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.

Comments

It's for PROTECTION.

[Anonymous Coward]

Consumer PROTECTION law. It protects us. We're consumers, and we get protected. What is the damn problem here?

Re:It's for PROTECTION.

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:It's for PROTECTION.

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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.

Re:It's for PROTECTION.

[Beeftopia]

Make no mistake, there are multiple reasons for this law. A good law has good points, but also can cover up less noble intentions as well. The free flow of information, out of the control of self-appointed opinion-shapers and news curators/gatekeepers, is very troublesome to those same people. If the implicit censorship can hide behind the skirt of the "noble intentions", so much the better, and so much the more difficult to discuss it.

Re:It's for PROTECTION.

[Kiuas]

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.

Yes, from the article:

CPC factsheets and guidance documents claim this new legal frame could only be used for websites that sell scam products or break EU-wide consumer protection laws, such as e-commerce stores or travel booking sites that do not refund users, use fake product images, sell inexistent products, and so on.

Consumer protection laws are always needed to protect customers against cases like Infurn.com, a website that peddled modern furniture but never delivered and hid the identity of its owners via data protection laws that prevented the domain registrar from revealing who was behind the scheme.

As for this:

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,

While incompetence and ignorance are surely one factor, another issue with the way the EU currently works is that while having a shared currency and other features that have taken it closer to a federation-like entity, it's still a trade union and not an actual federation. This means that drafting regulations has to often be done with enough flexibility to account for the fact that different states have vastly different configurations of courts and authorities, and for example the way consumer protection cases are handled differs country by country, and in many countries most consumer cases are in fact already handled without the participation of a court. This is why the wording used often speaks of 'competent authorities', meaning 'whichever national body this matter falls under'

Here in Finland for example, the authority responsible for handling the details of consumer protection is the Finnish competition and consumer authority, which oversees the consumer market and sets guidelines based on existing legislation but does not handle individual complaints, although they do give out advice and knowledge on past rulings. I have personally done business with them once a few years back after an online vendor operating from Sweden that I had bought a 64 gig iPod from refused to take it into warranty after it stopped working 10 months after the purchase claiming that their 'inspection' proved I had dropped it, which was not the case. The FCAA responded that I should have a 3rd party have a look at the device and give their assessment, which I did and in that process apple maintenance also noted that it wasn't even actually a brand new device as it had been registered in their care before, so it was a return product which they had repackaged and sold to me as new, which is obviously illegal. With this knowledge in hand I recontacted the FCAA, which sided with me and pointed out to the vendor that if the case is take further they will almost certainly lose as the evidence is clear at this point, and they finally yielded, giving me a full refund, but no additional compensation although such was recommended, which bugged me out. However, should I have wanted to fight over compensation, I would have needed to take the matter further to the the consumer disputes board, whose members are appointed by the ministry of Justice for 5 years at a time. It works very similarly to a court, but it is not one, meaning it cannot give out legally binding/enforceable rulings but instead gives out recommendations, which are usually followed. The board would have likely sided with me but at that point the likely compensation would have

Re:It's for PROTECTION.

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I have nothing against seeking an efficient justice system that is practically accessible to and affordable by those with relatively minor grievances. Here in the UK, we use tribunals that serve a similar purpose in some situations, as well as a small claims court system, though if I've understood you correctly then our mechanisms have more power to make binding decisions themselves than the Finnish authorities you mentioned.

However, these national differences don't make vague law any better, nor excessively broad law, nor regulations that require disproportionate effort and cost for compliance.

The irony is that the EU already has a different mechanism, directives, to use in cases where the differences in national legal systems mean a particular change should be interpreted carefully according to each member state's laws and practices. But the EU tends not to use those when regulations will do, and thus we are where we are on this issue (and previous consumer protection regulations, and the GDPR, and so on).

Re:It's for PROTECTION.

[Qzukk]

CPC factsheets and guidance documents claim

If it were true, they wouldn't need "fact sheets" and "guidance documents" to "claim" this, it would be written in the law.

terrifying words

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

even worse

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm from a corporation and I'm here to make life easier

Re:even worse

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm from the 60s, *better living through chemistry*

The Help

[JBMcB]

Corporate "help" is optional.

Government "help" is mandatory.

Re:The Help

[Anonymous Coward]

Coporate "help" is mandatory. Phone dead, find that some credit card agency has wrong records, or that your 401k went from a bank to a holding place that charges a $35/month fee, and has a 0.001% interest rate. Those calls and dealing with that is just as bad, if not worse than the DMV. At least with the government you have some legal resource. Against a private company, you have none.

Re:The Help

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporate "help" is optional.

Government "help" is mandatory.

On whose part?

Re:The Help

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporate "help" is optional.

Oh you sweet child of summer.

Want tyranny? Stay where you are; for freedom move

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to live in a place a lot like the UK and Europe. That place was New Jersey. Having lived in New Jersey my entire life things didn't seem too bad. I mean. Life was hell, but I was used to it. Then around 2008ish New Jersey broke the camels back. They added a new service tax explicitly for those in my field. It meant my income dropped by 7%. Two years later I decided to move up to New Hampshire. Not because New Hampshire is much better- but because there are others who are sick and tired of the bull shit getting together and working to fix things. Those who put freedom and liberty above "safety" and tyrannical laws like this should consider joining the Shire Society and Free State Project and the general migration. We've had a lot of successes and while New Hampshire isn't perfect it still beats 99% of the world (or at least places you'd actually want to live, ie low unemployment, good jobs, cheap living, low taxes, fewer tyrannical laws, ie it's not the UK, EU, NJ, Massachusetts, NY, or California).

SJW will protect the net

[AHuxley]

From international news, bad move reviews, authors, comments, reviews, images, blasphemy, cartoons, music, art, culture, history, politics, local news?
The censored internet is going to get very bland and boring. Just big government, political parties and big brands pushing their SJW ideals.

Celsius 232.777778 the sequel

[ArhcAngel]

At what temperature does a web site burn?

Re:Want tyranny? Stay where you are; for freedom m

[Zontar The Mindless]

I'm sure the locals you're attempting to displace are completely OK with that.

(For those of you just joining us, these are the folks who go around saying, "The State sucks! We don't need no steenkin' State! We'll just go run everyone else out of one of theirs, as long as it isn't Somalia!")

Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

The EU is full of them. They do not live in a democracy.. yet many think they do. Fools. This is why people in the UK want to brexit.

Re: Idiots

[lucasnate1]

In eu countries there are more than two parties, in the US there are only two. Why?

Re: Idiots

[UnknownSoldier]

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!

Re:Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that you again Vladimir?

Re: Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but EU politics is nothing to be proud of. They're certainly no better off than the US. In fact the only thing preventing them from falling back into their feudal world war is the US military presence. To keep the peace, we can only hope that the US gets its shit together. The Europeans will like the Russians even less.

Re: Idiots

[Bacon Bits]

Don't be silly. It's not that Americans are too stupid to understand voting reform. It's that any elected official got where they are by beating the current system. They have no interest in fixing the system because the current system has clearly benefitted them. If you're crushing it at Omaha you don't call 7 card high low when it's your deal.

Re: Idiots

[mjwx]

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!

Not quite. most countries use Instant Runoff Voting that deal with the issues of FPTP. The problem with the US isn't the FPTP system, its electoral councils and PAC's. What the US needs to do is: 1. Kill the electoral collage and go straight to direct voting. The most votes for congressional candidate John Jackson in the electorate of whatever, Ohio means that Jack Johnson wins it. The most votes for senatorial candidate Jack Johnson in Ohio means he wins and if you want to keep voting directly for your president the most votes for Steve Steveman in the federal election means he's president. This is closer to the French system than the Westminster system we have in the UK and commonwealth mainly because we dont vote directly for the PM/Prez. A federal leader who does not win the popular vote should not be win if you're voting direct for a leader, said leaders power should be limited and balanced by the senate and congress.

2. Kill PACs and limit lobbying. This includes capping party donations for both private individuals and organisations. In fact that should be the first thing done because it'll kill a lot of lobbying in itself.

2.a, limit political advertising and force the organisation who paid for it to be clearly stated at the end.

3. Implement instant runoff voting.

Take A Loan @ 2% Interest Rate

[Victoria Financier]

TAKE A LOAN @ 2% INTEREST RATE with victoriafinancier@outlook.com . Do you need a loan? Do you need a loan to pay off your debt? Do you have bad credit? Do you need a loan construction or to invest? Do u you need loan to start doing business? if yes, VICTORIA FINANCIER LOAN FIRM are Granting you personal loan, Business loan, mortgage loan, Construction loan, Debt loan, Student loan, Auto loan, e.t.c. Loan at any currency are range from $5,000 ''min'' to $100,000.000 ''max'' @ 2% interest rate If you are interested kindly send response to: { victoriafinancier@outlook.com } VICTORIA FINANCIER EMAIL: victoriafinancier@outlook.com Best Regard VICTORIA FINANCIER

Re:Want tyranny? Stay where you are; for freedom m

[Anonymous Coward]

Galt's Gulch imploded on itself, you know that right?

Re:Want tyranny? Stay where you are; for freedom m

[Anonymous Coward]

the locals you're attempting to displace

How about applying this rhetoric to those immigrating to the US? Ah yeah, that's somehow completely different.

Illegalities

[Anonymous Coward]

But as MEP Reda points out, without any mandatory judicial oversight, this new regulation could be abused, similarly to how much regulation passed to deal with one topic is often hijacked and applied in other areas.

Now this would be illegal according to the national laws of probably several EU members as it would break the laws controlling the behaviour of the authorities and good governance. So, should there be a panic today, or shall there always be a panic tomorrow?

Re:Illegalities

[Anonymous Coward]

EU law trumps national law. thats one reason for brexit.

Re:Illegalities

[Anonymous Coward]

Misapplication of law fouls against our explicit constitutional right for good governance here, which is probably something that the US/British never had. Or that the public isn't aware of it and doesn't expect better from their governments. That was the point, not that this regulation by the Commission was against the law.

Paging George Orwell

[Anonymous Coward]

It is for PROTECTION...! ...Says guy who has never read a George Orwell novel or seen any sci-fi movie ever.

https://babylonbee.com/news/go-wrong-amazon-key-asks-man-whos-never-watched-single-sci-fi-film/

Cronyism

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this a joke? Against the government you have NO RECOURSE other than what the government itself allows, due to fabricated myth laughingly called Sovereign Immunity.

Big government + big business = cronyism, the big danger.

https://fee.org/articles/to-fight-cronyism-we-need-a-separation-of-business-and-state/

Re:Cronyism

[king neckbeard]

The kind of liabilities governments and businesses have are different. The biggest threat is when the government and businesses are working together, as the buck can be passed to nowhere. So, for example, Lockheed Martin has basically zero public accountability, because they are a private entity heavily funded by government contracts.

Re:Cronyism

[Anonymous Coward]

Lockheed Martin's public accountability is provided by their annual stock holder reports and it's public stock price. If you do not like what you see then don't buy their stock or any of their products or services. If you mean Lockheed Martin should divulge every little detail about the R&D on top secret government projects than you are SOL. And the GAO publishes everything you ever want to know about what the government spends on approved contracts. Of course classified project spending will show only the total amounts paid to a contractor in broad terms but not line item details. Now people may have a problem with this but I would rather the government at east try to keep the nations advanced weapon designs posted on some Facebook site with millions of clueless twits spewing the inane and often times idiotic complaints about things they no nothing about.

Re:Cronyism

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually for the company after the initial sales of the stock, the company no longer cares for the stock or stock price, except for when it wants to buy back the stock again.

If you don't like what you see, you should actually buy the stock and vote. Of course you need to buy a lot of stocks to actually being able to change anything.

Poor PirateBay! And everyone else...

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess if you can't beat them in court, might as well circumvent the law...?

Yes it's hyperbole, but the point is salient. I'm sure this will be used under the guise of 'copyright enforcement', but I'm sure this will be effectively used across the whole of EU, to silence opposing political opinions.

This is the kind of thing, we would normally see in response to a significant event happening in Europe. I'd say terrorism, but that is now commonplace in society unfortunately. There is potential this could be ac actual effective defense measure on that topic, for say communications through a specific website, but let's be honest. When was the scope of something so broad, ever used with surgical precision.

And so it goes... Over-reaching authority continues. Dissenting opinions will be silenced, and wherever convenient, those nasty file-sharers will have to spin up more sites in the continuing game of whack-a-mole.

Re: Want tyranny? Stay where you are; for freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

If you do not like being robbed, you can leave this mafia territory and go to another one.

Have a problem with getting conscripted into the military and forced to murder? Oh well, you should just go somewhere else. I like conscription.

Not a fan of being censored or denied life-saving experimental drugs by some lazy bureaucrat? Gee, sorry your terminally-ill kid died, but that drug could have been really dangerous for him. Maybe you should have had your kid somewhere else.

Join us next time for more, Garbage Statists Say.

Extrajudicial censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Extrajudicial censorship is all the rage in Europe. Germany has shown the way with its new social media laws that outsource censorship to private parties and foundations without oversight or any way for the censored to challenge it. Now everyone wants in. I bet the EU commission is already drooling over the possibilities.

Re:Extrajudicial censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it's, like, ya know, a total surprise that Nazis excel at censorship and paper pushing...

No EU law

[manu0601]

EU does not pass laws. Member states do.

Re:Want tyranny? Stay where you are; for freedom m

[Zontar The Mindless]

Their intentions are quite different, yes. Glad we agree on that.

Re: Want tyranny? Stay where you are; for freedom

[Zontar The Mindless]

If you do not like being robbed, you can leave this mafia territory and go to another one.

"Robbed"? By whom? In which "mafia territory"?

Have a problem with getting conscripted into the military and forced to murder? Oh well, you should just go somewhere else. I like conscription.

Assuming you're talking about the US, there hasn't been a draft in over 40 years, and no-one's been prosecuted for failing to register since the mid-1980s.

Not a fan of being censored...[?]

Again assuming you're talking about the US, I wasn't aware that the government there practised censorship.

...or denied life-saving experimental drugs by some lazy bureaucrat? Gee, sorry your terminally-ill kid died, but that drug could have been really dangerous for him. Maybe you should have had your kid somewhere else.

Perhaps you'd be interested in knowing that my mother is alive today because, just 2 or 3 years ago, when her life expectancy was about 90 days, some "lazy bureaucrat" approved her then-experimental treatment for terminal cancer. I *really* hope you're okay with that.

(Were you actually replying to me, or to someone else?)

You want to protect me? Great! Here's how:

[Opportunist]

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?

Re:You want to protect me? Great! Here's how:

[Anonymous Coward]

Would also create a who-is-who database of all the people who opted out of the censorship, which is only one overbearing law away from being abused as a tool to identify dissenters.