Aha, then you and I see the same/similar "potential problems" with this issue.
;-) Patrik On 25 May 2016, at 16:00, Julius ter Pelkwijk wrote: > 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 >>>> >>>> >> >>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
