this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2023
475 points (98.0% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54424 readers
336 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

In a well-intentioned yet dangerous move to fight online fraud, France is on the verge of forcing browsers to create a dystopian technical capability. 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.

I don't agree that it's "well-intentioned" at all but the article goes on to point out the potential for abuse by copyright holders.

cross-posted from: https://radiation.party/post/64123

[ comments | sourced from HackerNews ]

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 126 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm imagining Firefox creating a clientside file called government-blocklist.txt, with the understanding of "don't touch this file, you scamp 😉"

[–] zkfcfbzr@lemmy.world 44 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Or putting the option to disable the blocking in about:config... Or even just the settings page

[–] 50gp@kbin.social 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

dump the .txt file to the desktop for easy removal by user

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BastingChemina@slrpnk.net 121 points 1 year ago (19 children)

ainsi mieux protéger nos enfants

This is to protect our children of course.

As usual, so anyone who is against this law can be depicted as someone who is supporting pedopornography.

load more comments (19 replies)
[–] Peruvian_Skies@kbin.social 84 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Should cars be required by law not to let you drive to drug deals? Should glasses be required by law not to let you read banned books? Should testicles be required by law not to produce government-unsanctioned sperm?

[–] Scrollone@feddit.it 51 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I have an even simpler example: should cars be required not go over the speed limit?

[–] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 30 points 1 year ago

No because they'd lose the ticket revenue

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] bappity@lemmy.world 75 points 1 year ago (3 children)

how to get all browsers to remove access for france

[–] TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

the good ending? no more French?

[–] Doog@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago
[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Browsers can have different releases per default language, so just have the fr-fr distribution have the blockers and others not

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jayandp@sh.itjust.works 72 points 1 year ago (9 children)

This is dumb on so many levels. It'd be trivial for people to obtain a web browser that ignores this. The biggest browsers in the world all have open-source code bases, so anybody could build something with near feature parity but none of the restrictions, and then distribute it wherever. Enforcing this would be just create another game of wack-a-mole, with no advantages for the copyright holders, and potential abuse against even non-pirate users. Very slippery slope.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] ThetaDev@lemmy.fmhy.net 65 points 1 year ago (7 children)

The most stupid part of this idea is that is requires a list of banned sites to be served to every user.

Even if they would use hashing to obfuscate the banned domains, you can download a list of all registered domains and just test every one of them.

So the average internet user will lose freedom while a cheese pizza enjoyer with some computer knowledge will gain a list of every banned CP site.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 53 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The laws already require you to not infringe copyright. This is a new front in the same old war.

[–] Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com 29 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes definitely, but currently the onus is on the user to not infringe. The French proposal is putting at least some of the onus on the developer of the browser which is a new front, I agree.

[–] natecox@programming.dev 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I feel like we would be less forgiving of this happening in other mediums.

Imagine this: car manufacturers are required by law to prevent their vehicles from driving to locations where crime might happen.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Silverseren@kbin.social 40 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If the reason for this is to prevent pedophilia content, then this will do nothing. People who access that sort of thing on the dark web aren't going to be affected by this whatsoever.

[–] JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

When pedophilia prevention is used as an excuse, 100% of the time it is a move to restrict peoples' rights and/or freedoms. 100% of the time.

The US has the playbook down easy. Every single law that they want to pass that is solidly against the citizens best interests they say "oh.... pedophilia!"

You can't argue against it because they will say "oh, so you think pedophilia is good and shouldn't be stopped?" When in reality, the biggest rings of pedophilia aren't perpetrated by online websites but by rich businessmen, polititians, and churches. Their friends, corporate masters, and partners.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Pulp@lemmy.dbzer0.com 37 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Johanno@lemmy.fmhy.net 22 points 1 year ago

Just comment out the "download list of sites to block" part and recompile

[–] DarkThoughts@kbin.social 34 points 1 year ago (7 children)

There's literally no way to enforce this.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] tlit341569@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago (2 children)

why govts love to censor the public internet?

[–] iso@lemmy.dbzer0.com 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Most governments are greatly influenced by lobbyists, who are often tied to media companies. It gets worse since a lot of old people vote for heavy conservative parties, which in turn are even stronger leaning into lobbyism.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Chais@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago

If you control information, you control the will of the people.

[–] HurlingDurling@lemm.ee 24 points 1 year ago (3 children)

If google implements is drm technology they are actively implementing already now, the answer is an absolute yes.

Download firefox now.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] sndrtj@feddit.nl 21 points 1 year ago (6 children)

France and dystopian copyright laws, name a more typical duo.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Fylkir@lemmy.sdf.org 19 points 1 year ago

How would this even be enforced?

[–] skookumasfrig@sopuli.xyz 18 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Service providers in many countries are required by law to do this through DNS for years. The UK, Italy, Germany and Brazil are just a few that I've had personal experience with. Moving this to the browser really isn't necessary since there will always be easy ways around these types of blocks.

[–] OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca 20 points 1 year ago

"The internet treats censorship as a fault and reroutes around it."

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] coheedcollapse@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

How would this stop anything, though? Most of the scam sites are one-off things and people call the numbers and are redirected to otherwise legit screen-sharing software to be scammed.

I can't think of a single specific site that any government could block to stop scams. This shit is just bound to be abused.

[–] roofuskit@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Despite all the problems we have in the United States, this would be struck down in court SO fast due to the first amendment to our constitution. The government making a list of speech you are not allowed to hear is pretty much the most cut and dry violation of that.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] icepuncher69@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Hope the french revolt about this too. Maybe throw a bunch of pc's on the prime ministers bathroom.

[–] omeara4pheonix@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Eh, it's unenforceable. Just theater from a bunch of politicians that don't understand the technology. I wouldn't worry about it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] dunning_cougar@waveform.social 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] zkfcfbzr@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Or older versions of browsers, or browsers that don't comply, or browsers compiled for literally any other country

[–] Meltbox@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] DestroyMegacorps@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago

me on my way to prison after i use an outdated browser (it didnt have the blocklist)

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›