In message <op.2bz8shtimvhs6z@ryzen>, at 00:27:43 on Fri, 29 Sep 2023, Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> remarked:
They can't block the website in the EU.
Of course they can, their website could refuse to respond to IPs in the EU.
Plenty of websites for EU companies are hosted outside the EU.
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 00:27:43 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 11:10:05 +0100, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
A lot of the big web companies have a presence in multiple countries,
including the EU, and so are vulnerable to legal action in multiple
jurisdictions.
How can an EU country take legal action against someone who isn't in the EU?
Ypu appear to have written that response without actually reading the text immediately above that you are responding to.
Am 28/09/2023 um 23:27 schrieb Commander Kinsey:
How can an EU country take legal action against someone who isn't in the EU?
It happens all the time.
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 09:42:04 +0100, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Am 28/09/2023 um 23:27 schrieb Commander Kinsey:
How can an EU country take legal action against someone who isn't in
the EU?
It happens all the time.
The non EU country should not allow it. When you are in the US, only US laws should apply to you.
On Tue, 03 Oct 2023 11:22:05 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <op.2bz8shtimvhs6z@ryzen>, at 00:27:43 on Fri, 29 Sep 2023,
Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> remarked:
They can't block the website in the EU.
Of course they can, their website could refuse to respond to IPs in
the EU.
Plenty of websites for EU companies are hosted outside the EU.
Those are not under discussion. I was talking about say a US company
who didn't want to deal with EU rules. An EU company obviously wants
to trade with EU citizens. The US company should tell the EU citizens
to get lost.
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 14:13:35 +0100, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 00:27:43 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 11:10:05 +0100, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
A lot of the big web companies have a presence in multiple countries,
including the EU, and so are vulnerable to legal action in multiple
jurisdictions.
How can an EU country take legal action against someone who isn't in the EU?
Ypu appear to have written that response without actually reading the text >> immediately above that you are responding to.
Incorrect. If I was a US company, I'd simply cease operations in the EU, and let them know why.
On 2023-10-11, Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2023 11:22:05 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>> In message <op.2bz8shtimvhs6z@ryzen>, at 00:27:43 on Fri, 29 Sep 2023,
Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> remarked:
They can't block the website in the EU.
Of course they can, their website could refuse to respond to IPs in
the EU.
Plenty of websites for EU companies are hosted outside the EU.
Those are not under discussion. I was talking about say a US company
who didn't want to deal with EU rules. An EU company obviously wants
to trade with EU citizens. The US company should tell the EU citizens
to get lost.
As already mentioned, they can, and indeed some do.
e.g. try looking at the web site of ,
a newspaper from Tyler, Texas (https://tylerpaper.com/), and you will
see only an error message:
451: Unavailable due to legal reasons
We recognize you are attempting to access this website from a
country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the
EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and
therefore access cannot be granted at this time.
(Obviously since Brexit their statement is factually false, but
nevertheless it demonstrates the point.)
Other US companies make the choice to obey EU laws instead, e.g.
if you visit the web site of the San Antonio Express-News >(https://www.expressnews.com/) you will immediately be presented with
a cookie control panel.
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 11:22:57 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
As already mentioned, they can, and indeed some do.
e.g. try looking at the web site of ,
a newspaper from Tyler, Texas (https://tylerpaper.com/), and you will
see only an error message:
451: Unavailable due to legal reasons
We recognize you are attempting to access this website from a
country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the
EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and
therefore access cannot be granted at this time.
(Obviously since Brexit their statement is factually false, but
nevertheless it demonstrates the point.)
Other US companies make the choice to obey EU laws instead, e.g.
if you visit the web site of the San Antonio Express-News
(https://www.expressnews.com/) you will immediately be presented with
a cookie control panel.
It took me only a minute to circumvent the block in accessing the "Tyler Morning Telegraph" from the
UK by setting my VPN to use a US proxy.
On 2023-10-11, Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2023 11:22:05 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>> In message <op.2bz8shtimvhs6z@ryzen>, at 00:27:43 on Fri, 29 Sep 2023,
Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> remarked:
They can't block the website in the EU.
Of course they can, their website could refuse to respond to IPs in
the EU.
Plenty of websites for EU companies are hosted outside the EU.
Those are not under discussion. I was talking about say a US company
who didn't want to deal with EU rules. An EU company obviously wants
to trade with EU citizens. The US company should tell the EU citizens
to get lost.
As already mentioned, they can, and indeed some do.
e.g. try looking at the web site of the "Tyler Morning Telegraph",
a newspaper from Tyler, Texas (https://tylerpaper.com/), and you will
see only an error message:
451: Unavailable due to legal reasons
We recognize you are attempting to access this website from a
country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the
EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and
therefore access cannot be granted at this time.
(Obviously since Brexit their statement is factually false, but
nevertheless it demonstrates the point.)
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 01:19:20 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 14:13:35 +0100, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 00:27:43 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 11:10:05 +0100, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
A lot of the big web companies have a presence in multiple countries, >>>>> including the EU, and so are vulnerable to legal action in multiple
jurisdictions.
How can an EU country take legal action against someone who isn't in the EU?
Ypu appear to have written that response without actually reading the text >>> immediately above that you are responding to.
Incorrect. If I was a US company, I'd simply cease operations in the EU, and let them know why.
In which case, you would cease to be a big web company. Your call. Or, possibly, your shareholders' call.
On 11/10/2023 01:20, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 09:42:04 +0100, Ottavio Caruso
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Am 28/09/2023 um 23:27 schrieb Commander Kinsey:
How can an EU country take legal action against someone who isn't in
the EU?
It happens all the time.
The non EU country should not allow it. When you are in the US, only US
laws should apply to you.
If you are a US citizen, US laws apply wherever you go, plus the local
laws. I think this applies to some extent to UK citizens.
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 12:21:14 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 11/10/2023 01:20, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 09:42:04 +0100, Ottavio Caruso
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Am 28/09/2023 um 23:27 schrieb Commander Kinsey:
How can an EU country take legal action against someone who isn't in >>>>> the EU?
It happens all the time.
The non EU country should not allow it. When you are in the US, only US >>> laws should apply to you.
If you are a US citizen, US laws apply wherever you go, plus the local
laws. I think this applies to some extent to UK citizens.
That's absurd. If I go to a country where X is illegal and Y is not,
but here Y is illegal and X is not, I should be able to do the other one. Consider someone from a country with a strong religion where uncovering
a woman's face is illegal. Should they be in trouble with their own
country for uncovering their face over here? Of course not.
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 16:38:31 +0100, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 01:19:20 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 14:13:35 +0100, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 00:27:43 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com> >>>> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 11:10:05 +0100, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
A lot of the big web companies have a presence in multiple countries, >>>>>> including the EU, and so are vulnerable to legal action in multiple >>>>>> jurisdictions.
How can an EU country take legal action against someone who isn't in the EU?
Ypu appear to have written that response without actually reading the text >>>> immediately above that you are responding to.
Incorrect. If I was a US company, I'd simply cease operations in the EU, and let them know why.
In which case, you would cease to be a big web company. Your call. Or,
possibly, your shareholders' call.
The EU is not the world. If enough companies did so, the EU would
have to back down.
On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 07:55:31 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 16:38:31 +0100, Mark Goodge >><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 01:19:20 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
<CK1@nospam.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 14:13:35 +0100, Mark Goodge
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 00:27:43 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
<CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 11:10:05 +0100, Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
A lot of the big web companies have a presence in multiple
countries,
including the EU, and so are vulnerable to legal action in
multiple jurisdictions.
How can an EU country take legal action against someone who isn't
in the EU?
Ypu appear to have written that response without actually reading
the text immediately above that you are responding to.
Incorrect. If I was a US company, I'd simply cease operations in the
EU, and let them know why.
In which case, you would cease to be a big web company. Your call. Or,
possibly, your shareholders' call.
The EU is not the world. If enough companies did so, the EU would have
to back down.
Experience shows otherwise. Apple is switching to USB-C for iThings
globally, because it will become mandatory in the EU. And Apple is the biggest and richest tech company in the world. If even Apple can't
dictate to the EU, what hope do others have?
On Sun, 15 Oct 2023 14:06:24 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 07:55:31 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com>
wrote:
The EU is not the world. If enough companies did so, the EU would have >>>to back down.
Experience shows otherwise. Apple is switching to USB-C for iThings
globally, because it will become mandatory in the EU. And Apple is the
biggest and richest tech company in the world. If even Apple can't
dictate to the EU, what hope do others have?
I don't know. What was the UKs input to that decision ?
On 2023-10-15, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Oct 2023 14:06:24 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 07:55:31 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
<CK1@nospam.com>
wrote:
The EU is not the world. If enough companies did so, the EU would
have to back down.
Experience shows otherwise. Apple is switching to USB-C for iThings
globally, because it will become mandatory in the EU. And Apple is the
biggest and richest tech company in the world. If even Apple can't
dictate to the EU, what hope do others have?
I don't know. What was the UKs input to that decision ?
Given things move slowly, the UK was likely involved in that decision I should imagine. But the UK's influence on any future such decisions will probably be minimal at best. The UK used to help set the direction of EU rules, now it must sit helplessly on the sidelines and watch.
On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 07:55:31 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 16:38:31 +0100, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 01:19:20 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 14:13:35 +0100, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 00:27:43 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com> >>>>> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 11:10:05 +0100, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
A lot of the big web companies have a presence in multiple countries, >>>>>>> including the EU, and so are vulnerable to legal action in multiple >>>>>>> jurisdictions.
How can an EU country take legal action against someone who isn't in the EU?
Ypu appear to have written that response without actually reading the text
immediately above that you are responding to.
Incorrect. If I was a US company, I'd simply cease operations in the EU, and let them know why.
In which case, you would cease to be a big web company. Your call. Or,
possibly, your shareholders' call.
The EU is not the world. If enough companies did so, the EU would
have to back down.
Experience shows otherwise. Apple is switching to USB-C for iThings
globally, because it will become mandatory in the EU. And Apple is the biggest and richest tech company in the world. If even Apple can't dictate
to the EU, what hope do others have?
On 2023-10-15, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Oct 2023 14:06:24 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 07:55:31 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com>
wrote:
The EU is not the world. If enough companies did so, the EU would have >>>> to back down.
Experience shows otherwise. Apple is switching to USB-C for iThings
globally, because it will become mandatory in the EU. And Apple is the
biggest and richest tech company in the world. If even Apple can't
dictate to the EU, what hope do others have?
I don't know. What was the UKs input to that decision ?
Given things move slowly, the UK was likely involved in that decision
I should imagine. But the UK's influence on any future such decisions
will probably be minimal at best. The UK used to help set the direction
of EU rules, now it must sit helplessly on the sidelines and watch.
On Sun, 15 Oct 2023 21:39:13 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-10-15, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Oct 2023 14:06:24 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 07:55:31 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
<CK1@nospam.com>
wrote:
The EU is not the world. If enough companies did so, the EU would
have to back down.
Experience shows otherwise. Apple is switching to USB-C for iThings
globally, because it will become mandatory in the EU. And Apple is the >>>> biggest and richest tech company in the world. If even Apple can't
dictate to the EU, what hope do others have?
I don't know. What was the UKs input to that decision ?
Given things move slowly, the UK was likely involved in that decision I
should imagine. But the UK's influence on any future such decisions will
probably be minimal at best. The UK used to help set the direction of EU
rules, now it must sit helplessly on the sidelines and watch.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 07:55:31 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 16:38:31 +0100, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 01:19:20 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 14:13:35 +0100, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 00:27:43 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com> >>>>> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 11:10:05 +0100, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
A lot of the big web companies have a presence in multiple countries, >>>>>>> including the EU, and so are vulnerable to legal action in multiple >>>>>>> jurisdictions.
How can an EU country take legal action against someone who isn't in the EU?
Ypu appear to have written that response without actually reading the text
immediately above that you are responding to.
Incorrect. If I was a US company, I'd simply cease operations in the EU, and let them know why.
In which case, you would cease to be a big web company. Your call. Or,
possibly, your shareholders' call.
The EU is not the world. If enough companies did so, the EU would
have to back down.
Experience shows otherwise. Apple is switching to USB-C for iThings
globally, because it will become mandatory in the EU. And Apple is the biggest and richest tech company in the world. If even Apple can't dictate
to the EU, what hope do others have?
On Sun, 15 Oct 2023 14:06:24 +0100, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Experience shows otherwise. Apple is switching to USB-C for iThings
globally, because it will become mandatory in the EU. And Apple is the
biggest and richest tech company in the world. If even Apple can't
dictate
to the EU, what hope do others have?
Wasn't that more because even Apple users realised they were
incompatible with everyone else?
Are you seriously telling me the EU managed to poke it's nose into
something technical and requires all the sockets to look the same?
What next? We all have to use EU mains plugs? Yes, the whole world
must put EU sockets in their houses. The EU knows best, no other
country knows how to make a proper plug and socket. We can't have our
EU citizens going on holiday and being confused by different shaped
sockets.
Are we allowed to say that our mains is 240V rather than 230V now?
On 16/10/2023 04:49, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 15 Oct 2023 14:06:24 +0100, Mark Goodge
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Experience shows otherwise. Apple is switching to USB-C for iThings
globally, because it will become mandatory in the EU. And Apple is the
biggest and richest tech company in the world. If even Apple can't
dictate
to the EU, what hope do others have?
Wasn't that more because even Apple users realised they were
incompatible with everyone else?
Are you seriously telling me the EU managed to poke it's nose into
something technical and requires all the sockets to look the same?
What next? We all have to use EU mains plugs? Yes, the whole world
must put EU sockets in their houses. The EU knows best, no other
country knows how to make a proper plug and socket. We can't have our
EU citizens going on holiday and being confused by different shaped
sockets.
Are we allowed to say that our mains is 240V rather than 230V now?
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 15:07:20 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 16/10/2023 04:49, Commander Kinsey wrote:
What next? We all have to use EU mains plugs? Yes, the whole world
must put EU sockets in their houses. The EU knows best, no other
country knows how to make a proper plug and socket. We can't have our
EU citizens going on holiday and being confused by different shaped
sockets.
Are we allowed to say that our mains is 240V rather than 230V now?
What really annoys me is the regulations saying everything has to have a
plug at sale. We used to reuse an old plug. We had an IQ of at least
10 so we could wire one all by ourselves. Manufacturers didn't have to
make versions for every country just because of a different plug.
On 17/10/2023 02:36, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 15:07:20 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 16/10/2023 04:49, Commander Kinsey wrote:
What next? We all have to use EU mains plugs? Yes, the whole world >>>> must put EU sockets in their houses. The EU knows best, no other
country knows how to make a proper plug and socket. We can't have our >>>> EU citizens going on holiday and being confused by different shaped
sockets.
Are we allowed to say that our mains is 240V rather than 230V now?
What really annoys me is the regulations saying everything has to have a
plug at sale. We used to reuse an old plug. We had an IQ of at least
10 so we could wire one all by ourselves. Manufacturers didn't have to
make versions for every country just because of a different plug.
Electrical dealers used to charge people £1 for a plug when you could
buy one for 25p in Woolies. They reckoned that people would pay the
money rather than drag the appliance around to get a cheaper one.
(I knew of someone who was sold a plug for a SodaStream - which doesn't
use electricity.)
The excuse for not having factory fitted plugs was that there were
different types of plug: 2A, 5A, 15A, two or three pin (not to mention lampholder adapters). They carried on even when everyone had 13A sockets.
On 17/10/2023 02:36, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 15:07:20 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 16/10/2023 04:49, Commander Kinsey wrote:
What next? We all have to use EU mains plugs? Yes, the whole world
must put EU sockets in their houses. The EU knows best, no other
country knows how to make a proper plug and socket. We can't have our >>>> EU citizens going on holiday and being confused by different shaped
sockets.
Are we allowed to say that our mains is 240V rather than 230V now?
What really annoys me is the regulations saying everything has to have a
plug at sale. We used to reuse an old plug. We had an IQ of at least
10 so we could wire one all by ourselves. Manufacturers didn't have to
make versions for every country just because of a different plug.
Electrical dealers used to charge people £1 for a plug when you could
buy one for 25p in Woolies. They reckoned that people would pay the
money rather than drag the appliance around to get a cheaper one.
(I knew of someone who was sold a plug for a SodaStream - which doesn't
use electricity.)
The excuse for not having factory fitted plugs was that there were
different types of plug: 2A, 5A, 15A, two or three pin (not to mention lampholder adapters). They carried on even when everyone had 13A sockets.
On 2023-10-17, Max Demian wrote:
On 17/10/2023 02:36, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 15:07:20 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 16/10/2023 04:49, Commander Kinsey wrote:
What next? We all have to use EU mains plugs? Yes, the whole world >>>>> must put EU sockets in their houses. The EU knows best, no other
country knows how to make a proper plug and socket. We can't have our >>>>> EU citizens going on holiday and being confused by different shaped
sockets.
Are we allowed to say that our mains is 240V rather than 230V now?
What really annoys me is the regulations saying everything has to have a >>> plug at sale. We used to reuse an old plug. We had an IQ of at least
10 so we could wire one all by ourselves. Manufacturers didn't have to
make versions for every country just because of a different plug.
Electrical dealers used to charge people £1 for a plug when you could
buy one for 25p in Woolies. They reckoned that people would pay the
money rather than drag the appliance around to get a cheaper one.
(I knew of someone who was sold a plug for a SodaStream - which doesn't
use electricity.)
The excuse for not having factory fitted plugs was that there were
different types of plug: 2A, 5A, 15A, two or three pin (not to mention
lampholder adapters). They carried on even when everyone had 13A sockets.
On the plus side (better for travel), you often now get a device with
an IEC connection and a removable cable with a UK plug at the other,
or (even better) two cables with UK and Schuko plugs.
it is possible to install a custom DNS with a blocklist so that
advertising or tracking websites can be blocked. You can also download
and install browser addons like No-Script, Privacy Badger, U-block
origin, Disconnect, Ghostery, DuckDuckGo privacy essentials which will
deal with much of the advertising and block trackers and cookies.
My custom DNS rejects over 50% of DNS lookups so rubbish like "Taboola"
and "Outbrain" and "Around the Web" all get blocked.
browsing is now a much more pleasant experience and faster and smoother
as I am not then downloading all this unwanted rubbish, particularly on mobile phones!
Even some websites detect my systems and I get meesages where the ads
should be saying You are seeing this message because ad or script
blocking software is interfering with this page
Disable any ad or script blocking software then reload this page
But the website is still working albeit with a cream box at the bottom
with black text (which is far more preferable than a graphics based
advert with click through enabled
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 12:24:31 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 19/09/2023 09:03, Commander Kinsey wrote:
If an American company with an American server doesn't obey EU
cookie/GDPR/privacy laws, what's the EU gonna do? They can't get
someone into trouble for breaking a law which only exists in another
country surely? All they could do is block the website in the EU. If
all companies refused to obey the legislation, the EU would have to
block thousands of sites, then their population would see sense and get
the law overturned. Or.... all sites outside the EU could simply check
the IP address, and if the user is in the EU, display an alternate page
complaining about the stupid law and saying we refuse to deal with
Europeans. For goodness sake, fight back against stupidity!
I don't know why we still get the annoying cookie pop-ups having left
the EU.
Because it's part of UK law as well.
On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 07:35:51 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <klijgi9cg885flhsjb4pfk71dh3j19d4a6@4ax.com>, at 17:22:28 on
Tue, 19 Sep 2023, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 12:24:31 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 19/09/2023 09:03, Commander Kinsey wrote:
If an American company with an American server doesn't obey EU
cookie/GDPR/privacy laws, what's the EU gonna do? They can't get
someone into trouble for breaking a law which only exists in another >>>>> country surely? All they could do is block the website in the EU. If >>>>> all companies refused to obey the legislation, the EU would have to
block thousands of sites, then their population would see sense and get >>>>> the law overturned. Or.... all sites outside the EU could simply check >>>>> the IP address, and if the user is in the EU, display an alternate page >>>>> complaining about the stupid law and saying we refuse to deal with
Europeans. For goodness sake, fight back against stupidity!
I don't know why we still get the annoying cookie pop-ups having left
the EU.
Because it's part of UK law as well.
And despite lots of bluster and the passage of many years, the likes of
Rees-Mogg have yet to deliver on promises to repeal huge swathes of it.
The establishment never wanted Brexit, so it has not been really delivered at all. For example
Northern Ireland has been effectively removed from the UK, despite there having been no referendum
there as required by the Belfast / Good Friday agreement.
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 12:24:31 +0100, Max Demian
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 19/09/2023 09:03, Commander Kinsey wrote:
If an American company with an American server doesn't obey EU
cookie/GDPR/privacy laws, what's the EU gonna do? They can't get
someone into trouble for breaking a law which only exists in another
country surely? All they could do is block the website in the EU. If
all companies refused to obey the legislation, the EU would have to
block thousands of sites, then their population would see sense and get
the law overturned. Or.... all sites outside the EU could simply check
the IP address, and if the user is in the EU, display an alternate page
complaining about the stupid law and saying we refuse to deal with
Europeans. For goodness sake, fight back against stupidity!
I don't know why we still get the annoying cookie pop-ups having left
the EU.
Possibly because US companies aren't too bothered about the
sensitivities of Brexiteers.
On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 09:16:03 +0100, Codger <codger524@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 07:35:51 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <klijgi9cg885flhsjb4pfk71dh3j19d4a6@4ax.com>, at 17:22:28 on
Tue, 19 Sep 2023, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 12:24:31 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> >>>> wrote:
On 19/09/2023 09:03, Commander Kinsey wrote:
If an American company with an American server doesn't obey EU
cookie/GDPR/privacy laws, what's the EU gonna do? They can't get
someone into trouble for breaking a law which only exists in another >>>>>> country surely? All they could do is block the website in the EU. If >>>>>> all companies refused to obey the legislation, the EU would have to >>>>>> block thousands of sites, then their population would see sense and get >>>>>> the law overturned. Or.... all sites outside the EU could simply check >>>>>> the IP address, and if the user is in the EU, display an alternate page >>>>>> complaining about the stupid law and saying we refuse to deal with >>>>>> Europeans. For goodness sake, fight back against stupidity!
I don't know why we still get the annoying cookie pop-ups having left >>>>> the EU.
Because it's part of UK law as well.
And despite lots of bluster and the passage of many years, the likes of
Rees-Mogg have yet to deliver on promises to repeal huge swathes of it.
The establishment never wanted Brexit, so it has not been really delivered at all. For example
Northern Ireland has been effectively removed from the UK, despite there having been no referendum
there as required by the Belfast / Good Friday agreement.
I can't find anything of this in the news. Cite.
On 2023-09-29, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 01:19:07 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-09-28, Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Because the someone is in the EU, as I just said.
[quoted text muted]
Apparently you've forgotten that your suggestion there was that the EU
would block the website, not the website owner would block the EU. The
EU cannot block the website because they don't have the power to do so.
Weren't a load of Russian sites blocked last year. By an EU directive ?
Not that I recall. But maybe I wasn't paying sufficient attention.
On 2023-09-28, Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 11:10:05 +0100, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-09-19, Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
If an American company with an American server doesn't obey EU
cookie/GDPR/privacy laws, what's the EU gonna do? They can't get
someone into trouble for breaking a law which only exists in another
country surely?
A lot of the big web companies have a presence in multiple countries,
including the EU, and so are vulnerable to legal action in multiple
jurisdictions.
How can an EU country take legal action against someone who isn't in
the EU?
Because the someone is in the EU, as I just said.
All they could do is block the website in the EU.
They can't block the website in the EU.
Of course they can, their website could refuse to respond to IPs in
the EU.
Apparently you've forgotten that your suggestion there was that the EU
would block the website, not the website owner would block the EU.
The EU cannot block the website because they don't have the power to do so.
The website *can* block the EU, as I explicitly said.
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 12:25:25 +0100, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-09-29, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 01:19:07 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-09-28, Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:Weren't a load of Russian sites blocked last year. By an EU directive ?
[quoted text muted]
Because the someone is in the EU, as I just said.
[quoted text muted]
Apparently you've forgotten that your suggestion there was that the EU >>>> would block the website, not the website owner would block the EU. The >>>> EU cannot block the website because they don't have the power to do so. >>>
Not that I recall. But maybe I wasn't paying sufficient attention.
I can only read Russian news RT.com by using a VPN (dunno if that's EU
or UK blocking it, but my ISP said they had to by law).
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 02:19:07 +0100, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-09-28, Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 11:10:05 +0100, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-09-19, Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
If an American company with an American server doesn't obey EU
cookie/GDPR/privacy laws, what's the EU gonna do? They can't get
someone into trouble for breaking a law which only exists in another >>>>> country surely?
A lot of the big web companies have a presence in multiple countries,
including the EU, and so are vulnerable to legal action in multiple
jurisdictions.
How can an EU country take legal action against someone who isn't in
the EU?
Because the someone is in the EU, as I just said.
They may be trading in the EU, but that shouldn't give the EU power
over them.
All they could do is block the website in the EU.
They can't block the website in the EU.
Of course they can, their website could refuse to respond to IPs in
the EU.
Apparently you've forgotten that your suggestion there was that the EU
would block the website, not the website owner would block the EU.
No, I've suggested both.
The EU cannot block the website because they don't have the power to do so.
My heart bleeds. Perhaps they should stop trying to control what they cannot.
The website *can* block the EU, as I explicitly said.
Then they should. Why trade with someone who is being difficult?
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 12:25:25 +0100, Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-09-29, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 01:19:07 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-09-28, Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Because the someone is in the EU, as I just said.
[quoted text muted]
Apparently you've forgotten that your suggestion there was that
the EU would block the website, not the website owner would block
the EU. The EU cannot block the website because they don't have
the power to do so.
Weren't a load of Russian sites blocked last year. By an EU
directive ?
Not that I recall. But maybe I wasn't paying sufficient attention.
I can only read Russian news RT.com by using a VPN (dunno if that's
EU or UK blocking it, but my ISP said they had to by law). That
would be the VPN our government told the Russians to use so they
could view our propaganda instead of theirs.
On 2023-11-01, Vladimir Putin <russia@will.rule> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 02:19:07 +0100, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-09-28, Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 11:10:05 +0100, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-09-19, Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
If an American company with an American server doesn't obey EU
cookie/GDPR/privacy laws, what's the EU gonna do? They can't get
someone into trouble for breaking a law which only exists in another >>>>>> country surely?
A lot of the big web companies have a presence in multiple countries, >>>>> including the EU, and so are vulnerable to legal action in multiple
jurisdictions.
How can an EU country take legal action against someone who isn't in
the EU?
Because the someone is in the EU, as I just said.
They may be trading in the EU, but that shouldn't give the EU power
over them.
Ok. Please do let us know if you become an all-powerful wizard, with
the ability to convert your feelings into physical reality. I may have
a few suggestions at that point...
All they could do is block the website in the EU.
They can't block the website in the EU.
Of course they can, their website could refuse to respond to IPs in
the EU.
Apparently you've forgotten that your suggestion there was that the EU
would block the website, not the website owner would block the EU.
No, I've suggested both.
The EU cannot block the website because they don't have the power to do so. >>My heart bleeds. Perhaps they should stop trying to control what they
cannot.
They're... not? Unless you, by a surprising happenstance, are a senior representative of the EU, your suggestions are your own and not the EU's.
The website *can* block the EU, as I explicitly said.
Then they should. Why trade with someone who is being difficult?
Have you heard of this thing called "money"?
On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 07:40:13 -0000, "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@spam.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 09:16:03 +0100, Codger <codger524@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 07:35:51 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>
In message <klijgi9cg885flhsjb4pfk71dh3j19d4a6@4ax.com>, at 17:22:28 on >>>> Tue, 19 Sep 2023, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>The establishment never wanted Brexit, so it has not been really delivered at all. For example
remarked:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 12:24:31 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 19/09/2023 09:03, Commander Kinsey wrote:
If an American company with an American server doesn't obey EU
cookie/GDPR/privacy laws, what's the EU gonna do? They can't get >>>>>>> someone into trouble for breaking a law which only exists in another >>>>>>> country surely? All they could do is block the website in the EU. If >>>>>>> all companies refused to obey the legislation, the EU would have to >>>>>>> block thousands of sites, then their population would see sense and get >>>>>>> the law overturned. Or.... all sites outside the EU could simply check >>>>>>> the IP address, and if the user is in the EU, display an alternate page >>>>>>> complaining about the stupid law and saying we refuse to deal with >>>>>>> Europeans. For goodness sake, fight back against stupidity!
I don't know why we still get the annoying cookie pop-ups having left >>>>>> the EU.
Because it's part of UK law as well.
And despite lots of bluster and the passage of many years, the likes of >>>> Rees-Mogg have yet to deliver on promises to repeal huge swathes of it. >>>
Northern Ireland has been effectively removed from the UK, despite there having been no referendum
there as required by the Belfast / Good Friday agreement.
I can't find anything of this in the news. Cite.
The Northern Ireland Protocol and Windsor Framework Agreement.
On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 07:05:18 -0000, Codger <codger524@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 07:40:13 -0000, "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@spam.com> wrote: >>
On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 09:16:03 +0100, Codger <codger524@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 07:35:51 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>
In message <klijgi9cg885flhsjb4pfk71dh3j19d4a6@4ax.com>, at 17:22:28 on >>>>> Tue, 19 Sep 2023, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>The establishment never wanted Brexit, so it has not been really delivered at all. For example
remarked:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 12:24:31 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 19/09/2023 09:03, Commander Kinsey wrote:
If an American company with an American server doesn't obey EU >>>>>>>> cookie/GDPR/privacy laws, what's the EU gonna do? They can't get >>>>>>>> someone into trouble for breaking a law which only exists in another >>>>>>>> country surely? All they could do is block the website in the EU. If >>>>>>>> all companies refused to obey the legislation, the EU would have to >>>>>>>> block thousands of sites, then their population would see sense and get
the law overturned. Or.... all sites outside the EU could simply check
the IP address, and if the user is in the EU, display an alternate page
complaining about the stupid law and saying we refuse to deal with >>>>>>>> Europeans. For goodness sake, fight back against stupidity!
I don't know why we still get the annoying cookie pop-ups having left >>>>>>> the EU.
Because it's part of UK law as well.
And despite lots of bluster and the passage of many years, the likes of >>>>> Rees-Mogg have yet to deliver on promises to repeal huge swathes of it. >>>>
Northern Ireland has been effectively removed from the UK, despite there having been no referendum
there as required by the Belfast / Good Friday agreement.
I can't find anything of this in the news. Cite.
The Northern Ireland Protocol and Windsor Framework Agreement.
EU's fault again:
"The EU has strict food rules, and requires border checks when certain goods - such as milk and eggs - arrive from non-EU countries like the UK."
On 05:29 1 Nov 2023, Vladimir Putin said:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 12:25:25 +0100, Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-09-29, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 01:19:07 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-09-28, Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Because the someone is in the EU, as I just said.
[quoted text muted]
Apparently you've forgotten that your suggestion there was that
the EU would block the website, not the website owner would block
the EU. The EU cannot block the website because they don't have
the power to do so.
Weren't a load of Russian sites blocked last year. By an EU
directive ?
Not that I recall. But maybe I wasn't paying sufficient attention.
I can only read Russian news RT.com by using a VPN (dunno if that's
EU or UK blocking it, but my ISP said they had to by law). That
would be the VPN our government told the Russians to use so they
could view our propaganda instead of theirs.
I am on Talktalk and can browse https://www.rt.com/.
However I changed my DNS servers and that may be where your block lies.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 34:41:09 |
| Calls: | 6,707 |
| Files: | 12,239 |
| Messages: | 5,353,334 |