3 ms·
> So obviously corrupt Sources please. The EU isn't perfect... But this sounds a lot like an attempt to give consumer protection agencies the powers to block
by jopsen 9y ago
> So obviously corrupt
Sources please.
The EU isn't perfect... But this sounds a lot like an attempt to give consumer protection agencies the powers to block scam sites.
From what I could see Julia Reda (MEP - German Pirate) wasn't unhappy about the intents of this legislation. Merely concerned about:
A) Website blocking without judicial oversight
B) Existence of website blocking infrastructure
C) Inability to force compensations
D) No restitution of illicit profits
I suspect (B) is already a reality, but yeah, I'm no fan.
I agree that (A) is concerning, but wording suggests this can ONLY be applied when "no other effective means" are available. As I understand it that implies it can only be used when the owner can be found, sued or prosecuted by other means.
I read that as this applies to faceless scam sites without an address or anyone willing to take responsibility.
As for (C) and (D) I would love to see more of that. But the idea in her blog post that illicit profits (B) could be used for found consumer protection agencies is not something I agree with.
- microcolonel 9y ago> The EU isn't perfect... But this sounds a lot like an attempt to give consumer protection agencies the powers to block scam sites. It sounds more like an attempt to give somebody powers to block potentially copyright infringing sites, under the pretense of consumer protection, through the roundabout justification that consumers "collectively" benefit from strict enforcement of copyright.
- yorwba 9y agoThe copyright infringing sites can already be blocked, so this can't be about that. It seems likely to me that it's actually about consumer protection, unlike the existing copyright legislation.
- arghwhat 9y agoBut who decides what an "effective means" is, and which are available? Without judicial oversight, this seems rather easy to bypass. I personally find filtering of any sort to be fundamentally wrong. A website is nothing but information, and find censoring/filtering to be wrong on counts of violating free speech and free access to information. I believe that illegal content should be handled by going after those that operate the site, rather than touching the distribution channel.
- yorwba 9y agoWhat if the persons operating the site are unknown or living in a country where what they are doing is not illegal? I don't support outright blocks or the specifics of this new legislation, but I think there are cases where the distribution channel is the right point to intervene; e.g. by displaying an interstitial "This site has been found to be a scam, don't give them your money. Do you want to continue anyway?".
- arghwhat 9y agoI don't think "This site has been found to be a scam" should be done in the distribution channel, but rather like Google's safebrowsing initiative... Just, maybe not Google-operated. To me, I think I would imagine a website doing something illegal to be more akin to a newspaper ad that sells something illegal. It's not illegal for me to bring a newspaper home from a country with ads about services that are legal where the newspaper is from, but illegal in my home-country. So, why should bringing the ad over digitally be any different? The illegal may only occur once the service is ordered/used, and only so if it is illegal to be the recipient/import (sometimes things are illegal to sell, but legal to buy).
- Trombone12 9y agoPlease control your hyperbole a bit, or do you really oppose sunglasses on account of how they filter spectral information?
- jopsen 9y agoIf we restrict filtering to DNS, so that it's easy to take the "sun glasses" off, then I kind of like it :)
- arghwhat 9y agoBut then an ISP might force all DNS queries through its own services, increasing the effort required... And, changing your DNS server is easy to us, not easy to "common folks" who have no clue what DNS is.