Will Browsers Be Required By Law To Stop You From Visiting Infringing Sites?

[THX-1139]

I was curious if this would affect Pale Moon, Basilisk, or any of the other not Mainstream Browsers?: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/08/04/will-browsers-be-required-by-law-to-stop-you-from-visiting-infringing-sites/

[Moonchild]

I don't think this will be enforceable -- how would a French law impact US-based Google and Mozilla? How would it impact Pale Moon, also not based in France? The only way this would make it into web browsers is if browser vendors choose to do so, not because some French proposal says they should. This sounds extremely similar to the many failed attempts there have been to, in some way, have government-curated blocklists for porn.
It just doesn't work for its intended purpose.
On the other hand it can spell trouble for legitimate sites that somehow become targets of censorship or even just corporate sabotage.

[athenian200]

Well, so far only France is proposing this law, so I think in the worst case even if it passes, we might just have to put a warning to French users that it's illegal for them to download and use PM in their country (since I'm assuming the law would have to target the people who download the browser in the country in order to be enforceable). Sort of like how there used to be warnings that it was illegal to distribute US cryptography outside the US or something. Not to say that someone within France couldn't make a fork that compiles with the government regulations and prevents people from visiting sites on the government blocklist, but I'm pretty sure that isn't something we would want to implement at the browser level. I mean, in theory someone could create an add-on that supports the French government's blocklist, sure, but that could just as easily could be disabled and probably wouldn't meet the regulatory requirements.

There's even a possibility that Mozilla and Google would also tell France that they will have to rely on internally produced forks and want no part of this, leaving France with only internally produced, government approved forks of major browsers anyway.

The biggest problem with this law, though, is that it's a really impractical way of achieving the goal. It would make a lot more sense to require French ISPs to block websites on their end and then ban VPNs within the country, than to go after French citizens for illegally importing foreign technology that doesn't comply with French regulations. Because the ISPs have to operate within French borders and serve French citizens, they can't really escape from the law's impact and are stuck within French jurisdiction. That's the way China achieves the Great Firewall, and pretty much the only approach that actually works for this kind of thing.

[suzyne]

I can't see how it would work at the browser level, but here (Australia) all the major internet services have been required by the government to block sites that are on a blacklist at the ISP level. All the big companies comply, but since all that is needed is a VPN to avoid the blocking, I am not sure what the point is? People who seek out content on such blacklists know how to circumvent the restrictions anyway.

[Blacklab]

Similar impossible/unworkable internet control law known as the 'Online Safety Bill' (OSB) progressing through UK Parliament too.

Bill is a confused mess of high-minded expectations about protecting adults and children from pornography, self-harm, grooming, trolling, fraud, hate speech, scam adverts, terrorism, etc, etc! The draft Bill has been around for years and has acquired all sorts of 'added extra' baubles stuck onto it (known as a 'Christmas Tree' bill).

As currently written the Bill would drive a coach and horses through all end-to-end encryption service platforms like WhatsApp, Signal, etc. by requiring all online service providers to operate back doors so any 'illegal' communications could be identified and reported as the new law required to UK Government agencies like Ofcom (the UK’s communications regulator), the Police, and Security Services.

Several major internet companies (Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Google, Twitter, WhatsApp, Signal, and others) have warned UK politicians and Government in plain language that they would be forced to pull out of UK as there is no halfway-house version of end-to-end encryption where only the 'good guys' get to access people's data... the back doors would immediately become an open-season for repressive and authoritarian regimes too.

https://www.independent.co.uk/advisor/v ... powers-act

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66304002

[Pentium4User]

I can't see how it would work at the browser level, but here (Australia) all the major internet services have been required by the government to block sites that are on a blacklist at the ISP level. All the big companies comply, but since all that is needed is a VPN to avoid the blocking, I am not sure what the point is? People who seek out content on such blacklists know how to circumvent the restrictions anyway.

Browser could implement a block list like Google SafeBrowsing - just with an option that doesn't allow disabling it.
Maybe the EU commission will help creating a law. There are people like Ursula von der Leyen, she hates privacy and loves censorship.
She already wanted spying out internet/telephone traffic without any suspicion.

[suzyne]

Browser could implement a block list like Google SafeBrowsing - just with an option that doesn't allow disabling it.

What I meant is that I don't how the law could work and be effective when opponents to any such legislation can use Pale Moon or go and make their own custom browser from open source, if it comes to that.

edit: do lawmakers have a good enough understanding of open source, browsers and how the web works to know what can and can't be done?

[Moonchild]

I don't how the law could work and be effective when opponents to any such legislation can use Pale Moon or go and make their own custom browser from open source

I can just point above to my very first remark here:

I don't think this will be enforceable

[Pentium4User]

Browser could implement a block list like Google SafeBrowsing - just with an option that doesn't allow disabling it.

What I meant is that I don't how the law could work and be effective when opponents to any such legislation can use Pale Moon or go and make their own custom browser from open source, if it comes to that.

edit: do lawmakers have a good enough understanding of open source, browsers and how the web works to know what can and can't be done?

There are not enough PM users to make the government care about it. I think they will enforce that Google, MS and Mozilla will do it. Then 95% of users are restricted. That is effective enough and these companies will be enforced to implement it.
Most lawmakers don't know how the internet works and don't care about it.

MS was forced by the EU to provide the application "browser choice" and N edition without WMP.
Now the EU enforces that mobile phones use USB jacks instead of proprietary one.

[Moonchild]

MS was forced by the EU to provide the application "browser choice" and N edition without WMP.

You can't really compare that with what is already a free choice. That particular one was rooted in not giving people a choice which client to use.

There are not enough PM users to make the government care about it. I think they will enforce that Google, MS and Mozilla will do it. Then 95% of users are restricted.

If that becomes true, then I guess Pale Moon will see more new users

Once again though: How will they enforce anyone to implement this, when a vendor chooses not to? What legal power do they have to enforce this on a vendor who does not operate within the French borders?

[suzyne]

Then 95% of users are restricted.

Out of that 95% (the Chrome users etc) I imagine that there will be a proportion who won't notice that their freedom is being curtailed (because they don't visit sites on the list) but the rest who do will switch browsers because it's actually not that hard to do. People will switch if they have good reason to. I think Internet Explorer was once over 90% market share, but that did not last forever.

Same with Google/Microsoft/Mozilla today, I believe if they all hop on a censorship train, then a new browser will appear to give the people who oppose censorship what they want. Those who don't notice or push back will have the browser they deserve.

[Pentium4User]

Once again though: How will they enforce anyone to implement this, when a vendor chooses not to? What legal power do they have to enforce this on a vendor who does not operate within the French borders?

If Google or MS sell stuff in France, they can use fines.
I don't think that they can treat PM directly, but if it is hosted in the EU, maybe the EU creates the law and will make it hard for PM in other EU countries.

[Moonchild]

If Google or MS sell stuff in France, they can use fines.

Not really, since it only applies to the use of a freely obtainable browser which is not related to anything they sell.

I don't think that they can treat PM directly, but if it is hosted in the EU, maybe the EU creates the law and will make it hard for PM in other EU countries.

The EU as a whole doesn't create laws as specific as this at the EU level. I'd have to see an EU-wide ban on hosting before I do anything and even then, I can just move my downloads hosting to a place not afflicted by whatever laws there might be. Ultimately it will be the user's responsibility in that case to choose to use the browser (much like it is now) but simply having the software available not being "compliant" doesn't make its existence illegal, merely its use. So as I said i don't see this being enforceable, much less effective.

[Pentium4User]

If Google or MS sell stuff in France, they can use fines.

Not really, since it only applies to the use of a freely obtainable browser which is not related to anything they sell.

Google sells GMail to companies, YoutTube premium, operates Google Play.
As long as they do, they could simply stop money transmission to Google if they don't care about the latest restrictions they want.

[therube]

Related, (Austria) IP Address Blocking Banned After Anti-Piracy Court Order Hit Cloudflare.

Note the difference between IP & domain/DNS.