zlacker

[return to "Imgur pulls out of UK as data watchdog threatens fine"]
1. naderm+Df1[view] [source] 2025-09-30 19:01:33
>>ANewbu+(OP)
The UK has been doing this sort of stuff for at least a decade. For example they have the PIPCU which under the guise of copyright threatens 10 years in prison for sites not even in their jurisdiction.

https://torrentfreak.com/uk-police-launch-campaign-to-shut-d...

And with that, they have at the least gotten registrars not located in their jurisdicrion to transfer domains

https://easydns.com/blog/2013/10/08/whatever-happened-to-due...

◧◩
2. kimixa+rD1[view] [source] 2025-09-30 20:59:40
>>naderm+Df1
The US has always claimed jurisdiction on foreign-hosted but US-accessible content.

Do people forget the owner of Megaupload being extradited? In many ways this is just catching up to the current US state.

And there's a lot of confusion here between basic consumer data protection laws and (IMHO massively overreaching) "Online Safety" laws. This isn't Imgur making a stand for free speech, this is Imgur wanting to track and sell user data - to which minors cannot consent. Putting on my tinfoil hat you could argue that many of these companies are trying to encourage this misunderstanding intentionally.

◧◩◪
3. Aurorn+U62[view] [source] 2025-10-01 00:35:17
>>kimixa+rD1
> The US has always claimed jurisdiction on foreign-hosted but US-accessible content.

Committing crimes remotely from another country was never a loophole to escape the laws of that country.

When a country requests extradition they’re not claiming jurisdiction over another country. They’re saying that a crime was committed in their country by the person and they’re asking the foreign country for cooperation in prosecuting that person.

The MegaUpload case is not equivalent to what the UK is doing. MegaUpload was operating as a business, taking payments, and exchanging money. Once you start doing explicit paid business in a country you can’t claim you’re not involved with that country.

If a country starts claiming that merely making content accessible globally is a crime in their country, that’s an entirely different issue. Not equivalent to the MegaUpload case.

> Do people forget the owner of Megaupload being extradited? In many ways this is just catching up to the current US state.

Again, false equivalence. MegaUpload was operating as a business with US customers. They also had some hosting in the United States if I recall correctly.

Once you start doing business in a country and have customers there, you’re involved with their laws.

◧◩◪◨
4. avianl+X92[view] [source] 2025-10-01 01:05:39
>>Aurorn+U62
> The MegaUpload case is not equivalent to what the UK is doing. MegaUpload was operating as a business, taking payments, and exchanging money. Once you start doing explicit paid business in a country you can’t claim you’re not involved with that country.

I’m not entirely sure the argument that the MegaUpload case and this Imgur case aren’t equivalent really holds up here. Imgur are collecting data from minors in the UK, and presumably selling that data (otherwise, why bother collecting it). Which is a crime in the UK (and the EU). You’re not allowed to collect people’s data and sell it without consent, and minors can’t provide consent (that’s basically what makes them minors).

Presumably Imgur sells adverts, and likely sells adverts to UK buyers. So for pretty much all the reasons you outline that the US should have jurisdiction over MegaUpload, the UK should have jurisdiction over Imgur.

I also take issue with the idea that being paid for something is the bar that we should be assessing a companies involvement in a country by. Obviously conducting monetary business transactions in a country is a very strong argument for jurisdiction. But it’s less obvious to me that breaking local laws, without making a profit, should somehow exempt a company from that countries laws. Particularly when the laws in question deal with how a company directly interacts with the citizens of that country.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. DrewAD+2e2[view] [source] 2025-10-01 01:42:50
>>avianl+X92
And they certainly do have monetary transactions, just not with the people whose data is handled unlawfully. A sharper-toothed law might also prevent UK companies from using data sets fed by Imgur… but I doubt that will ever happen. I’m honestly pretty sick of surveillance capitalism entities just doing whatever they hell they want and pretending like the privacy policy is actual consent.
[go to top]