The Ofcom Files, Part 4: Ofcom Rides Again
prestonbyrne.com
prestonbyrne.com
Letters that put them in a position to levy fines and maybe arrest people in the future should they have the opportunity to, for example if the relevant people travel or have assets in the UK in the future. Or if at some point in the future some country does sign up to enforce Ofcom's laws here and relevant people travel to that country. The US is presumably barred (short of a constitutional amendment) from making such an agreement under the first amendment, but other countries are likely not barred.
Just because a government doesn't currently have the power to arrest you doesn't mean they can't internally begin processes to arrest you if/when they get that ability, or that they can't communicate to you that they are doing that. In fact governments of all sorts (including the US) do exactly that against people they can't arrest all the time.
It is even more nuanced than that: whilst Ofcom absolutely has legal enforcement powers under UK law – but they are regulatory / civil powers, not criminal powers like the police.
Therefore, it probably can even be argued (by deduction as I do not have a degree in law) that particularly in the cross-jurisdictional scenario, Ofcom’s whining about the non-compliance of a website with UK law is null and void.
I see absolutely no argument for this. The UKs regulations here that Ofcom is the enforcement agency for are explicitly extra-territorial in nature. That doesn't mean that Ofcom can successfully get other countries to help them enforce their laws (or can invade other countries to enforce them themselves) but they clearly have the power to act within the UK to enforce their laws against people in other jurisdictions. For instance to levy fines that will be on the books should those people come to the UK in the future.
It is plausible to assume that, at any given time, a random person from the juridisction A is in breach of compliance of jurisdiction B – knowingly or unknowingly to them. Jurisdiction B granting itself extra-territorial regulatory / civil (not criminal) enforcement powers puts the nationals of the entire jurisdiction A into non-compliance and subject to fines or arrests at the cross-border point. It is, of course, perfectly legally possible, yet surreal.
Curiously, what the UK is attempting in this instance closely mirrors the approach adopted by the CCP with the National Security Law in Hong Kong, wherein they asserted their own authority to indict any individual, of any nationality, residing in any jurisdiction, for alleged breaches of the Hong Kong NSL.
Whilst it is abundantly clear that the primary focus is Hong Kong pro-democracy activists holding multiple citizenships, they have also stated – with calculated lack of emphasis – that non-Hong Kong persons may likewise be targeted.
Well said
It's not about child safety at all. If anything our government has shown time and again that that is simply not a priority for them.
As the plan stands, the only case where it would be mandatory is for employment. The extension to right to rent is under consultation. I strongly recommend reading more on the Digital ID framework - it isn't as the press and influencers have led most people imagine. For instance there isn't a single id, there's no central database and government's role is only as a passive reference and legislator. I was opposed to the idea when I first heard about it, but won over by its sensible structure, which will actually strengthen citizens.
https://enablingdigitalidentity.blog.gov.uk/2025/06/26/shari...
I think that is a bit of a stretch. Ofcom is the telecommunications regulator. They are responsible for censorship, but to be a censorship agency it would have to be your primary role. Starting a blog like this, suggests everything below is going to be a bit OTT. Instead of censorship we have propaganda.
Ofcom license amateur radio, but spend no time censoring it that I know of. Last week they fined Virgin media for making a hash of converting vulnerable people from analogue to digital phone lines, without regards to their telehealth monitoring systems. That sort of mundane thing is Ofcoms raison d'etre
If I put sandbags in front of my house to stop a flood, I don't call it a "beach".
Note that all this refers to big knives, not pocket knives with short blades, which are still completely legal to carry on you without needing any justification.
Seems very reasonable to me. As a result, contrary to the myths, and in spite of guns not being available for attacks, we actually have a fairly low rate of actual knife murder; slightly less than that of the US, I believe.
Just ignore Ofcom?
Meanwhile if his clients remain beyond the UKs reach sending these letters achieves nothing of value.
There's no world where this response convinces Ofcom to stop doing their job at enforcing (to the best of their ability) the UKs laws.
He is just hurting his own clients by sending letters back to them.
That's not what I'm saying just harms his clients though. There's obvious (almost entirely domestic, probably counter productive as to UK politics) lobbying value in that. It's the part where he sends confessions back to the UK regulators privately that just harms his clients.
Without that, he’s just a guy with a blog, and can’t effect any real change. Whether it harms or benefits his clients or not is likely a question of politics. If these responses drum up enough attention that his GRANITE act gets passed, that’s arguably a better outcome for each client jointly and severally than just ignoring the letters.
Just because the UK is modelling themselves in the same image doesn’t mean that the tactic for dealing with extrajudicial censorship attempts is different.
Of course it would have been "best" (again for ofcom) if 4chan had just complied but I don't think they ever expected that.
With these meaningless letters (for the reasons you state) the agency can later go to law makers and ask for more domestic enforcement power because clearly "it's not working".
If by chance one of the 4chan people stumbles about that personally they'd consider that as a bonus.
I.e. peace of mind. Not just for the large~ish (questionable in various ways, as the lawyer points out himself) sites currently under fire, but for all the minor ones that simply don't have the resources to comply with every country.
(I haven't read today's article) in a previous blog post, they did mention that geo-blocking the UK was not enough for ofcom to stop the harassment. So having a clear statement, and potentially using that as angle to accuse Ofcom of harassment should they not stop, would be quite welcome.
While the US has a great track record with protecting their own citizen against legal threats from the outside (maybe a bit too much at times), I'd love the same to be done in the EU, since I'm a lot more doubtful about our relations with the UK in such aspects.