisdiction is going to require the cooperation of the country where the website is actually based.
Now, countries do often assist each other in law enforcement, but in a situation like this it's most probable that the host country will simply check to see if the website met their own standards of due diligence in attempting to comply with UK law- which would probably be simply blocking all traffic from the UK.
I can't see any country requiring their website operators to employ expensive and sophisticated technology to attempt to suss out whether or not a connection is a VPN and whether or not it ultimately redirects to the UK. They have a vested interest in the economic success of their companies, and they are not going to make them take unreasonable measures to comply with obtuse foreign laws.
The Government wants to make it impossible for small firms to trade online and allow big tech firms to have a monopoly.
LOL. Gab is constantly faced with these "lawful orders". Andrew Torba posts them regularly along with his reply to go pound sand as it's not his duty to obey foreign laws. Germany has been hilariously hounding him for years to supply data on suspected German citizens that have committed wrongthink. He often replies with the same memes the German government has deemed illegal.
Why the focus on VPNs? If that statement is accurate, then no website can detect if content is served to a UK citizen traveling abroad. Which would make even blacklisting the entire UK and all known VPNs insufficient. Which is probably the interpretation they're hoping for.
The Labour Party as the opposition at the time wanted to ban VPN's outright when the Online Safety Bill was going through Parliament but the amendment failed. The rationale being is that the law would be widely circumvented by VPN's. There are plans to bring in a new law which would ban then outright.
You have to remember that online safety laws are crafted by individuals who a) don't understand the technology they want to regulate, b) want to "protect the safety of children and women" at any cost, c) don't care about the consequences as long as the ends are met and d) will implement more legislation if any loopholes (ie. VPN usage to circumvent the law) are discovered.
They still have a lot of influence. About half of India considers itself British. About half of England thinks Scotland is British and should be ruled over it like they do the rest of the North.
I think one of the reasons why Ireland is reacting is because they had multiple attempts in the last century or two to be replaced by 'British'.