undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjopsen8y ago0 comments

> 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.

0 comments

8 comments · 2 top-level

arghwhat8y ago· 5 in thread

But 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.

yorwba8y ago

What 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?".

arghwhat8y ago

I 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).

Trombone128y ago

Please control your hyperbole a bit, or do you really oppose sunglasses on account of how they filter spectral information?

arghwhat8y ago

Ah, I'm sorry, I of course meant filtering of information from the public, not any personal filtering in a wider sense. I may have been wrong to expect that this was clear.

Feel free to wear sunglasses, welding helmets, use ad blockers ("content filter"), attach ND filters to your camera lenses, water filters to your water filtration systems, HEPA filters to air filtration systems, etc.

jopsenOP8y ago

If we restrict filtering to DNS, so that it's easy to take the "sun glasses" off, then I kind of like it :)

1 more reply

microcolonel8y ago· 1 in thread

> 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.

yorwba8y ago

The 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.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

8 comments · 2 top-level

arghwhat8y ago· 5 in thread

But who decides what an "effective means" is, and which are available? Without judicial oversight, this seems rather easy to bypass.

yorwba8y ago

arghwhat8y ago

I 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.

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).

Trombone128y ago

Please control your hyperbole a bit, or do you really oppose sunglasses on account of how they filter spectral information?

arghwhat8y ago

Ah, I'm sorry, I of course meant filtering of information from the public, not any personal filtering in a wider sense. I may have been wrong to expect that this was clear.

jopsenOP8y ago

If we restrict filtering to DNS, so that it's easy to take the "sun glasses" off, then I kind of like it :)

1 more reply

microcolonel8y ago· 1 in thread

> The EU isn't perfect... But this sounds a lot like an attempt to give consumer protection agencies the powers to block scam sites.

yorwba8y ago

The 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.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse