5 ms·

It would be nice if Mozilla would add more context around it. That said, it’s freaking exhausting how these dumb actions keep being taken by governments all ov

It would be nice if Mozilla would add more context around it. That said, it’s freaking exhausting how these dumb actions keep being taken by governments all over the world. It seems like every month there’s some new crap going on

polotics 3y ago
Yes indeed! is this enforced DRM everywhere or you can't browse? is this a forced french MITM certificate chain you can't remove, is this something else? how does using Tor with a non-french exit node get impacted? If I ssh over port 80 or any other to a french-located box does something change?
- bonzini 3y ago
  It seems to be a version of safe browsing that is mandated by law to be a full block rather than a warning. It will be very easy to bypass, making this a very stupid law. It's slightly more worrisome that the law doesn't include any privacy protection measures, but the GDPR still applies and whoever runs the checking service has to comply with it since the browsing history is personal data.
  - Calamitous 3y ago
    > It will be very easy to bypass, making this a very stupid law. It’s not about being effective, it’s about making things illegal. It’s trivially easy to break the speed limit, but that doesn’t stop local police using it to collect millions of dollars of fines every year
    - bonzini 3y ago
      It doesn't seem that the law makes it illegal to use a browser that bypasses the block, unless the content was already illegal.
antoinebalaine 3y ago
Here's the context: the fr gov's been acting against national interest for more than 20 years in a row. The people know it. The gov knows the people know. The gov wants to pretend it's not doing anything wrong. It could keep pretending credibly, if only people would keep their trap shut on the web. So now gov wants to control what people can see and say on the web.
- polotics 3y ago
  This is extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence! This looks more like a whack-a-mole "for the children" misguided initiative, not a great firewall of China... Do you have more context?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - isaacremuant 3y ago
    Government power grabs are the norm. You'd need extraordinary evidence to prove otherwise. Of course, authortiarians will always pretend there's some mistake or some good intention, once they're exposed, and attack people with labels, when criticism is used against their policies. Comparing stuff to the great firewall of china is ridiculous. It's like saying things are ok with police in the US because they're not north Korea.
- gattilorenz 3y ago
  > "The people know it." Why do I have strong vibes that a better way of phrasing this is "a percentage of the people who thinks the fr gov's been acting against national interest (likely the people who think /their/ interest aligns with the national interest quite closely) knows it." I mean, I don't know France and I'm no friend with "the government" and I oppose turning browsers into anything they are not supposed to be, but that "the government" can go against "national interest" for 20 year and "the people" know it is such a trite story that... uuuuugh. In short, you added no context at all.
sinuhe69 3y ago
https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2023/06/26/france-browser-website-blocking/ https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2023/06/26/france-browser...
- benterix 3y ago
  This is exactly the description of the issue I was looking for - thank you!
- _trackno5 3y ago
  This is great, thank you! Mozilla should really link to it in the petition page
- moffkalast 3y ago
  > Article 6 (para II and III) of the SREN Bill would force browser providers to create the means to mandatorily block websites present on a government provided list Why would this ever be done on a browser level? Any nation with internet censoring intentions can already do this by blocking it on an ISP level.
  - rvnx 3y ago
    Browsers often directly provide solutions to go around such blocking (DNS over HTTPS for example, or VPNs or proxies), The governments cannot go and forbid browsers to do that if they don't have the law to back it.
  - cf141q5325 3y ago
    >Why would this ever be done on a browser level? Because government says so. Its signaling/actionism for political/power purposes.
- bonzini 3y ago
  > government being able to mandate that a certain website not open at all on a browser/system is uncharted territory and even the most repressive regimes in the world prefer to block websites further up the network (ISPs, etc.) so far. Repressive government's don't do their blocking at the browser level because it is completely ineffective. Anyone who wants to access the forbidden websites will be able to do so anyway.
petre 3y ago
France and the UK nowadays seem to beat Australia when it comes to dumb actions. Only the Turnbull and Morrison governments had more idiotic ideas.

polotics 3y ago

Yes indeed! is this enforced DRM everywhere or you can't browse? is this a forced french MITM certificate chain you can't remove, is this something else? how does using Tor with a non-french exit node get impacted? If I ssh over port 80 or any other to a french-located box does something change?

bonzini 3y ago
It seems to be a version of safe browsing that is mandated by law to be a full block rather than a warning. It will be very easy to bypass, making this a very stupid law. It's slightly more worrisome that the law doesn't include any privacy protection measures, but the GDPR still applies and whoever runs the checking service has to comply with it since the browsing history is personal data.
- Calamitous 3y ago
  > It will be very easy to bypass, making this a very stupid law. It’s not about being effective, it’s about making things illegal. It’s trivially easy to break the speed limit, but that doesn’t stop local police using it to collect millions of dollars of fines every year
  - bonzini 3y ago
    It doesn't seem that the law makes it illegal to use a browser that bypasses the block, unless the content was already illegal.

antoinebalaine 3y ago

Here's the context: the fr gov's been acting against national interest for more than 20 years in a row. The people know it. The gov knows the people know. The gov wants to pretend it's not doing anything wrong. It could keep pretending credibly, if only people would keep their trap shut on the web. So now gov wants to control what people can see and say on the web.

polotics 3y ago
This is extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence! This looks more like a whack-a-mole "for the children" misguided initiative, not a great firewall of China... Do you have more context?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- isaacremuant 3y ago
  Government power grabs are the norm. You'd need extraordinary evidence to prove otherwise. Of course, authortiarians will always pretend there's some mistake or some good intention, once they're exposed, and attack people with labels, when criticism is used against their policies. Comparing stuff to the great firewall of china is ridiculous. It's like saying things are ok with police in the US because they're not north Korea.
gattilorenz 3y ago
> "The people know it." Why do I have strong vibes that a better way of phrasing this is "a percentage of the people who thinks the fr gov's been acting against national interest (likely the people who think /their/ interest aligns with the national interest quite closely) knows it." I mean, I don't know France and I'm no friend with "the government" and I oppose turning browsers into anything they are not supposed to be, but that "the government" can go against "national interest" for 20 year and "the people" know it is such a trite story that... uuuuugh. In short, you added no context at all.

sinuhe69 3y ago

https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2023/06/26/france-browser-website-blocking/ https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2023/06/26/france-browser...

benterix 3y ago
This is exactly the description of the issue I was looking for - thank you!
_trackno5 3y ago
This is great, thank you! Mozilla should really link to it in the petition page
moffkalast 3y ago
> Article 6 (para II and III) of the SREN Bill would force browser providers to create the means to mandatorily block websites present on a government provided list Why would this ever be done on a browser level? Any nation with internet censoring intentions can already do this by blocking it on an ISP level.
- rvnx 3y ago
  Browsers often directly provide solutions to go around such blocking (DNS over HTTPS for example, or VPNs or proxies), The governments cannot go and forbid browsers to do that if they don't have the law to back it.
- cf141q5325 3y ago
  >Why would this ever be done on a browser level? Because government says so. Its signaling/actionism for political/power purposes.
bonzini 3y ago
> government being able to mandate that a certain website not open at all on a browser/system is uncharted territory and even the most repressive regimes in the world prefer to block websites further up the network (ISPs, etc.) so far. Repressive government's don't do their blocking at the browser level because it is completely ineffective. Anyone who wants to access the forbidden websites will be able to do so anyway.

petre 3y ago

France and the UK nowadays seem to beat Australia when it comes to dumb actions. Only the Turnbull and Morrison governments had more idiotic ideas.