HN Gopher Feed (2017-11-15) - page 1 of 10
New EU law prescribes website blocking in the name of "consumer
58 points by cameronhowehttps://juliareda.eu/2017/11/eu-website-blocking/
porfirium - 38 minutes ago
>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.
cma - 36 minutes ago
They didn't say it was blocked using this proposal. Just that it
was expedited through website blocking infrastructure that was
put in place for other purposes.
eugeniub - 35 minutes ago
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.
porfirium - 33 minutes ago
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.
sverige - 5 minutes ago
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
snvzz - 1 minutes ago
>That required judicial authorisation.I can't find a source on
this. Do you have one?
sassenach - 30 minutes ago
I think this is the relevant paragraph in the document (page 27 in
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 to implement such measures, in order to prevent
the risk of serious harm to the collective interests of consumers:-
to remove content or restrict access to an online interface
or to order the explicit display of a warning to consumers
when accessing the online interface;- to order a hosting
service provider to remove, disable or restrict the access
to an online interface; or- where appropriate, order domain
registries or registrars to delete a fully qualified domain
name and allow the competent authority concerned to
register it;"Seems similar to already existing measures against
infringement of copyrights, except that thing about circumventing
the courts, as Reda writes. Could this possibly mean websites such
as Facebook could be blocked on the grounds of protecting
consumers? The document defines 'widespread infringement' as"(1)
any act or omission contrary to Union laws that protect consumers'
interests that harmed, harms, or is likely to harm the collective
interests of consumers"
tankenmate - moments ago
As if the ICANN compliance 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
digi_owl - 17 minutes ago
> Competent authoritiesDo such a beast even exist?
pilsetnieks - 15 minutes ago
It's "competent" in the legal sense, i.e. the ones having
jurisdiction over the matter. It doesn't imply anything about
dalbasal - 27 minutes ago
This 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, try again. That kind of dynamic guarantees a
pilsetnieks - 1 minutes ago
> The direction is monodirectionalThe 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.
samschooler - 18 minutes ago
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.
golemotron - 48 minutes ago
I read "prescribes" in the title as "proscribes." There's an
argument for that too.
amelius - 18 minutes ago
I'm against this ... unless they block Facebook :)
maxsavin - 40 minutes ago
This is horrible