ciferecaNinjo

I sometimes get mail for the previous resident. I could never get answers on my obligations in this case. I usually cross out the name and address, circle the return address, write “retourner”, and drop it in a red box.

Some letters for past residents have no return address. I wondered what bPost does with them, so I brought them to bPost clerk. They noticed a barcode and said that will be used to track down the sender. I was surprised about that, because I thought those barcodes were meant to automate shipping to the destination.

There are 75 4-state bars, which I suppose is enough data to contain both the sender and recipient. So if you re-use windowed envelopes, it’s good to know whoever you send the letter to could work out who you originally received correspondence from, if they are sneaky and motivated.

Testachats is the consumer lobby in Belgium. They have an app of their own which they promote.

The app is closed-source. This denies consumers transparency and control.

The app is exclusively available on Google and Apple platforms, thus forcing consumers to share personal information with surveillance advertisers and excluding those not on those platforms.

It’s an expensive membership as well, so the hypocrisy of these anti-consumer practices is a bit rich.

I caught one of those motherfuckers who needlessly park shared e-scooters in bicycle racks. He seemed to be taking a picture of his sabotage of the space cyclists need to lock their bicycle to.

Why is this plague of Google-boot-licking shared e-scooter people attacking our bicycle racks (I have been wondering)?

There are laws banning those scooters from blocking sidewalks and doorways. I assume the e-scooter company would get the fine for illegal parking, which they would need to pass on. So (I’m guessing) users photograph their parking job for self-defense from a fine. Is that correct?

Are they just keeping a personal copy of those photos, or does the app require users to transmit the photos? If they are being transmitted, does that mean the e-scooter companies are complicit in a limited resource (bicycle racks) getting clusterfucked?

What is the recourse for individual action? Ideas:

• stack the scooters in a pile in the bushes whenever the racks are fully packed by shared scooters.
• put stickers with a red prohibited sign over a scooter on the racks. But of course the problem with that is that it’s fair enough if a personal scooter is locked to a rack. And also unlocked/shared bicycles are the same problem. What is a graphical symbol that represents shared micromobiles but not personal ones? We could list them out (Lime, Bolt, Dott, Volt, etc) but there are too many and they keep changing. Would an e-scooter with a wi-fi symbol be clear?
• lock the shared vehicles to the racks where they sit. It’s sacraficial, but sends a msg that costs them money (thus a msg that will not be ignored). Not cheap for the activist.
• pile the shared machines together and lock them together, perhaps using the built-in lock from one of the shared e-bikes.

I caught one of those motherfuckers who needlessly park shared e-scooters in bicycle racks. He seemed to be taking a picture of his sabotage of the space cyclists need to lock their bicycle to.

Why is this plague of Google-boot-licking shared e-scooter people attacking our bicycle racks (I have been wondering)?

There are laws banning those scooters from blocking sidewalks and doorways. I assume the e-scooter company would get the fine for illegal parking, which they would need to pass on. So (I’m guessing) users photograph their parking job for self-defense from a fine. Is that correct?

Are they just keeping a personal copy of those photos, or does the app require users to transmit the photos? If they are being transmitted, does that mean the e-scooter companies are complicit in a limited resource (bicycle racks) getting clusterfucked?

What is the recourse for individual action? Ideas:

• stack the scooters in a pile in the bushes whenever the racks are fully packed by shared scooters.
• put stickers with a red prohibited sign over a scooter on the racks. But of course the problem with that is that it’s fair enough if a personal scooter is locked to a rack. And also unlocked/shared bicycles are the same problem. What is a graphical symbol that represents shared micromobiles but not personal ones? We could list them out (Lime, Bolt, etc) but there are too many and they keep changing. Would an e-scooter with a wi-fi symbol be clear?
• lock the shared vehicles to the racks where they sit. It’s sacraficial, but sends a msg that costs them money (thus a msg that will not be ignored). Not cheap for the activist.
• pile the shared machines together and lock them together, perhaps using the built-in lock from one of the shared e-bikes.

I caught one of those motherfuckers who needlessly park shared e-scooters in bicycle racks. He seemed to be taking a picture of his sabotage of the space cyclists need to lock their bicycle to.

Why is this plague of Google-boot-licking shared e-scooter people attacking our bicycle racks (I have been wondering)?

There are laws banning those scooters from blocking sidewalks and doorways. I assume the e-scooter company would get the fine for illegal parking, which they would need to pass on. So (I’m guessing) users photograph their parking job for self-defense from a fine. Is that correct?

Are they just keeping a personal copy of those photos, or does the app require users to transmit the photos? If they are being transmitted, does that mean the e-scooter companies are complicit in a limited resource (bicycle racks) getting clusterfucked?

What is the recourse for individual action? Ideas:

• stack the scooters in a pile in the bushes whenever the racks are fully packed by shared scooters.
• put stickers with a red prohibited sign over a scooter on the racks. But of course the problem with that is that it’s fair enough if a personal scooter is locked to a rack. And also unlocked/shared bicycles are the same problem. What is a graphical symbol that represents shared micromobiles but not personal ones? We could list them out (Lime, Bolt, etc) but there are too many and they keep changing. Would an e-scooter with a wi-fi symbol be clear?
• lock the shared vehicles to the racks where they sit. It’s sacraficial, but sends a msg that costs them money (thus a msg that will not be ignored). Not cheap for the activist.
• pile the shared machines together and lock them together, perhaps using the built-in lock from one of the shared e-bikes.

DIGI unlawfully drilled into the façades of thousands of terraced homes without negotiation or consent and without disclosure (even after the fact). It was effectively hit-and-run vandalism. The regulator turned a blind eye.

So the question is, suppose 50 or so people wanted to sue DIGI. Would we really open 50 separate lawsuits in the various small courts across Brussels?

I heard a rumor that class action lawsuits are coming to Europe or Belgium.. forgot which, but in any case they are not in place yet.

If anyone is interested, this is a machine translation of the law of 21st March 1991, article 2 §2:

When (an operator of a [¹ public electronic communications network]¹) intends to establish cables, overhead lines and related equipment, to remove them or to carry out work on them, it tends to seek an agreement as to the place and method of carrying out the work, with the person whose property serves as support, is crossed or passed over. <L 1997-12-19/30, art. 49, 017; In force: 01-01-1998> … In the absence of an agreement, (the operator of the [¹ public electronic communications network]¹ concerned) shall send by registered letter to the post office a clear description of the planned location and the method of execution of the works, to the person whose property is used as support, is crossed or is crossed. Within eight clear days of receipt of this letter, the person whose property is used as support, is crossed or is crossed may file a reasoned complaint with the Institute. The submission of the complaint suspends the execution of the intention. The Institute shall hear both parties and make a reasoned decision within one month of receipt of the complaint.

original:

Lorsque (un opérateur d'un [¹ réseau public de communications électroniques]¹) a l'intention d'établir des câbles, lignes aériennes et équipements connexes, de les enlever ou d'y exécuter des travaux, elle tend à rechercher un accord quant à l'endroit et la méthode d'exécution des travaux, avec la personne dont la propriété sert d'appui, est franchie ou traversée. … A défaut d'accord, (l'opérateur du [¹ réseau public de communications électroniques]¹ concerné) transmet par lettre recommandée à la poste une description claire de l'endroit projeté et de la méthode d'exécution des travaux, à la personne dont la propriété sert d'appui, est franchie ou traversée. Dans les huit jours francs de la réception de ce courrier, la personne dont la propriété sert d'appui, est franchie ou traversée peut introduire une réclamation motivée auprès de l'Institut. L'introduction de la réclamation suspend l'exécution de l'intention. L'Institut entend les deux parties et prend une décision motivée dans un délai d'un mois après réception de la réclamation.

A search on !belgium@0d.gs does not find that community, but it finds a post where I can reach the community in a round-about way:

https://fedia.io/m/belgium@0d.gs

So it seems something is broken with the search. I was actually looking to reach !self@0d.gs. Searching also failed for that, so I tried manually forming this URL:

https://fedia.io/m/self@0d.gs

That gives a 404. It feels like a chicken-egg problem. Once I subscribe to it, it would probably be federated and perhaps searchable. But I can’t seem to reach it to subscribe without a subscription.

I wrote previously about German ATMs neglecting to give receipts.

After receiving my bank statement, it shows that an ATM charged a fee, which was not disclosed at the time of the transaction. Every ATM I used a non-SEPA card in mentioned no fee, which I found surprising because non-SEPA cards are almost always charged a fee within SEPA in my past experience. At the time I thought perhaps the ATM operators simply decided to treat all cards as SEPA cards, perhaps for simplicity.

Some machines indeed charged no fee in the end. None of them offered a receipt either. But one ATM charged €9, the highest ATM fee I have ever seen.

Can this be legal?

The link is to a Dutch site, but it shows that in NL producing a receipt is not an obligation. Which in the very least suggests the EU allows a situation where receipts are unavailable.

Digi is a new ISP who recently drilled into façades of people’s homes without notice or consent. Anyone registered with BIPT as a telecom operator does not need consent for the act of attaching their cable to the façade, but they are required to inform home owners before the work and obtain consent on the way that they run the cable.

Digi simply showed up unannounced with workers in plain clothes who drilled into façades spontaneously. Digi also neglected to say anything about it after the fact.

Proximus and Digi both neglected to give advance notice when they did this. Proximus at least left a letter in mailboxes stating what happened and offered free installation of service.

Both Proximus and Digi are also exclusive services. That is, they do not accept cash payments and thus exclude unbanked people (~3% of the population). It’s extra evil on the part of Proximus because they have physical shops all over which obligates cash acceptance and could serve that purpose.

There is in fact no law obligating Belgian telecom operators to offer service to those whose properties involuntarily host their cables. They can be as exclusive as they want.

And worse, home owners who renovate their façade have a legal obligation to send bPost registered letters to each and every cable owner who uses their façade -- currently a hit of €10 per letter. So if there are 7 cables attached, you are effectively legally obligated to spend €70 to give advance notice before working on your own façade.

Does it have to be this way?

No, because they can run their fiber under the sidewalk. They choose to uglify people’s façades to save money. As such, the law effectively strips the people of their bargaining power. In principle, the ISPs should need to entice consumers with a deal that passes some of the savings of using façades onto them. If you have a strip of terraced houses and one house does not take the deal, then it’s not a problem. The sidewalk just needs to be dug up for the house that refuses the offer.

If you look around, sometimes you will see a terraced house that has buried the cables, perhaps because they want a nice looking façade.

This could even be fixed going forward. In principle, every sidewalk will eventually be dug up again, by Vivaqua doing what Vivaqua does. Such moments would be a good opportunity for telecoms to move their cables under the sidewalk, coordinated with whoever digs up the sidewalk for other purposes. Thereafter, homeowners would not have to send 7+ registered letters every time they need to renovate their façades. But our rights and that opportunity has been squandered.

Digi is a new ISP who recently drilled into façades of people’s homes without notice or consent. Anyone registered with BIPT as a telecom operator does not need consent for the act of attaching their cable to the façade, but they are required to inform home owners before the work and obtain consent on the way that they run the cable.

Digi simply showed up unannounced with workers in plain clothes who drilled into façades spontaneously. Digi also neglected to say anything about it after the fact.

Proximus and Digi both neglected to give advance notice when they did this. Proximus at least left a letter in mailboxes stating what happened and offered free installation of service.

Both Proximus and Digi are also exclusive services. That is, they do not accept cash payments and thus exclude unbanked people (~3% of the population). It’s extra evil on the part of Proximus because they have physical shops all over which obligates cash acceptance and could serve that purpose.

There is in fact no law obligating Belgian telecom operators to offer service to those whose properties involuntarily host their cables. They can be as exclusive as they want.

And worse, home owners who renovate their façade have a legal obligation to send bPost registered letters to each and every cable owner who uses their façade -- currently a hit of €10 per letter. So if there are 7 cables attached, you are effectively legally obligated to spend €70 to give advance notice before working on your own façade.

Does it have to be this way?

No, because they can run their fiber under the sidewalk. They choose to uglify people’s façades to save money. As such, the law effectively strips the people of their bargaining power. In principle, the ISPs should need to entice consumers with a deal that passes some of the savings of using façades onto them. If you have a strip of terraced houses and one house does not take the deal, then it’s not a problem. The sidewalk just needs to be dug up for the house that refuses the offer.

If you look around, sometimes you will see a terraced house that has buried the cables, perhaps because they want a nice looking façade.

This could even be fixed going forward. In principle, every sidewalk will eventually be dug up again, by Vivaqua doing what Vivaqua does. Such moments would be a good opportunity for telecoms to move their cables under the sidewalk, coordinated with whoever digs up the sidewalk for other purposes. Thereafter, homeowners would not have to send 7+ registered letters every time they need to renovate their façades. But our rights and that opportunity has been squandered.

Given that we are now forced to patronise a bank in Belgium, I believe bank contracts must now be regarded as signed under duress. So as a consequence there may be various laws that protect those who sign something under duress, which are now triggered.

For example under the GDPR, if the legal basis for data processing is consent, there is a rule that the consent must be “freely given” or it ceases to have the effect of consent. If you sign a bank contract under duress then IIUC it should have this effect: no change to any processing mentioned in the contract that is necessary for performance of the contract, but any processing that is not essential to performance of the contract would require consent. But since the bank does not legally have consent, they cannot lawfully process the data in those situations.

Can anyone else think of any other consequences that result when a bank contract is signed by force and under duress?

I once lost access to my money because my ID card the bank had on file expired. Instead of sending me a notice or warning, the bank simply blocked the bank card. That was the bank’s way of communicating. It got me in the door dancing for them the next moment the bank was open. If that same scenario were to play out now that agreement is signed under duress, I could argue that my consent to cut off my card as a communication mechanism was not freely given -- correct? Or am I misunderstanding something?