Hacker News Reader

Comment by crtasm | Hacker News Reader

>This is demonstrably false.

By testing from.. a single VPN IP?

And as noted in other comments here he doesn't seem to understand how geo ip databases are maintained. I sure won't be asking this guy to represent me anytime soon.

View on HN

He is not claiming being blocked from one IP proves the geoblock is complete, he is claiming it shows that the geoblock in place is also active for the mirror site.

>What appears to have happened is that SaSu had a site mirror and that someone figured out a way to hit the mirror – which was also subject to the geoblock, something which took me under a minute to personally confirm – without using a VPN.

And also:

> If I had to guess, it’s that some NGO found some UK-based IP addresses which weren’t captured by the block because they weren’t properly geolocated.

Ofcom's clarified contention is that the geoblock is unreliable, while the lawyer seems to be rebutting the original statements that they interpreted Ofcom as claiming no geoblocking was active ('remains accessible to UK users', 'was directly available to people with UK IP addresses (with and without a VPN)').

The combative stance that he's taking really doesn't do him any favors in resolving the issue.

Lawyer: "I've confirmed that at least one UK IP address is blocked."

Regulators: "We've confirmed that at least one UK IP address is not blocked."

In what world is the correct response "Dear regulators, you're incompetent. Pound sand." instead of "Can you share the IP address you used so my client can address this in their geoblock?"

> In what world is the correct response

Any world in which US citizens in the US aren’t subject to UK laws in any case.

> In what world is the correct response "Dear regulators, you're incompetent. Pound sand." instead of "Can you share the IP address you used so my client can address this in their geoblock?"

That would imply that the client actually would like to be contacted every time Ofcom found a leak in the geoblock. Not a good idea imho.

It sounds like they would welcome that, e.g. in the update to the post

>They’re definitely not treating it like a public safety matter, where they know how to reach us and know that I generally respond within the hour.

They don't agree that it is a public safety matter, or at least they've clearly taken the position that they don't care about that kind of public safety.

He's just pointing out that Ofcom's behavior is inconsistent with Ofcom sincerely believing it's a public safety matter either.

I this is exactly how you should respond to outrageous demands.

The UK should pound sand.

I get that it's satisfying to tell them to go away because they're being unreasonable. But what's the legal strategy here? Piss off the regulators such that they really won't drop this case, and give them fodder to be able to paint the lawyer and his client as uncooperative?

Is the strategy really just "get new federal laws passed so UK can't shove these regulations down our throats"? Is that going to happen on a timeline that makes sense for this specific case?

He says on his site that he wants the US to pass a “shield law,” I guess the idea must be to pass a law that explicitly says we don’t extradite for this, pass along the fines, or whatever.

It seems like inside the US, this must be constitutionally protected speech anyway. I’m not 100% sure, but it would seem quite weird if the US could enter a treaty that requires us to enforce the laws of other countries in a way that is against our constitution. Of course the constitution doesn’t apply to the UK (something people just love to point out in these discussions), but it does apply to the US, which would be the one actually doing the enforcing, right?

Anyway, bumping something all the way up to the Supreme Court is a pain in the ass, so it may make sense to just pass a law to make it explicit.

The British legal system is pretty inefficient. I'd probably just say sorry we'll block harder. That'll probably delay things for years, by which time there may be a different government, or a US shield law.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com