New EU law prescribes website blocking in the name of consumer protection
1–10 of 125 posts
Re: New EU law prescribes website blocking in the name of consumer protection
#2I read "prescribes" in the title as "proscribes." There's an argument for that too.
Re: New EU law prescribes website blocking in the name of consumer protection
#3This is horrible
Re: New EU law prescribes website blocking in the name of consumer protection
#4>To give a recent example, independence-related websites were blocked in Catalunya just weeks ago.
That required judicial authorisation. Good way of beginning a post, with a lie.
Re: New EU law prescribes website blocking in the name of consumer protection
#5>To give a recent example, independence-related websites were blocked in Catalunya just weeks ago. That required judicial authorisation. Good way of beginning a post, with a lie.
They didn't say it was blocked using this proposal. Just that it was expedited through website blocking infrastructure that was put in place for other purposes.
Re: New EU law prescribes website blocking in the name of consumer protection
#6>To give a recent example, independence-related websites were blocked in Catalunya just weeks ago. That required judicial authorisation. Good way of beginning a post, with a lie.
[deleted]
Re: New EU law prescribes website blocking in the name of consumer protection
#7>To give a recent example, independence-related websites were blocked in Catalunya just weeks ago. That required judicial authorisation. Good way of beginning a post, with a lie.
I don't see how the fact that it required judicial authorization contradicts what the author said. Many abuses happen with the full backing of courts.
Re: New EU law prescribes website blocking in the name of consumer protection
#8>To give a recent example, independence-related websites were blocked in Catalunya just weeks ago. That required judicial authorisation. Good way of beginning a post, with a lie.
I don't see how the fact that it required judicial authorization contradicts what the author said. Many abuses happen with the full backing of courts.
We should abolish prisons then? It's a ridiculous argument. Abuses can happen with full backing of the courts, but I expect them to not happen.
In all the years that this system has been in place in Spain I have never seen it used for anything other than blocking websites that were in breach of the law.
Re: New EU law prescribes website blocking in the name of consumer protection
#9I think this is the relevant paragraph in
the document (page 27 in http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/commissions/imco/inag/...) linked from the article:
"3. Competent authorities shall have at least the following enforcement powers:
(e) where no other effective means are available to bring about the cessation or the prohibition of the infringement including by requesting a third party or other public authority to implement such measures, in order to prevent the risk of serious harm to the collective interests of consumers:
- to remove content or restrict access to an online interface or to order the explicit display of a warning to consumers when accessing the online interface;
- to order a hosting service provider to remove, disable or restrict the access to an online interface; or
- where appropriate, order domain registries or registrars to delete a fully qualified domain name and allow the competent authority concerned to register it;"
Seems similar to already existing measures against infringement of copyrights, except that thing about circumventing the courts, as Reda writes. Could this possibly mean websites such as Facebook could be blocked on the grounds of protecting consumers? The document defines 'widespread infringement' as
"(1) any act or omission contrary to Union laws that protect consumers' interests that harmed, harms, or is likely to harm the collective interests of consumers"
Re: New EU law prescribes website blocking in the name of consumer protection
#10This feels like a fight we're going to lose eventually.
Proposals come up.. most fail. I admire those responsible for putting up resistance. But.. some succeed. Others partially succeed. Limited to stopping pedophilia, piracy, nazis... Those are bridgeheads.
The direction is monodirectional. Eighty six proposals can fail, but if the eighty seventh succeeds that's just as good. There is no going back. Win, good. Lose, try again. That kind of dynamic guarantees a certain result.