Slashdot Mirror
New EU Consumer Protection Law Contains a Vague Website Blocking Clause (bleepingcomputer.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bleeping Computer: The European Union (EU) has voted on Tuesday, November 14, to pass the new Consumer Protection Cooperation regulation, a new EU-wide applicable law that gives extra power to national consumer protection agencies, but which also contains a vaguely worded clause that also grants them the power to block and take down websites without judicial oversight. The new law "establishes overreaching Internet blocking measures that are neither proportionate nor suitable for the goal of protecting consumers and come without mandatory judicial oversight," Member of the European Parliament Julia Reda said in a speech in the European Parliament Plenary during a last ditch effort to amend the law. "According to the new rules, national consumer protection authorities can order any unspecified third party to block access to websites without requiring judicial authorization," Reda added later in the day on her blog. This new law is an EU regulation and not a directive, meaning its obligatory for all EU states, which do not have to individually adopt it.
Yep. I know a protection law when I see one.
That's a real nice website you got there, it'd be a real shame if something happened to it...
Corporate "help" is optional.
Government "help" is mandatory.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Like many laws originating in the EU, it probably had some noble intentions behind it. Maybe this time it really was trying to limit the ability of scam web sites operating outside EU jurisdictions to harm people when the operators couldn't be pursued directly under EU law.
Sadly, the EU often exhibits a combination of ignorance, apathy and carelessness when it comes to making the actual laws, and consequently it often causes large amounts of collateral damage. I suspect in many cases those responsible genuinely don't know or understand what they've done, but that doesn't really help if you're hit by the damage.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Because of the idiotic First Past the Goal Post voting system which degenerates into a 2 party system.
The solution is to use an Alternative Vote system but the majority of Americans are too fucking stupid to:
a) understand the problem, and
b) do anything to fix the problem.
so they end up with the "best" government money can buy!
1) Taking down isn't. You're in no position to do that. Morally anyway, and legally in most cases where you simply don't have jurisdiction. Blocking access is enough to protect people.
2) Blocks you implement are made public, with the site blocked along with the reason why you did it.
3) I get the right to overrule your decision and put myself in harm's way if I so please.
After all, you're trying to protect me, right? Not patronize me. You want to keep me safe from Chinese pages trying to steal my money? Awesome. You want to cut access to malware C&C servers? Even better.
You want to censor opinions you don't like? Not quite a good idea, with the provisions above you will not do it, because you would essentially create a who-is-who database of what you want to censor.
Can we agree on these three simple rules? Hmm?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.