That I am unsure about. I just noted that this can cause issues, since certain items in Holland are "banned" while they are allowed to be sold freely by other member states. A nice example would be buying 'prohibited items' in Germany or even Poland (think airsoft weapons for example): They can legally be sold in certain member countries, but shipping them to Holland is illegal. A Dutch "consumer agency" may force those websites to be shut down, even though the fireworks can be sold legally there.
I believe that the call is not passed across borders. The consumer protection agency may act "on behalf" of the other member state to take down that website. In the case of a scammer located in Germany and aiming Dutch citizens, the Dutch consumer protection agency may force the German ISP to cease all activity from that user, even if the practice is considered to be legal in Germany. Basically said, with the "harmonization" it means that any state may act "on behalf" of the other state to shut down a website. On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 3:34 PM Patrik Fältström <[email protected]> wrote: > How is the take down call passed across borders, i.e. how is the flow of > action from detection via decision to messaging and action? > > Patrik > > On 25 May 2016, at 15:32, Julius ter Pelkwijk wrote: > > > What this means is that governmental "consumer agencies" have the right > to take down websites in other EU states that sell illegal stuff to their > country. A website like a fireworks store or even ebay can be taken down in > all member states of the EU without prior notification, regardless of where > the crime has been committed. This is very useful in certain cases like the > "free promo scam" that they had in Holland a couple of years ago: A scammer > had a website where they promoted free stuff worth 20 euro, but you had to > pay shipping costs (6.95 euro). The website was even heavily promoted on > radio and television channels, until they realized that they had been > included in the scam (the cheque bounced). The total damage was unknown, > but it ranged from 300k to 1 million euro in total. It took consumer > organisations a few days to get the server taken down, mainly because the > site looked legitimate in the first place and the ISP was not willing to > take down a legitimate site. > > > > Its like some form of "Cease to Exist" letter that governmental agencies > can send to the ISP, without having to go to court first to get the website > taken down (and to prevent further damage). > > > > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 2:49 PM Patrik Fältström <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On 25 May 2016, at 14:28, Gordon Lennox wrote: > >> > >>> Today’s e-commerce package is composed of: > >> > >>> • order the immediate take-down of websites hosting scams; > >> > >> Can someone explain what it implies to have something in a package like > >> this? One of the main issues in Europe is that MLAT processes are > extremely > >> slow, and I am worried if what is in this package will be something else > >> than "optimize the MLAT processes so that they are fast(er)". > >> > >> To get efficient MLAT might in turn might require ratification of the > >> cybercrime convention etc, or? > >> > >> Anyone up for guessing what this might imply? > >> > >> Patrik > >> > >> > >
