Mozilla Foundation Warns France's Proposed Web Blocking Law 'Could Threaten the Free Internet' (mozilla.org) 66
The Mozilla Foundation has started a petition to stop the French government from forcing browsers like Mozilla's Firefox to censor websites. "It would set a dangerous precedent, providing a playbook for other governments to also turn browsers like Firefox into censorship tools," says the organization. "The government introduced the bill to parliament shortly before the summer break and is hoping to pass this as quickly and smoothly as possible; the bill has even been put on an accelerated procedure, with a vote to take place this fall." You can add your name to their petition here.
The bill in question is France's SREN Bill, which sets a precarious standard for digital freedoms by empowering the government to compile a list of websites to be blocked at the browser level. The Mozilla Foundation warns that this approach "is uncharted territory" and could give oppressive regimes an operational model that could undermine the effectiveness of censorship circumvention tools.
"Rather than mandate browser based blocking, we think the legislation should focus on improving the existing mechanisms already utilized by browsers -- services such as Safe Browsing and Smart Screen," says Mozilla. "The law should instead focus on establishing clear yet reasonable timelines under which major phishing protection systems should handle legitimate website inclusion requests from authorized government agencies. All such requests for inclusion should be based on a robust set of public criteria limited to phishing/scam websites, subject to independent review from experts, and contain judicial appellate mechanisms in case an inclusion request is rejected by a provider."
The bill in question is France's SREN Bill, which sets a precarious standard for digital freedoms by empowering the government to compile a list of websites to be blocked at the browser level. The Mozilla Foundation warns that this approach "is uncharted territory" and could give oppressive regimes an operational model that could undermine the effectiveness of censorship circumvention tools.
"Rather than mandate browser based blocking, we think the legislation should focus on improving the existing mechanisms already utilized by browsers -- services such as Safe Browsing and Smart Screen," says Mozilla. "The law should instead focus on establishing clear yet reasonable timelines under which major phishing protection systems should handle legitimate website inclusion requests from authorized government agencies. All such requests for inclusion should be based on a robust set of public criteria limited to phishing/scam websites, subject to independent review from experts, and contain judicial appellate mechanisms in case an inclusion request is rejected by a provider."
So (Score:3)
Re:So (Score:5, Interesting)
It's open source.
Why doesn't Macron just fork his own browser?
Re: (Score:2)
Most people will avoid it if they know the browser includes additional censorship. It's the bait and switch. They want a bunch of people already comfortable using a product and then add the cuffs after, hoping most of them will keep using it.
1. Choose this browser for X reasons, privacy, speed, free cookies, whatever.
2. Choose this browser. In additional to regular features, it will also block sites france doesn't like.
Which link will people click on?
Assumes knowledge among the proles (Score:2)
Not a safe assumption. Most people will barely understand the role of a browser, let alone cope with the idea of choosing and installing(!) a differetn one.
Re: (Score:2)
All they need to read is one article that says this browser censors websites you visit. They don't need to understand anything else about it.
If the article says don't use francefox, it censors you. If they see francefox they'll ask their IT friend to put a different one on. Not everyone of course, I don't know why I have to fucking defend extreme exceptions from everyone, like one person does it and it proves their point but you get the giest. I'm not implying you think that way either but some twonk will r
Re: (Score:2)
I would think the majority won't hear about it until they get blocked from something they want to see, and then go looking for the explanation. And then they'll install (or get someone to install) a real browser.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or they could just tell Marcon to go pound croissants and continue business as usual. It's not like the Mozilla Foundation is a French company.
Re: (Score:2)
Mozilla like Microsoft, Alphabet, and Apple, have a legal representation in France and have paying customers in France.
Re: (Score:3)
How many? What would it cost them to just close up shop in France?
That may be the only reasonable response.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what they do as business other than Mozilla VPN, but they are established in Paris for 10 years so somehow they decided it benefits them to be there. They can close and lose very little probably, however Microsoft, Apple and Google are not likely to close their business.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft, Apple and Google are not likely to close their business.
They're not likely to even make a fuss about the issue. I would expect them to just roll over and comply.
Re: (Score:2)
That may be the only reasonable response.
My thoughts, exactly. I'm sick and tired of countries (both left, like France, and right, like India) dictating terms to companies and companies bending over backward to appease the demands. I realize Mozilla is urging them to reconsider, but perhaps the better move would have been to threaten to pull out of France and tell them that the French will still have access to the browser anyway. When someone bullies you, you don't try to reason with them. You hit back, hard.
Re: So (Score:2)
Then the response is simple. Stop doing business in France. Close the offices and cease all business operations within French borders. Remove any assets you have in France and walk away. Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
Mozilla Firefox is free so no paying customers
Re: (Score:2)
France should just ban the Internet, and go back to using their native Minitel. It was only shut down 10 years ago, so they should be able to find some greybeards to resurrect it.
Re: So (Score:3)
Big tech and government working together to limit citizens access to certain information? Who does France think they are, North Korea? China? The United States?
The only thing new here is the method, the idea of limiting citizen's access to certain information is nothing new.
Timing tells you everything (Score:5, Interesting)
France closes down over the summer holidays, so the government's approach is to get this through as quietly as possible. Very nasty. Sometimes the paranoia of those who believe in the Illuminati seems very justified...
Re: (Score:2)
All governments hate free communication. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is in the nature of governance to hate free communication. Even the governments that pay lip service to it, like America, really hate it and find any way they can to control, suppress, and spy as much as they can. The only reason they even pay lip service to it is because enough of their population demands it.
And that is the essential requirement: eternal vigilance. I know, totally trite. But every government will perpetually chip away at the free Internet at every opportunity. They will never give up. Chip, chip, chip, until there is nothing left. Voting for the right candidate is only a temporary solution. If we want the Internet to stay free, we have to fight our governments on this issue, forever.
Has the population of France gotten tired? Or distracted? If so, they can kiss another piece of freedom goodbye.
Re: (Score:2)
Has the population of France gotten tired? Or distracted?
I think most people are not educated enough to care; also this proposal is easily sold as a protection against scammers.
'Will nobody think of the children' (Score:2)
Don't forget the kiddie porn / abuse issue that is played on every occasion where free speech arguments are advanced. It's the one the UK is using to justify its demand to end easy access to encrypted messaging.
Simpsons' compilation... https://youtu.be/phSxxVJCZsc [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
Why should people who live outside the American bubble have to be subjected to those foreign sources of propaganda?
Is someone forcing French people to read Fox News and Twitter?
Re: (Score:2)
Same bunch of culprits causing grief on the Internet since the late 90s.
Re: (Score:2)
And the users have no choice but to read it?
Re: (Score:2)
Here's my question though: why should ordinary users ("my grandma"), who are not tech savvy and can't defend themselves, be deliberately exposed to such predatory practices online when 1) their gove
Re: All governments hate free communication. (Score:2)
I think there are better ways of handling the problem than the government taking away the citizens' right to decide what information they want to get.
Re: Timing tells you everything (Score:2)
The issue isn't how they want to pass it, the issue is what they want to pass...
Re: (Score:3)
so the government's approach is to get this through as quietly as possible
Because the government sneakily waits to pass unpopular laws such as the the pension change which they did before the summer holidays? Humans look to find patterns where none exist. Governments don't just take a recess because some people in the public go on holiday. Laws still need to be debated and passed, and anyone who disagrees with a law will make a claim that some evil nefarious thing occurred in passing said law. Correlation does not mean causation.
Sometimes the paranoia of those who believe in the Illuminati seems very justified...
Yeah but in this case, as nearly always, the parano
I dont get it (Score:2)
Re:I dont get it (Score:5, Informative)
The proposal in discussion says that ISP, DNS suppliers and browser developers may have to take all necessary measures to prevent access to websites identified by the data protection watchdog as scam / phishing, or not applying age verification for pornography. At this point only Mozilla has complained. If this proposal goes into force, I would say the protection watchdog will favour requesting the blockage to ISPs (through their DNS) as this allows a faster reaction time than relying on browser updates (the proposal explicitly says they have the option to choose either of the 3 mechanisms).
Re: (Score:2)
Just because someone doesn't vocally complain about ${bad_thing} doesn't mean said thing doesn't apply to them.
What do they want blocked? (Score:2)
Web sites with too much Franglais? Well, le browser will just render whatever it is pointed to on le Internet.
Like you didn't give them the idea (Score:4, Interesting)
Rather than mandate browser based blocking, we think the legislation should focus on improving the existing mechanisms already utilized by browsers -- services such as Safe Browsing and Smart Screen
You implemented proof-of-concept browser-based blocking of a centrally curated list of web sites. Now you cry foul when the government wants that too. When this law comes, do you even have to do anything to make Firefox compliant?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. They announced to the world that they're ready to prostitute themselves, and now they're just haggling on the price.
Re:Like you didn't give them the idea (Score:5, Informative)
>"You implemented proof-of-concept browser-based blocking of a centrally curated list of web sites. Now you cry foul when the government wants that too."
There is a HUGE difference.
1) "Safe browsing" is an OPTIONAL feature the user can enable in Firefox. Don't want it, don't turn it on.
2) It consults lists NOT controlled by the government.
3) It only WARNS the user, it doesn't block anything.
4) The "Safe browsing" lists are for malware, phishing, and scams. Not for OTHER means (like "age verification compliance" or whatever else they cook up), in theory, anyway.
Besides, this is FOSS. Doesn't matter what France demands to be included, the end user can change the code immediately to disable it. The how-to's would be available everywhere, and most repos might do it for you, anyway.
Re: Like you didn't give them the idea (Score:2)
France want to geo-lock the safe browsing, and shift control of the list from the user to the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Now you cry foul when the government wants that too.
Yes. Me doing what I want is my right. The government telling me to do it is a violation of my rights.
When this law comes, do you even have to do anything to make Firefox compliant?
Not at all relevant.
Just... (Score:1)
Re: Just... (Score:1)
How would you propose doing that?
Re: (Score:2)
easy, we block france at the browser level ... oh wait!
actually all that browsers would need to do is display a simple disclaimer informing that the app is not supported nor intended to be used in france. the hardest part though could be giving up on any business they are currently doing there too.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Just... (Score:2)
What if they just said "No"? How would France "punish" the non-profit Mozilla Foundation? How would France keep Firefox out of the hands of its citizens?
just ignore France (Score:2)
Re: just ignore France (Score:1)
How else would you suggest France, or any other country, enforce its sovereignty?
Like it or not, the laws in France should be made in France and by the French.
Re: (Score:3)
of course. france is absolutely entitled to enforce its sovereignty by passing stupid laws that are more concerned with pleasing electors o justifying government than with discrete reality ... in their jurisdiction. other international actors are free to refuse to comply with those stupid laws and to operate inside of their (legitimate, but still idiotic) sovereignty.
this law still has to pass, and if it does it will still be mostly irrelevant and will in high probability simply backfire, making a mockery o
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe have two versions of Firefox. One for the French that filters everything they want filtered, one for the free world that filters for "*.fr".
Re: just ignore France (Score:2)
So capitulate? Wow, way to stand up to oppressive governments...
Re: (Score:2)
Capitulate... well, no.
I mean, who can tell whether the French actually download the French version? Essentially, it's malicious compliance.
Re: (Score:2)
It would cost millions to mozilla to ensure Q/A for a second binary, plus the prospect to make a second binary. Given that Firefox about:config already has a bunch of settings that start with browser.contentblocking.* their simplest implementation is to add a blocklist setting with an URL, empty by default, and set to a suitable value when installing the XPI localization pack of any country that has such a requirement.
Re: (Score:2)
plus the prospect to make a second binary.
my mistake; I meant: ... to make many other binaries for every country that asks, an unmanageable situation.
and don't forget 'murica (Score:1)
Given the current state of affairs in the US of A, maybe they should also be blocked by that firewall?
Re: and don't forget 'murica (Score:2)
Big Tech and the US Government already figured out how to control access to certain information - Gov't just 'suggests' and big tech happily complies, because they fear losing Section 230 protection from liability for what their users post.
Re: (Score:2)
Gov't just 'suggests' and big tech happily complies
For example?
More power... (Score:1)
Why Can't Bad Websites (Score:2)
The balkanization of the internet (Score:2)
The internet is on its way to going behind borders. Nation states have hated having to accept a system that was unbounded. Now they are using the cudgel of fines and bans to cut off their countries. Eventually we'll see every nation in its own bubble and even private communications could be threatened if they demand unencrypted access to those. We're even seeing authoritarian nations making their own protocols.
Re: (Score:2)
My communication is not encrypted. It's not my problem you don't understand the protocol.
Easy solution (Score:2)
Create two versions, one for France, one for the free world, and tell French users they should download the French version.
I fart in your general direction (Score:4, Interesting)
It should be implemented the same way LBRY does it for DMCA compliance. Legally in the clear but gives pirates a complete updated list of downloads they can automate as/when things are reported. Basically if you report something, it goes full Streisand and LBRY cannot be held responsible as they have fulfilled their legal obligations by instructing all clients to no longer list or share the content. Bypassing the blocks is as simple as making a certain file read-only or changing a few well-known lines of code, with the knowledge being an open secret by design.
If browsers implemented client-side censorship specifically to satisfy French demand, they would have to download a list instead of using Safe Browsing, since the latter relies on servers being up to work properly, which is legally speaking enough of an excuse not to use it. Right now, there is nothing stopping Mozilla from making the entire list publicly readable, complete with categories, reason for the block, date of blocking and other relevant metadata. Yet another open secret would emerge, and instead of being censored, this list would quickly become a badge of honour similar to the lists the UK High Court publishes for ISPs to block.
If France went one step further and forced operating systems to censor, that is even better, as it would accelerate community-operated desktop Linux uptake, where distros without commercial interests could refuse without consequences.
Please do it France! We have nothing to lose and everything to gain!
Right holders (Score:2)
It is almost certainly dictated by copyright holders, who are extremely whiny in France. It is much more about piracy than political censorship. Political censorship will come next of course.