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.
While motivated by a legitimate concern, this move to block websites directly within the browser would be disastrous for the open internet and disproportionate to the goals of the legal proposal – fighting fraud. It will also set a worrying precedent and create technical capabilities that other regimes will leverage for far more nefarious purposes. Leveraging existing malware and phishing protection offerings rather than replacing them with government provided, device level block-lists is a far better route to achieve the goals of the legislation.
It might seem that current malware and phishing protection industry practices are not so different from the French proposal. This is far from the truth, where the key differentiating factor is that they do not block websites but merely warn users about the risks and allow them to access the websites if they choose to accept it. No such language is present in the current proposal, which is focused on blocking.
A world in which browsers can be forced to incorporate a list of banned websites at the software-level that simply do not open, either in a region or globally, is a worrying prospect that raises serious concerns around freedom of expression.
Leveraging offerings that are already present in billions of devices and software to fight fraud is a far more effective way forward rather than attempting to reinvent the (ticking time bomb) of a wheel with browser-based website blocking.
Doesn't France already block several websites it considers to be illegal by forcing all ISPs within the country to not allow access? I've seen various news articles relating to some porn websites...
Doesn't France already block several websites it considers to be illegal by forcing all ISPs within the country to not allow access?
I've seen various news articles relating to some porn websites that had what France considered improper age verification, and I know they blocked some hentai website over lolicon material.
Changing from an ISP based block to a browser based block doesn't seem to have much practical difference, at least not to me. If I'm understanding it right it will probably less restrictive to use a browser based system, because then you would only have to download a non-compliant browser once in order to bypass it, while the current system requires constant use of a VPN.
So if you're an average person you can get a government approved browser that will automatically block any scams the government has been made aware of, and if you are worried about the government suppressing information you can just get a browser that doesn't comply, which will always be hilariously easy. If the Chinese people are capable of getting VPNs, the French will be too.
And arguments about setting a precedent or a slippery slope aren't very convincing, because again the French government has already been doing this stuff for years, just using a different method. In all cases these websites exist for purposes deemed illegal by the French government, so it isn't too shocking that they would try to prevent people from accessing them, whether it be intentionally or by mistake.
Also I'm fairly sick and I'm typing this on my phone, so hopefully the flow of the paragraphs makes sense, I always try to type long comments on my computer so i can properly proofread them
First, of course you can make a custom build of Firefox without the blocking software, but it increases the risk of fraud/malware when people download their browser from a third party on the...
First, of course you can make a custom build of Firefox without the blocking software, but it increases the risk of fraud/malware when people download their browser from a third party on the internet, rather than the trusted source (in this case Mozilla).
I don't really understand the "well the regulation can never be implemented and therefore why worry about it" line. The French government could require Mozilla to implement this software in Firefox by default and automatically activate it whenever the browser is used in France. Mozilla could choose to ignore this requirement, but they would have to close their office in France, France could probably create issues at the wider EU level, and the French government is not exactly known for tolerating disagreement.
I think the people who would be downloading a browser specifically to bypass this law, or laws like it, are probably not the same people who would be at risk for accidentally downloading a virus...
I think the people who would be downloading a browser specifically to bypass this law, or laws like it, are probably not the same people who would be at risk for accidentally downloading a virus instead of a legitimate browser. Sure, that will happen, but I'd bet it will happen to fewer people than the number of people who would be protected from viruses by browsers that do follow this law.
And my real point is that the internet has never been completely free and open, there's always restrictions against illegal things. If the French government has decided to block this by requiring ISPs to not allow access to certain websites they know to be spams, it wouldn't be news at all, that's a fairly normal thing for governments to do. Now they're just trying to build that restriction into browsers instead, for some reason that probably makes sense to the French government, and I just don't see why this is newsworthy or "dangerous".
Not sure about this: for example, there are lots of people who like pirating films and don't have a lot of technical know how. Note that browsers already have this exact mechanism, built in! It's...
Not sure about this: for example, there are lots of people who like pirating films and don't have a lot of technical know how.
Note that browsers already have this exact mechanism, built in! It's called Google Safe Browsing and it firstly only warns users (it doesn't prevent them from choosing to visit the website) and secondly doesn't allow governments to add websites which are not scams and rather just websites of people the state doesn't like.
If you're pirating movies, you need to know how to download a VPN already. If you can download a VPN you can download a browser. Given how easy it will be to get around this wall the French are...
If you're pirating movies, you need to know how to download a VPN already. If you can download a VPN you can download a browser.
Given how easy it will be to get around this wall the French are setting up, it will be very obvious if they try to use it for anything nefarious.
And again, the French government, along with basically every other government around, has been blocking various websites it deems illegal since basically the creation of the internet. The potential for abuse has always been there, the main thing changing now is how they implement their restrictions, not what the restrictions are.
What I don’t understand though is what you have against a free and open internet? Why are you aiding governments in this arms race to try and control what people can see and hear? This whole...
What I don’t understand though is what you have against a free and open internet? Why are you aiding governments in this arms race to try and control what people can see and hear?
This whole “doesn’t matter anyway, we should just give up the open internet.” Attitude is just dumbfounding to me and makes me suspicious of the people writing it everywhere. Who can defend endorsing that?
There's never been a completely free and open internet, and there never will be. There are always laws about what you can and cannot do. Usually these laws have the support of most of the public,...
There's never been a completely free and open internet, and there never will be. There are always laws about what you can and cannot do. Usually these laws have the support of most of the public, or they wouldn't have been made in the first place. Ie, recently Canada passed that law banning Meta from hosting links to news sites. While that seems like it has somewhat backfired, at least initially it was popular. Or the French laws I already mentioned, there's not too many Frenchmen out there complaining that the government blocking access to nhentai is an unjust restriction of the internet. And I could go on, there's a ton of ways in which the internet is restricted even in the USA, which has less of these kinds of laws than most places.
Well, I mean I guess there is if you count Tor browser and the .onion sites, but even those occasionally get traced by the FBI and people get arrested. But I don't think those kinds of websites are very relevant to this discussion.
In general, as long as the process behind why the laws are being made is explained and has the support of the public, I don't see a reason its necessarily bad to restrict the internet in certain ways. If France was an autocracy with limited communication with the outside world, and there was a real fear that the government would use this law to restrict the flow of information in France, you would have a point. But that just isn't the case.
I’d argue we did have a free and open internet- at least here in the US - for many years. I lived through it. I don’t know what kind of revisionist history you’re trying to sell here, but I’m not...
I’d argue we did have a free and open internet- at least here in the US - for many years. I lived through it. I don’t know what kind of revisionist history you’re trying to sell here, but I’m not buying.
You didn’t answer my question though- why don’t you want one?
Fascists have a long history of using “protecting us” as an excuse to strip freedoms. As others have said here, there’s no reason for it… unless there’s an ulterior motive… like trying to stop these:
Edit: here’s a better link- a long list of all the democratic movements that started on social media. This is why a free and open internet is so important, and giving governments more tools to control it is dangerous.
There's always been restrictions. If you're in the US and you try to run a website hosting pirated movies, you will get shut down. If you tried to run a website selling drugs, or offering any...
I’d argue we did have a free and open internet- at least here in the US - for many years. I lived through it. I don’t know what kind of revisionist history you’re trying to sell here, but I’m not buying.
There's always been restrictions. If you're in the US and you try to run a website hosting pirated movies, you will get shut down. If you tried to run a website selling drugs, or offering any other illegal service, you would get shut down. In most of Europe, if you run a website hosting a bunch of targeted hate speech, you will get shut down. And in cases where the people hosting the website are outside of the jurisdiction of the country in question, it is not at all unheard of for the country to just block the domain. This is already happening in France and I've given examples. Just because things happen on the internet does not mean that laws do not apply to them.
And if you still consider the internet to be "free and open" even with all of those restrictions in place, but consider a block on certain scam websites to be where the line needs to be drawn, I really have to question why you think that is the point where it becomes a problem.
Yes, theoretically Macron could be putting this law in place because he is worried about another French Revolution happening. But first, why would he want to implement a browser based system, as opposed to regulating it at the ISP level? This draws more attention to the regulations that are being put in place and thus makes it more likely people will circumvent them, and as I've also said it makes the restrictions easier to circumvent than the normal method. And second, do you honestly believe that anyone thinks France is at risk for a color revolution, or really any revolution for that matter?
I mean I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens, but if the French use this law to suppress political opposition it will be incredibly easy to notice, and I would bet any amount of money that the French will not use this law for that.
It’s about precedent , not France. It’s about normalizing government control of internet content. You’re clearly a pretty smart guy and three times now I’ve asked you to answer why blocking access...
It’s about precedent , not France.
It’s about normalizing government control of internet content.
You’re clearly a pretty smart guy and three times now I’ve asked you to answer why blocking access to hentai (something any parent can do with good router settings) should be reason enough to allow the government to control unalterable blocklists on your personal property. It does not make any sense to even approach the problem this way from a technical standpoint and doesn’t stop bad actors either… unless you zoom out and see this as a step in the direction of greater government control. One more ability that can be grown or transitioned or repurposed later. It’s further erosion of privacy plain and simple.
Your refusal to acknowledge this and refusal to answer my question as to why you’d support such a thing makes me question the point of this discussion. I think I’ve made my point, and I’m not going to circle around and around this anymore with you. Your framing and arguments sure seem disingenuous and kind of deliberately obtuse despite the length and vocabulary. I’m going to just leave it at agree to disagree on this and wish you well. I won’t be engaging anymore on this with you.
I understand Mozilla's complaint here but my question is why would they even implement it. It's not like browsers are sold. If the French pass crappy laws, then ignore them or block them. Let the...
I understand Mozilla's complaint here but my question is why would they even implement it. It's not like browsers are sold. If the French pass crappy laws, then ignore them or block them. Let the French make their own special fork if they want this garbage.
Doesn't France already block several websites it considers to be illegal by forcing all ISPs within the country to not allow access?
I've seen various news articles relating to some porn websites that had what France considered improper age verification, and I know they blocked some hentai website over lolicon material.
Changing from an ISP based block to a browser based block doesn't seem to have much practical difference, at least not to me. If I'm understanding it right it will probably less restrictive to use a browser based system, because then you would only have to download a non-compliant browser once in order to bypass it, while the current system requires constant use of a VPN.
So if you're an average person you can get a government approved browser that will automatically block any scams the government has been made aware of, and if you are worried about the government suppressing information you can just get a browser that doesn't comply, which will always be hilariously easy. If the Chinese people are capable of getting VPNs, the French will be too.
And arguments about setting a precedent or a slippery slope aren't very convincing, because again the French government has already been doing this stuff for years, just using a different method. In all cases these websites exist for purposes deemed illegal by the French government, so it isn't too shocking that they would try to prevent people from accessing them, whether it be intentionally or by mistake.
Also I'm fairly sick and I'm typing this on my phone, so hopefully the flow of the paragraphs makes sense, I always try to type long comments on my computer so i can properly proofread them
First, of course you can make a custom build of Firefox without the blocking software, but it increases the risk of fraud/malware when people download their browser from a third party on the internet, rather than the trusted source (in this case Mozilla).
I don't really understand the "well the regulation can never be implemented and therefore why worry about it" line. The French government could require Mozilla to implement this software in Firefox by default and automatically activate it whenever the browser is used in France. Mozilla could choose to ignore this requirement, but they would have to close their office in France, France could probably create issues at the wider EU level, and the French government is not exactly known for tolerating disagreement.
I think the people who would be downloading a browser specifically to bypass this law, or laws like it, are probably not the same people who would be at risk for accidentally downloading a virus instead of a legitimate browser. Sure, that will happen, but I'd bet it will happen to fewer people than the number of people who would be protected from viruses by browsers that do follow this law.
And my real point is that the internet has never been completely free and open, there's always restrictions against illegal things. If the French government has decided to block this by requiring ISPs to not allow access to certain websites they know to be spams, it wouldn't be news at all, that's a fairly normal thing for governments to do. Now they're just trying to build that restriction into browsers instead, for some reason that probably makes sense to the French government, and I just don't see why this is newsworthy or "dangerous".
Not sure about this: for example, there are lots of people who like pirating films and don't have a lot of technical know how.
Note that browsers already have this exact mechanism, built in! It's called Google Safe Browsing and it firstly only warns users (it doesn't prevent them from choosing to visit the website) and secondly doesn't allow governments to add websites which are not scams and rather just websites of people the state doesn't like.
If you're pirating movies, you need to know how to download a VPN already. If you can download a VPN you can download a browser.
Given how easy it will be to get around this wall the French are setting up, it will be very obvious if they try to use it for anything nefarious.
And again, the French government, along with basically every other government around, has been blocking various websites it deems illegal since basically the creation of the internet. The potential for abuse has always been there, the main thing changing now is how they implement their restrictions, not what the restrictions are.
What I don’t understand though is what you have against a free and open internet? Why are you aiding governments in this arms race to try and control what people can see and hear?
This whole “doesn’t matter anyway, we should just give up the open internet.” Attitude is just dumbfounding to me and makes me suspicious of the people writing it everywhere. Who can defend endorsing that?
There's never been a completely free and open internet, and there never will be. There are always laws about what you can and cannot do. Usually these laws have the support of most of the public, or they wouldn't have been made in the first place. Ie, recently Canada passed that law banning Meta from hosting links to news sites. While that seems like it has somewhat backfired, at least initially it was popular. Or the French laws I already mentioned, there's not too many Frenchmen out there complaining that the government blocking access to nhentai is an unjust restriction of the internet. And I could go on, there's a ton of ways in which the internet is restricted even in the USA, which has less of these kinds of laws than most places.
Well, I mean I guess there is if you count Tor browser and the .onion sites, but even those occasionally get traced by the FBI and people get arrested. But I don't think those kinds of websites are very relevant to this discussion.
In general, as long as the process behind why the laws are being made is explained and has the support of the public, I don't see a reason its necessarily bad to restrict the internet in certain ways. If France was an autocracy with limited communication with the outside world, and there was a real fear that the government would use this law to restrict the flow of information in France, you would have a point. But that just isn't the case.
I’d argue we did have a free and open internet- at least here in the US - for many years. I lived through it. I don’t know what kind of revisionist history you’re trying to sell here, but I’m not buying.
You didn’t answer my question though- why don’t you want one?
Fascists have a long history of using “protecting us” as an excuse to strip freedoms. As others have said here, there’s no reason for it… unless there’s an ulterior motive… like trying to stop these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution?wprov=sfti1
Edit: here’s a better link- a long list of all the democratic movements that started on social media. This is why a free and open internet is so important, and giving governments more tools to control it is dangerous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Colour_revolutions
There's always been restrictions. If you're in the US and you try to run a website hosting pirated movies, you will get shut down. If you tried to run a website selling drugs, or offering any other illegal service, you would get shut down. In most of Europe, if you run a website hosting a bunch of targeted hate speech, you will get shut down. And in cases where the people hosting the website are outside of the jurisdiction of the country in question, it is not at all unheard of for the country to just block the domain. This is already happening in France and I've given examples. Just because things happen on the internet does not mean that laws do not apply to them.
And if you still consider the internet to be "free and open" even with all of those restrictions in place, but consider a block on certain scam websites to be where the line needs to be drawn, I really have to question why you think that is the point where it becomes a problem.
Yes, theoretically Macron could be putting this law in place because he is worried about another French Revolution happening. But first, why would he want to implement a browser based system, as opposed to regulating it at the ISP level? This draws more attention to the regulations that are being put in place and thus makes it more likely people will circumvent them, and as I've also said it makes the restrictions easier to circumvent than the normal method. And second, do you honestly believe that anyone thinks France is at risk for a color revolution, or really any revolution for that matter?
I mean I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens, but if the French use this law to suppress political opposition it will be incredibly easy to notice, and I would bet any amount of money that the French will not use this law for that.
It’s about precedent , not France.
It’s about normalizing government control of internet content.
You’re clearly a pretty smart guy and three times now I’ve asked you to answer why blocking access to hentai (something any parent can do with good router settings) should be reason enough to allow the government to control unalterable blocklists on your personal property. It does not make any sense to even approach the problem this way from a technical standpoint and doesn’t stop bad actors either… unless you zoom out and see this as a step in the direction of greater government control. One more ability that can be grown or transitioned or repurposed later. It’s further erosion of privacy plain and simple.
Your refusal to acknowledge this and refusal to answer my question as to why you’d support such a thing makes me question the point of this discussion. I think I’ve made my point, and I’m not going to circle around and around this anymore with you. Your framing and arguments sure seem disingenuous and kind of deliberately obtuse despite the length and vocabulary. I’m going to just leave it at agree to disagree on this and wish you well. I won’t be engaging anymore on this with you.
I understand Mozilla's complaint here but my question is why would they even implement it. It's not like browsers are sold. If the French pass crappy laws, then ignore them or block them. Let the French make their own special fork if they want this garbage.
Ding ding ding ding. It’s open source. Go for it.
Get FranceSoft's new state-approved browser, NetNannyState! The only browser approved for use in the République Française!
Why would they need this? There's already ISP level blocking. Isn't this less efficient than the current technique?
I think it's nothing more than good, old-fashioned security theater.
I like this idea. That seems plausible