I'm against this ... unless they block Facebook :)
New EU law prescribes website blocking in the name of consumer protection
11–20 of 125 posts
Re: New EU law prescribes website blocking in the name of consumer protection
#12This 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,…
I agree. The best outcome we can have is to stay pretty much where we are, or close to it. Its a bit like trying to stop a boulder from rolling down a hill.
Re: New EU law prescribes website blocking in the name of consumer protection
#13I 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 t…
> Competent authorities
Do such a beast even exist?
Re: New EU law prescribes website blocking in the name of consumer protection
#14One very important thought...
If you can be told what you can see or read
Then it follows that you can be told what to say or think
Defend your constitutionally protected rights
No one else will do it for you
Re: New EU law prescribes website blocking in the name of consumer protection
#15I 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 t…
> Competent authorities Do such a beast even exist?
It's "competent" in the legal sense, i.e. the ones having jurisdiction over the matter. It doesn't imply anything about actual competence.
Re: New EU law prescribes website blocking in the name of consumer protection
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Wait, what? How do you get abolishing prisons out of that?
Back to the subject, what if a law is bad, but the mere act of saying publicly that the law is bad is, in itself, breaking the law? That's where this is all heading.
It starts with prohibiting the utterance of specific words because they hurt someone's feelings, but hidden under "consumer safety" or "public order." No one speaks against it because "of course we shouldn't hurt the feelings of others with mean words."
Re: New EU law prescribes website blocking in the name of consumer protection
#17This 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,…
> The direction is monodirectional
The obvious tautology aside, I wouldn't agree with this in case of the EU (the US, probably.) To me, the EU feels more like two steps forward, one step back - this being the step back but, for example, the GDPR being the two steps (or leaps) forward.
In any case, this regulation seems more misguided rather than malicious. It's targeting real problems that have to be tackled but it does have the fault of granting overly broad powers to the respective institutions.
Re: New EU law prescribes website blocking in the name of consumer protection
#18>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.
>That required judicial authorisation.
I can't find a source on this. Do you have one?
Re: New EU law prescribes website blocking in the name of consumer protection
#19I 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 t…
As if the ICANN compliance department don't already have enough on their plate squaring the circle over the WHOIS / GDPR / RA / RAA imbroglio. 'in with the good' 'out with the bad'
Re: New EU law prescribes website blocking in the name of consumer protection
#20This 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,…
> There is no going back.
Why not. Bad laws should be repealed.