801–810 of 817 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mmmmmhhhhhhh…What if I buy some goods (say electronics) in the EU from a foreign firm (v.gr. China) using mail and these goods do not comply with the EU’s regulations? I really do not know the proper reply to this.
Then you’re the importer of record and the compliance burden is on you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of websites for smaller businesses will not be run by technical people, they'll be run by business people or otherwise who don't understand cookies beyond "I see cookie banners on every website I visit, therefore to avoid legal trouble I need one too", you can't expect someone like that to understand the difference between tracking cookies and technical cookies.
Ah yes of course. How could I forget about poor Mom & Pop Co. and their 186 business partners that they want to share my personal data with. Surely we can't expect such a small operation to know what they are doing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now that you mention it, that's probably why they sent this letter. They know it's pointless but they want a paper trail to show they tried to find other solutions before requesting a block.
It's entirely up to 4chan to voluntarily comply and avoid any further consequences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On a photocopier, if I switch the language to Arabic, Hebrew disappears from the list of options.
Now I want to try this on my AIO printer but I’m afraid I won’t be able to read enough Arabic to get back to the Language menu :D
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect that MI6 could find a US private company's directors names if they wanted to. We're not talking about nuclear launch codes here.
MI6 is involved in intelligence, not criminal work.
or only MI6?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really that easily? Generally, only the legal agent for the private company will know and the direct hires of the board i.e. the CEO/CTO/whoever they name up top. Sometimes board of directors can get named in court records but with the public records redacted. But outside of that? Not even the IRS knows unless the directors get compensation. MI6 would have to commit a few physical in person crimes to get any deta…
Honestly I'm surprised to learn that 4chan has a board of directors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Entire society to self censor. Individual parental level controls are ineffective. It’s like keeping your child from having a smart phone at school but then they just become a social pariah since everyone else has one. It only works if no kids are allowed to bring their smartphones to school.
That's still not on the onus of society, but just on the school.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's quite ironic that they would have an easier time enforcing that if they were still part of the EU and could have been the deciding factor towards more regulation faster. The EU is big and rich enough to force Big Tech into submission under threat of loosing the market.
Well, it's not ironic. That's one of the main reason why countries form coalition: to increase their collective bargaining power globally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They already do stuff like this. Who? I can't think of a single case other than Ryanair 4978, a plane that was carrying a Belarusian opposition activist over Belarusian airspace. Not saying this was justified in any way, but even Belarus didn't dare to touch any foreign passengers. If you're aware of any actual case of a first-world airliner from country A being forced to land in country B to have a citizen of coun…
Since we don't use cold-war classifications like 'first-world' anymore, I'll refer simply to National Airlines with long-established US and European route access from country A being forced to land in country B to have a citizen of country C arrested. This excludes the (arguably contentious) incidents like: - 1954 in Israel where forced a Syrian passenger plane to land in order to gain hostages which it then hoped to…
A common theme in the last two cases is that the perpetrators did not actually force the plane to land in their own territory. They merely refused entry, forcing the plane to divert to a third country. This means that if they wanted somebody detained, they needed cooperation from that third country. Which only works if the person to be detailed had done something that is also illegal in that third country.
This is different from AnthonyMouse's scenario. Let's return to the hypothetical example of the UK messing with a JFK-CDG flight. The UK can refuse entry to their airspace, "pushing" your plane away. So you might have to refuel in Ireland and enter France over its Atlantic coast instead of crossing Southern England. But you will not be "pulled" into the UK, unless Keir Starmer fancies being treated like Lukashenko in the eyes of the world.
The only example of an actual forced landing is the EgyptAir, which was 40 years ago and had hijackers on board. I'll leave it to you to decide whether that's enough of a precedent to justify being paranoid today.