[SkySkimmer]

>It would set a dangerous precedent

This seems to be false as the precedent already exists.

sources: Étude d'impact (PDF linked in https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/dossierlegislatif/JORFDOLE000...) says

>Par ses modalités, ce dispositif est à rapprocher du dispositif de filtrage prévu au 1° de l’article L. 521-3-1 du code de la consommation, permettant aux agents de la DGCCRF d’ordonner, selon des conditions et modalités particulières, aux opérateurs de plateformes en ligne, aux fournisseurs d’accès à internet ainsi qu’aux exploitants de navigateurs internet d’afficher un message avertissant les consommateurs du risque de préjudice encouru s’ils accèdent au contenu manifestement illicite, et au b du 2° du même article, qui leur permet d’ordonner à ces mêmes opérateurs et aux hébergeurs de prendre toute mesure utile destinée à limiter l’accès à ces contenus.

Article L. 521-3-1 du code de la consommation: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI0000...

[_trackno5]

It’s absurd that an article exists to allow French govt agents to display messages in my browser.

How is that even enforced?

[londons_explore]

Rules exist to require messages be shown on phones - for example the emergency alert system for hurricanes.

Doesn't seem unreasonable that computer OS's and/or web browsers be required to support the same.

[Ajedi32]

I think one issue is that unlike physical objects like phones, software doesn't occupy physical space or respect national borders. So trying to enforce "all software of such and such category within our physical borders must have this property" is impractical without draconian measures that pose a significant threat to software freedom. It creates legal hazards to otherwise perfectly benign actions like downloading open source software from a foreign country, compiling your own browser, publishing software or offering network services for free on the global internet, etc.

That's not to say a regulation like this couldn't be done in a reasonable way, but it needs to be handled with care.

[Ajedi32]

And to be clear when I say "a regulation like this" I'm referring to the one about adding emergency alerts to web browsers. That's an arguably useful feature for browsers to have, and it's probably not a big deal if some open source browsers don't have it so full enforcement isn't necessary.

Things get way harder when you're talking about forcing the addition of user hostile features (like the bill described in the OP presumably is; blocking users from accessing a website that they want to access), because that creates a situation where vendors have to treat the device owner as a potentially hostile actor. I don't see any way you could enforce that without completely destroying users' freedom to run software of their choosing on their own device, no matter how the law is worded, and I wouldn't consider that "reasonable" under any circumstances.

[selfhoster11]

> Doesn't seem unreasonable that computer OS's and/or web browsers be required to support the same.

Why?

Web browsers were designed from the start to show you only content you expressly requested. Notification APIs are still opt-in. A browser is primarily pull-oriented, whereas a phone was always bi-directional. Inverting this expectation for the browser is very much unwelcome.

[von_lohengramm]

You are interpreting "unreasonable" from the perspective of a citizen, not from the perspective of the government.

[halJordan]

It's crazy that you think individuals don't want to be notified of natural disasters about to kill them.

[selfhoster11]

Who said I didn't? There's a time and a place to notify, and my browser definitely isn't the place. They can send the notification to my phone instead

[selfhoster11]

Yes. Because I'm a citizen.

[_trackno5]

Sure, we can all agree that this narrow use is in the interest of the public.

Emphasis on narrow.

It’s completely unreasonable to have a broad scope direct communication channel between the government and my browser or OS.

[londons_explore]

My government (UK) seems to struggle with communicating some things with citizens. There is no way so send a simple short message to every citizen.

For example, recently the law changed so that pedestrians had priority at 't' road junctions without traffic lights.

Ideally, every citizen would be send a small infographic showing the new law on the day it became law. They would click "okay" and go on with their day.

Instead, the government bought up TV ads and billboards across the country (very expensive) to try to get the message across - and still, months later, you have people honking horns and getting angry at pedestrians and drivers who don't know about the change.

[denton-scratch]

> There is no way so send a simple short message to every citizen.

1. Not every citizen possesses an SMS-capable device.

2. Many smartphone-enabled citizens don't want to be nagged by the government.

> Instead, the government bought up TV ads and billboards across the country

I don't watch TV ads. I haven't seen any of these billboards. And I didn't know there was anything unusual about the law on T-junctions in particular.

[afavour]

Are you not entirely proving the OPs point? A law has been changed regarding right of way and you’re not aware of it, potentially leaving you more likely to strike a pedestrian. Does that not highlight a failure of communication?

[selfhoster11]

> For example, recently the law changed so that pedestrians had priority at 't' road junctions without traffic lights.

That's hardly a backwards-incompatible change that needs to be actioned immediately.

My attention has already been torn to shreds for years via smartphone usage (I'm in an on-and-off recovery). I don't need the government adding their two pence into what's already a bad situation.

If they care so much, mail me. Physically. That both gets my attention, lets the government constant me via a much less intrusive channel, and staves off the bankruptcy of Royal Mail.

[barrysteve]

You really think it's ideal to get new binding laws through text messages?

Don't look at your phone in the next five minutes, because Russia's invaded France and your iPhone goes ding.

Both you and me have been legally volunteered for conscription "at random".

And I wonder who's sons and daughters are magically missing from the man-power database, certainly not the engineers and politicians who built it. could never suggest such a thing is likely...

Bring it on, I say.

[civilitty]

RF spectrum is a limited and valuable public resource that’s rented out to licensed operators who use devices from licensed manufacturers. That’s the mechanism behind the emergency alert system in a legal and practical sense (in the US at least).

Applying that to browsers does seem unreasonable to me. IANAL but to my knowledge mobile OSs aren’t legally required to support the emergency alert features of the radio because there’s no direct way to legally force them to. They do so because of popular demand and indirect requirements from large customers.

[denton-scratch]

Phones are much easier to control than general-purpose computers; broadly-speaking, consumers get phone software from 'stores' that are gated by companies that can be controlled. That is, if it can be controlled by government, it will be. Doesn't make that kind of control "reasonable".

And you can "require" what you like; unless you have real control, then you won't get what you "require".