They have more than 20 millions users in France. Facebook is probably better off paying a few lawyers to modify their ToS.
The issue isn't the cost of lawyers fees to draft a new ToS. The issue is that the ToS which conforms to France's requirements would fundamentally change the nature of social media. In the present case, a user can sue Facebook because Facebook decided an uploaded image violated their ToS. If Facebook caves to French demands, then it loses the ability to control what content appears in their site. What if an image they are required under French law to allow is considered illegal in another jurisdiction? This is why it makes sense for all lawsuits to be adjudicated in one place, i.e. California. Otherwise Facebook might find itself in an impossible situation.
What percentage of IT people who discover child porn look the other way?
Most workers of any type aren't interested in snooping through people's private things and reporting what may or may not be illicit activity. (Is that topless girl 17 or 18? Are those kids in a bathtub innocent photos of the client's children or something more sinister?) Just like your typical plumber wouldn't ordinarily report that possible meth lab in the basement, your typical computer repair person doesn't want to report suspected copyright violations, irregularities on income tax files, or possible child pornography. I once had a job that involved me working in people's homes and my general rule was mind my own business and get the job done. I think most workers feel the same way.
It is a law that would be nearly impossible to enforce.
That's the problem. There would be only one way to enforce this type of law and that would be through sting operations. An undercover officer would bring a computer in to be repaired with illicit images somewhere obvious, like the desktop background screen. If no report is filed, the worker is arrested.
Having some right of expression does not necessarily imply a 'similiar' right on the Internet.
Actually, the Supreme Court disagrees with you. Read the opinion in Reno vs. ACLU. This quote is particularly relevant: "Through the use of chat rooms, any person with a phone line can become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox. Through the use of Web pages, mail exploders, and newsgroups, the same individual can become a pamphleteer." So, it seems the Supreme Court was of the opinion that free speech rights on the Internet should be the same as the free speech rights anywhere.
You two are talking about two different things. You can attempt anonymous speech, but the court isn't going to protect your anonymity. In other words, just because you didn't sign your work doesn't mean you aren't responsible for it and can be freely identified as the author. To reference the original post, your license plate doesn't have your name on it and it isn't "easily" referenced to an individual, but doing a little research can find you the owner of the car. I believe the proposal is something similar.
Do you not see the irony of posting this an an Anonymous Coward?
Before long the country will be renamed People's Republic of America.
Even worse. It will be the People's Democratic Republic of America. A communist dictatorship!
And then what? There is a lot of free open-source e2e encryption software where no payment processors can be put under pressure. If the UK government demands backdoors from GnuPG, Signal or SMSSecure and they respond with "nuts", there is nothing the UK government can do. They could try to block Signal but that would probably result in them finally making work of a decentralized server setup.
The key word here software. Yes, there is lots of free open source e2e encryption software, but that doesn't do you a bit of good if your hardware has backdoors! Once they have a backdoor in your hardware, keyloggers can get your passphrases and memory scans can get your encryption keys. Secure software is useless on insecure hardware or insecure operating systems, and that's what this debate is all about: hardware and operating systems.
You want to publish an e-book but you also want to be able to do things that e-books can't do.
That's kind of the point. It will make his e-book new and innovative. That's how progress happens.
By giving up privacy, you gain the ILLUSION of safety.
Perhaps the illusion of safety is just what is needed to counter the illusion of danger.
Your kid is most likely to get abducted by a family member or friend, and he already knows your address.
Just because a kid is more likely to get abducted by a family member doesn't mean it isn't sensible to take precautions to protect them from other possible dangers. Just because most house fires start because of dryer lint or smoking in bed doesn't mean you should leave unattended burning candles in your living room.
Your address is in big numbers on the front of your house. When did it become "private information".
The address number in the front of my house isn't private information. The mapping of my child's name to that address ought to be kept private. At least from the public on the Internet.
We can predict everything, except the future.