4 ms·

Almost every entity has oversight measures implemented to safeguard it from criminal negligence. The laws in the Netherlands need to be updated to ensure that

Almost every entity has oversight measures implemented to safeguard it from criminal negligence. The laws in the Netherlands need to be updated to ensure that data hosting centres and their owners can't get away with criminal negligence. And to everyone complaining about this with a "but my free speech" excuse - there are extensive legal procedures which ensure that allegations of criminal negligence are conducted openly and fairly. How the Netherlands managed to avoid creating criminal negligence laws for these scenarios is beyond me. If the laws did exist, they would require data centres to be aware of the content which is hosted and promptly remove clients if the law is violated. No, this isn't "snooping" or an infringement on your "free speech" - in fact, these measures ensure that free speech flourishes while removing the illegal garbage. Now, once again, is the rebuttal of "but the government uses laws to unfairly censor people" - so then are you all for not having any laws? We have laws, they work - even though governments have abused them. But the answer is not to stop having laws.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
onetimeusename 6y ago
There's a pretty enormous incentive to censor the internet. As an example, Russia is threatening to ban Twitter completely citing child pornography laws[1]. It's pretty straightforward how a law like this gets abused. I think the question is, do you trust governments enough to give them the power to censor the internet? [1]: https://apnews.com/article/russia-threaten-block-twitter-726fc480f89a499605623e9a08c19017 https://apnews.com/article/russia-threaten-block-twitter-726...
skinkestek 6y ago
We need laws. And we need police and courts to apply those laws, not power hungry politicians and media giants. There certainly exist content so bad that I want it off the Internet, but I do not want that to be used as an excuse to let those who are already powerful act as judge, jury and executioner.
mdpopescu 6y ago
> But the answer is not to stop having laws. Why? Serious question. When are laws too many? (According to some history, 10 laws were too many and most people were ignoring them.) Are a trillion laws too many? A billion? A million? A thousand? What if we had a thousand laws, but each law had a million pages? (I'm pretty sure we're at over a billion pages of laws if we take into account all the laws in the world - as multinational companies are supposed to do.) When, exactly, should we say "this is excessive"?
- sofixa 6y ago
  Never? Counting laws is an exercise of futility. Content, not numbers should matter. If it takes a billion small laws to cover everything needed, so be it, who cares?
  - timeslip1523 5y ago
    Now nobody can understand the law,and everybkdy's committing 100 crimes a day; the legal system just prosecutes selectively anyone who sticks out. Great job.
athrowaway3z 6y ago
Free speech is important as you state so yourself. You seem to fundamentally misunderstand one of the most important WHY of the "digital free speech" argument. Technologically the state can't enforce it. So if you get your wish you made a law that only spies on law-abiding citizens. In your plea we can simply start here: "data centres to be aware of the content which is hosted" Is the datacenter responsible for the content MyImages.rar? What if its password protected? What if everybody knows the password? --- Any 'techinical' solution will require extremely complex infrastructure, laws, and safeguards. A never ending bureaucratic nightmare of "does this cross the line"? and it only force the bad guys to throw the needle in a different hay stack. ( And make it more difficult for the government hackers to watch the bad guys )
- rocqua 6y ago
  Simply mandate the rules, hunt down any data centers that don't follow them, and ban ISPs from providing them internet. This pushes all of the mainstream providers into compliance. At that point you get specialist criminal providers, which you can target with much more prejudice.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

onetimeusename 6y ago

There's a pretty enormous incentive to censor the internet. As an example, Russia is threatening to ban Twitter completely citing child pornography laws[1]. It's pretty straightforward how a law like this gets abused. I think the question is, do you trust governments enough to give them the power to censor the internet? [1]: https://apnews.com/article/russia-threaten-block-twitter-726fc480f89a499605623e9a08c19017 https://apnews.com/article/russia-threaten-block-twitter-726...

skinkestek 6y ago

We need laws. And we need police and courts to apply those laws, not power hungry politicians and media giants. There certainly exist content so bad that I want it off the Internet, but I do not want that to be used as an excuse to let those who are already powerful act as judge, jury and executioner.

mdpopescu 6y ago

> But the answer is not to stop having laws. Why? Serious question. When are laws too many? (According to some history, 10 laws were too many and most people were ignoring them.) Are a trillion laws too many? A billion? A million? A thousand? What if we had a thousand laws, but each law had a million pages? (I'm pretty sure we're at over a billion pages of laws if we take into account all the laws in the world - as multinational companies are supposed to do.) When, exactly, should we say "this is excessive"?

sofixa 6y ago
Never? Counting laws is an exercise of futility. Content, not numbers should matter. If it takes a billion small laws to cover everything needed, so be it, who cares?
- timeslip1523 5y ago
  Now nobody can understand the law,and everybkdy's committing 100 crimes a day; the legal system just prosecutes selectively anyone who sticks out. Great job.

athrowaway3z 6y ago

Free speech is important as you state so yourself. You seem to fundamentally misunderstand one of the most important WHY of the "digital free speech" argument. Technologically the state can't enforce it. So if you get your wish you made a law that only spies on law-abiding citizens. In your plea we can simply start here: "data centres to be aware of the content which is hosted" Is the datacenter responsible for the content MyImages.rar? What if its password protected? What if everybody knows the password? --- Any 'techinical' solution will require extremely complex infrastructure, laws, and safeguards. A never ending bureaucratic nightmare of "does this cross the line"? and it only force the bad guys to throw the needle in a different hay stack. ( And make it more difficult for the government hackers to watch the bad guys )

rocqua 6y ago
Simply mandate the rules, hunt down any data centers that don't follow them, and ban ISPs from providing them internet. This pushes all of the mainstream providers into compliance. At that point you get specialist criminal providers, which you can target with much more prejudice.