a) The linked article never states that it is based on an article which is based from a court decision from 2019 - it reads and presents itself as if it applies to the current pandemic "every-body-works-from-home"-situation, where I could imagine a judge would rule different.
b) Not my point. Translating from one language to another is prone to loose some information. Whoever did the translation, might have lost some information. However, this cannot be cross checked, as the source article is behind a paywall.
c) That's where I got my facts from - not from the article itself.
Its not: the headline (and source article) are inaccurate (and the article the source article is based on does not make the claim that all federal laws or affected, it seems to be one minor media outlet misreading a report in a different minor media outlet, and not bothering actually reviewing the readily-available official documents.) The bill at issue changes language in two specific federal laws, it does not do so for "all federal laws".
> § 70.2 Measures in the event of inadequate local control.
> Whenever the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention determines that the measures taken by health authorities of any State or possession (including political subdivisions thereof) are insufficient to prevent the spread of any of the communicable diseases from such State or possession to any other State or possession, he/she may take such measures to prevent such spread of the diseases as he/she deems reasonably necessary, including inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, and destruction of animals or articles believed to be sources of infection.
(emphasis mine)
I'm sure this will be challenged in court, but the text as written seems extraordinarily broad. The CDC can do anything they "deem reasonably necessary"!
> it's that if you use any text of an article, including its title, you can be sued or made to sign a license.
This seems a great place to use automated translation technology, but into the same language. Link to the news article, but rewrite it using a similar meaning, with different words.
(I am an EU citizen and I think this is major overreach by the legislator who thinks they are saving the newspapers, but have no clue as to what effect they will have on the current system, but it still will not save the papers.)
My imagination, mostly. Note the policy being referred to in that sentence is meant to be a hypothetical one that was never actually proposed, which shifts liability without any of the safeguards. The second clause is the justification for the various limitations and exemptions bolted onto the basic concept.
> Have you read the current copy?
Not the current copy, no. Last time this came up I tried, but I had a hard time slogging through the European legalese to get to the meat, which I’m not used to reading. That’s why I’ve tried to keep my analysis here in the small, only considering the particular clause that started this discussion thread.
Given how hard it is to read, and the general unhelpfulness of the community (1), it’s probably a good assumption that effectively no one has read the actual text, and instead is relying on the reporting, which feels extremely biased to me on this one.
> The proportionality element alone makes the 'we need to invest 200% of our revenue into content blocking' myth absurd.
You should consider making this the lede instead of burying it three replies deep. This shows that the entire discussion about the other clause is moot, as there won’t be a problem in our scenario regardless of the result of that analysis.
(1) When I did ask for some help getting through the citations last time, the only substantive advice was “just skip that stuff, it doesn’t matter.” If I have learned anything, it’s that everything written into legislation matters.
> Consumer advocates warn of the return of liability for interference
> Trade and consumer protection groups are sounding the alarm: the draft for a digital services law lacks the clause that sealed the end for WLAN interference liability.
It looks on topic, but post that are not in English are usually ignored or flagged. Do you have a similar report that is in English?
d. clarify or strengthen rights holders' enforcement tools against intermediaries, including by way of a statutory "website-blocking" and "de-indexing" regime.
"Camera surveillance of a location where the public has access. Permission 8 § Camera surveillance is required for a surveillance camera to be posted so that it can be directed to a place where the public has access."
b) Not my point. Translating from one language to another is prone to loose some information. Whoever did the translation, might have lost some information. However, this cannot be cross checked, as the source article is behind a paywall.
c) That's where I got my facts from - not from the article itself.
reply