Why Are Major American News Websites Now Blocked In Europe In Response To the New Privacy Legislation (GDPR)?
What do we make of the fact that a significant number of major US based websites, including the NY Daily News, LA Times and Chicago Tribune have opted to completely prevent Europe from accessing their websites rather than conform to the new data privacy laws in Europe?
As msn reported today, along with others, these sites (and many more) are now completely blocking traffic from European nations.
If you visit latimes.com from Brtiain currently, you will see this:
Given that large companies have had around 2 years to prepare for this legislation and the changes needed in order to comply with it - I am wondeirng exactly why they haven't been ready long in advance. If it were the case that they were just slow or late in bringing in the required privacy features to their websites, then they would probably not need to worry too much about the potential fines they might incur, since they would just be among the estimated 60% of other businesses who also haven't done anything to implement any changes. The enforcing offices in Europe have stated that they will be taking a soft approach initially due to the complexity of the new legislation anyway - so I don't think these newspapers would be at a huge risk.
As I understand it, the penalty fines can be up to 4% of the company's annual turnover for the 'second offence' - meaning that they could just keep things running as they are until challenged once and THEN shut down access if needed. Plus, is it not likely that these companies generate more than 4% of their profit from an area the size of Europe? Meaning that they actually lose more money through shutting down to European access than they might do due to fines (if the block lasts a long time)?
As stated in the MSN piece, this raises questions about what exactly these companies are doing with the private data they collect and why exactly they might be choosing to try to side step the process of compliance.
The main point of the GDRP appears to be to try to increase our access to our data and to prevent companies monetizing it without our consent. While meeting the requirements for this ARE a pain for those running websites and also cost time/money to comply with (which might not be available for smaller sites) - in principle at least, the legislation appears to be noble. Given that this is the case (on the surface and at the moment), not only does blocking out an entire continent result in lost income, but it also results in a loss of PR value/respect - so the motivation for the action must be compelling indeed.
What do you think?
Are these newspapers deliberately refusing to increase access to the private data they hold because they don't want you to know how much they are holding? Are they just incompetent? Rebellious?
It seems Steemit.com didn't worry about the GDPR in this way, are we going to get blocked too? ;)
Wishing you well,
Ura Soul
Vote @ura-soul for Steem Witness!
View My Witness Application Here
(Witnesses are the computer servers that run the Steem Blockchain.
Without witnesses there is no Steem, Steemit, DTube, Utopian or
Busy... You can really help Steem by making your 30 witness votes count!
Don't forget, there are more than the 50 witnesses you see on the witness voting page in steemit.com)
The new legislation is anything but noble. Seriously, did anyone expect that? In fact this legislation is a huge assault on many levels.
Firstly, this new law will kill independent journalism because of the huge fines for publishing pictures without written consent of ALL persons in the photos. Only main stream journalist are exempt. Pictures which revealed hoaxes and false flag will now be impossible to post.
Secondly it will kill small business because only large corporations will be able to comply with the ridiculous restrictions, they will simply not be able to afford the "security measures".
And even more insidious, thirdly, since all data are private, you will have to give them up VOLUNTARILY if you want the benefit of certain services, i.e crossing a border. You will have the "choice" to give voluntary access to your data or you are locked out from certain services or "privileges". This is a HUGE MINDFUCK, that's all.
The fact that they now block internet access appears to be a step towards stifling the flow of information and probably the beginning of a planned isolation of the United States.
Please don't forget that lawmakers and corporations are servants and tools to the same cabal. They work together. No one is rebellious. We are getting f@cked, by all of them...
Thanks for your comment. I haven't read through all of the terms of the legislation so far - I have only been looking at what directly applies to me when running my sites. Can you point me to a link that highlights the relevant clauses which prohibit publishing photos without total written consent of all involved?
I can certainly see how small businesses could be disrupted by having tons of spurious claims for data access made. In theory, if a business serves large numbers of people but makes little money from them on average, then the claims logged by them could possibly cause the business to collapse. That said though, I am not sure that such a high number of people would be wanting to make such claims through their own intentions, so it might mostly only cause a problem when used as a weapon to deliberately cause small businesses problems.
crossing a border is not a 'service' as such - i have not heard any commentary on how the GDPR could be said to apply in such a case - can you point me to any?
As far as I know, the US is fully intending to change it's legislation to match the GDPR at some point anyway.
Unfortunately all my sources are in GERMAN. I am a German native speaker and observe the developments in Europe via youtube. I have formed my opinion through watching quite a few (German) videos on this subject.
I am pretty sure that my statements are essentially correct and the implications are factual, not exaggerated.
What I heard is that one will have to have WRITTEN permission of EVERY person in a photo. The fines are huge. This means a freelance journalist will not be able to post an incriminating picture. You will not be able to back up an alternative narrative with photos, reveal false flags, etc.
The burden of "security" measures for keeping data private will be so massive, that small businesses will not be able to do online marketing. Only large corporations will be able to do that, which is the goal.
And again the insidious part will be that you will have to give up your data voluntarily in order to get access to certain "privileges". The government is not spying on you anymore, you GIVE them permission.
A border guard might ask you for your data, to make sure you are not a "threat". If you comply, you might pass. If you don't...well...there might be a problem...
EDIT: Just think about it. When was the last legislation passed which was BENEFICIAL for us? It ALWAYS is to our disadvantage. It's all an illusion...
I see, ok - I will have a look around and see what I can find in English.
As far as the issue of being forced to do anything to access services goes - that is an issue that was addressed by an Austrian lawyer already with the big social networks.. I haven't had time to fully understand it yet.
I would be very surprised if your take on things were accurate, given the amount of research I have done on this already and the amount of people I have listened to and the fact that none of them have mentioned any of these issues at all.. But on the other hand, I wouldn't be 'THAT' surprised, since we are talking about the EU afterall!
Trust me, with all this $hit going on, I'd be more than happy to be wrong about EVERYTHING I think I know.
I'll let you know if I find anything useful!
There is an information race taking place where one is to have no privacy. They even have many willing to have listening devices in their own homes, sharing the most intimate details of their life. From the U.S. side of things, I was more wondering why the EU passed this as they seem to like spying on their citizens as well. Given the current laws there where speaking the truth can land one in prison now, I find it puzzling they passed this law.
I realized some time back that banks/corporations are the true governments, so the only obvious answer I see is that there is a war taking place for information supremacy and the EU is trying to buy a little more time by making it slightly more difficult for outsiders (of the EU) to collect data. I am guessing top corporations there will get somewhat of a blind eye given to their collection and sharing practices. Not all laws are administered equally.
It's tough to say at this point what all of the various motives might be. Even when 'good' intentions are present during the creation of such controls, it is entirely possible for them to be corrupted later due to their poor design and I certainly see poor design here!
Spy networks funded/operated by the criminal death cult deep state.
That said, the E.U. is an unlawful organization and none of their edicts are to be obeyed. A cesspool of unaccountability and evil. The Third Reich was a kitten den compared to the totalitarian fascist traitors of humanity that run the E.U.
#informationwar
I am aware of the deliberately corrupt anti-democratic nature of the EU, yes - it was actually largely designed (as far as I am aware) by Walter Hallstein (a non prosecuted German Nazi) following WW2 - see this book.
All that said though, we still don't have an exact answer as to what is motivating this block.
Having to disclose what sites are doing with our private information sounds like a good thing to me, no matter what central authority is demanding it. We may be seeing one central authority telling another central authority to fuck off. Remember NSA's bugging of Merkel?
It has long been known that printed papers are generally loosing money. Does anyone think that paid subscriptions online are any better?
Maybe it is the fact that they can track every article that gets your interest ( and control what articles to present for best analysis, not depending on user content like FB) and then selling your profile may be the new business model for them.
They will also have a much better financial analysis of you if a subscriber.
P.S. The new EU Law would require them to say what they are doing with your data.
P.P.S. Look at the #deletefacebook movement underway on a free platform. Imagine the cancelled paid subscriptions that would be lost if this became public.
Yes, I was thinking about this kind of situation - I agree it is likely, but on the other hand, they could have just deleted all that data in order to comply or just lied about it.
That data would be worth much more than the EU subscriptions. Think who reads the NY Times. Forget about Russia affecting US elections. You would have a detailed phycological profile on most DC Power Players. What would that be worth to the right client(s)?
Sure, but then they could just keep that all quiet and act as if they were complying anyway.. Just a thought.
Not if the cat is out of the bag at the alphabet agencies level.
Something to think about, yes!
My bet is that the companies think they can bully countries to loosen their privacy laws by restricting access like this. These are American companies. They're used to getting pretty much everything they want because they have already paid off most of the politicians over here.
Heh - well, we already have our own crappy newspaper sources in Europe - we can live without the American ones.. :)
I don't know about it.But I think In this Modern age Any country can not Block any website because this is modern Era and every man can use any website which is blocked in any country.There are many ways to use any blocked website.
Yes, there are ways around the block - just using the browser 'Tor' will be enough.
Yes"Tor" and here are many VPN Services available.
Hello @ura-soul it's been a while since I last saw your post, I was busy with my university exams.
You are very much right when it comes to issue like this. I really like your posts about the society.
There is always a competition between different news channels to give a better news.
They are even ready to sacrifice the privacy of there country.
Half of the news channels are bought by the government.
To prevent secrets to be shared, countries have made new laws which can send you to jail.
Good work sir keep it up will be around for more.
its very amazing news,thankd for share
I think they are afraid. Some of the issues in American news print are a civil matter in U.S. Courts, however, those same issues are a matter of criminal law in the EU, so any victims would have their cases backed up by the power of the State, an entity that has an unfair advantage in their own Courts. This goes back to Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I'm from the U.S. and I very rarely read those newspapers, the general feeling is those focus on Local news anyway (Except LA Times, which has a lot of interest in entertainment/art nationally). Complying with the privacy rules is probably something beyond their technical ability depending on their parent media corporation's support. Most newspapers are owned by a small handful of huge mega corps and rely on the mega corp "headquarters" to funnel financial and human resources support (i.e. technical help). Some may not be using the same publishing platform as the main parent making it more complicated.
So, the news I tend to read are my own metro news papers and then followed by NY Times, Washington Post (until I hit the paywalls) followed by probably Christian Science Monitor, USA Today, and then a mix of network television news websites. I do occasionally read BBC News and the Guardian.
If I access via the Google News feed I do not usually check the source before I click and just scroll through the top stories. I tend to avoid FOX "news" or huffpost, though.
I'm not sure if my news consumption habits are typical but I do not think there's anything nefarious or mysterious about this blocking. It's just I know how these papers do not have funds and the red tape and bureaucracy they must deal with from "corporate" usually back east in NY.