← Back to context

Comment by jtwaleson

4 months ago

As far as I know there is currently no international alternative authority for this. So definitely not ideal, but better than not having the warnings.

5 comments

jtwaleson

Reply
BartjeD  4 months ago

Yes but that's not a legal argument.

You're honor, we hurt the plaintiff because it's better than nothing!

  • jtwaleson  4 months ago

    True, and agreed that lawsuits are likely. Disagree that it's short-sighted. The legal system hasn't caught up with internet technology and global platforms. Until it does, I think browsers are right to implement this despite legal issues they might face.

    • BartjeD  4 months ago

      In what country hasn't the legal system caught up?

      The point I raise is that the internet is international. There are N legal systems that are going to deal with this. And in 99% of them this isn't going to end well for Google if plaintiff can show there are damages to a reasonable degree.

      It's bonkers in terms of risk management.

      If you want to make this a workable system you have to make it very clear this isn't necessarily dangerous at all, or criminal. And that a third party list was used, in part, to flag it. And even then you're impeding visitors to a website with warnings without any evidence that there is in fact something wrong.

      If this happens to a political party hosting blogs, it's hunting season.

      1 reply →