CRA

Posted Jan 4, 2026 14:53 UTC (Sun) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
In reply to: CRA by linuxrocks123
Parent article: Kroah-Hartman: Linux kernel security work

Everything you've posted is hypothetical. Care to cite any case where an individual running a personal website has been subjected to punishment under the laws you mentioned?

It's simply Malibal all over again, mixed in with a healthy dose of dog-whistle politics.

to post comments

CRA

Posted Jan 5, 2026 2:41 UTC (Mon) by linuxrocks123 (subscriber, #34648) [Link] (1 responses)

Many of these stupid Internet laws, such as California's, allow civil suits for monetary damages. I'd prefer to make the first move by blocking the hostile jurisdictions at the outset than wait for a blood-sucking parasite to try to make a quick buck off of me with an abusive lawsuit about how I manage cookies.

Be reactive if you want, but I'll bet all the family-owned restaurants that didn't put alt text in their images wish they'd taken my approach.

CRA

Posted Jan 5, 2026 9:49 UTC (Mon) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183) [Link]

> Many of these stupid Internet laws, such as California's, allow civil suits for monetary damages.

I looked this up and it's interesting. The California law has statutory damages (which the EU doesn't) and allows for class actions (which we don't really have here in most member states*) and the combination leads to the interesting business case where you can start a class action against some site and claim statutory damages for a whole bunch of people who don't care and have no actual damages.

So yeah, the statutory damages thing does make California especially risky.

* We don't have class actions in NL, the way this is handled is to start a non-profit association that does a test case on behalf of its members and if they win they use that as leverage to settle the rest of the cases. This is the implementation of the Representative Actions Directive (2020/1828)