autonomousPunk

cross-posted from: https://belgae.social/post/1544695

SNCB has a discount club called “Train+”. Membership gives discounted prices on off-peak travel. Found this in the terms and conditions:

9. Reimbursement of Train+

• Refund is possible if you have become Train+ via sncb.be or in the SNCB app, and provided you have not yet used Train+. The refund application must be submitted in writing to the Customer Service within 14 calendar days of purchase.
• In any other case, Train+ is not refundable.

(Original French text)

9. Remboursement de Train+

• Le remboursement est possible si vous êtes devenu Train+ via sncb.be ou dans l’app SNCB, et à condition de ne pas encore avoir utilisé Train+. La demande de remboursement doit être introduite par écrit au Service Clientèle endéans les 14 jours calendaires suivant l’achat.
• Dans tout autre cas, Train+ n’est pas remboursable.

The app is exclusively limited to people with smartphones and a will to lick the boots of either Google or Apple. The website is also exclusive due to shitty anti-bot challenges and deceptive gatekeeping (e.g. Tor users perpetually get a false error msg: “website under maintenance”).

Is it legal?

EU Regulation 2021⧸782 has this:

“In light of the development of online platforms selling passenger transport tickets, Member States should pay special attention to ensuring that no discrimination occurs during the process of accessing online interfaces or purchasing tickets.”

That is written in a recital, not an enactment. So IIUC it has no force. It’s merely the sentiment of the lawmakers.

SNCB has converted into a privatised profit-driven corporation that no longer receives government subsidies (supposedly). There is apparently less pressure on them to be fair and free from various forms of discrimination, so they can take the piss. It’s all about the bottom line.

SNCB has a discount club called “Train+”. Membership gives discounted prices on off-peak travel. Found this in the terms and conditions:

9. Reimbursement of Train+

• Refund is possible if you have become Train+ via sncb.be or in the SNCB app, and provided you have not yet used Train+. The refund application must be submitted in writing to the Customer Service within 14 calendar days of purchase.
• In any other case, Train+ is not refundable.

The app is exclusively limited to people with smartphones and a will to lick the boots of either Google or Apple. The website is also exclusive due to shitty anti-bot challenges and deceptive gatekeeping (e.g. Tor users perpetually get a false error msg: “website under maintenance”).

Is it legal?

EU Regulation 2021⧸782 has this:

“In light of the development of online platforms selling passenger transport tickets, Member States should pay special attention to ensuring that no discrimination occurs during the process of accessing online interfaces or purchasing tickets.”

That is written in a recital, not an enactment. So IIUC it has no force. It’s merely the sentiment of the lawmakers.

SNCB has converted into a privatised profit-driven corporation that no longer receives government subsidies (supposedly). There is apparently less pressure on them to be fair and free from various forms of discrimination, so they can take the piss. It’s all about the bottom line.

cross-posted from: https://belgae.social/post/1452863

Someone told me banks are considered an “essential service”, and that essential services must give they serve two ways of operating. They cannot force you to use their app or website. They must either give you a way to get service over the phone, over the counter, or by mail.

The guy was talking a bit vaguely. Does a phone app and web app count as two different methods? Where is this law written?

I mentioned that some banks are breaking this law. He said: actually, you can change banks. I’m like, wtf, what if I don’t? That makes the law a bit useless, no? He said so long as there exists ONE bank that offers two access methods, other banks can do what they want.

Is the law really written that way? It means that one bank affects the legal compliance of another. Who wants to be the last bank to offer two access methods, considering they would then be trapped? So it seems to create a race condition for banks to simplify down to one means of access, which is perhaps the opposite effect of the lawmakers’ intent.

Someone told me banks are considered an “essential service”, and that essential services must give they serve two ways of operating. They cannot force you to use their app or website. They must either give you a way to get service over the phone, over the counter, or by mail.

The guy was talking a bit vaguely. Does a phone app and web app count as two different methods? Where is this law written?

I mentioned that some banks are breaking this law. He said: actually, you can change banks. I’m like, wtf, what if I don’t? That makes the law a bit useless, no? He said so long as there exists ONE bank that offers two access methods, other banks can do what they want.

Is the law really written that way? It means that one bank affects the legal compliance of another. Who wants to be the last bank to offer two access methods, considering they would then be trapped? So it seems to create a race condition for banks to simplify down to one means of access, which is perhaps the opposite effect of the lawmakers’ intent.

cross-posted from: https://belgae.social/post/1306984

Yes, it is batshit crazy that this happened, and that municipalities actually stripped people of Belgian nationality that they already acquired.

Even more puzzling is how flimsy Belgian nationality is -- that you can lose Belgian nationality so easily and without even any kind of wrong-doing.

The Federal Ombudsman says the “Immigration Office is exceeding its powers.” But AFAICT the immigration office is just making a request -- one that can and should be ignored.

Very bizarre that the municipality has these powers. Sure, the muni has the power to grant nationality. Fair enough. But I find it a bit disturbing that the muni has power to strip nationality. Such a serious assault on someone’s human right to self-determinism should be a federal procedure, no?

cross-posted from: https://belgae.social/post/1306984

Yes, it is batshit crazy that this happened, and that municipalities actually stripped people of Belgian nationality that they already acquired.

Even more puzzling is how flimsy Belgian nationality is -- that you can lose Belgian nationality so easily and without even any kind of wrong-doing.

The Federal Ombudsman says the “Immigration Office is exceeding its powers.” But AFAICT the immigration office is just making a request -- one that can and should be ignored.

Very bizarre that the municipality has these powers. Sure, the muni has the power to grant nationality. Fair enough. But I find it a bit disturbing that the muni has power to strip nationality. Such a serious assault on someone’s human right to self-determinism should be a federal procedure, no?

cross-posted from: https://belgae.social/post/1306984

Yes, it is batshit crazy that this happened, and that municipalities actually stripped people of Belgian nationality that they already acquired.

Even more puzzling is how flimsy Belgian nationality is -- that you can lose Belgian nationality so easily and without even any kind of wrong-doing.

The Federal Ombudsman says the “Immigration Office is exceeding its powers.” But AFAICT the immigration office is just making a request -- one that can and should be ignored.

Very bizarre that the municipality has these powers. Sure, the muni has the power to grant nationality. Fair enough. But I find it a bit disturbing that the muni has power to strip nationality. Such a serious assault on someone’s human right to self-determinism should be a federal procedure, no?

The 1st paragraph, if the JavaScript does not block you:

“Equality mainstreaming aims to ensure that policies, laws, programmes and other activities are designed and implemented to benefit all and remove barriers that prevent disadvantaged groups from enjoying the same rights, opportunities and benefits as the rest of society. The ultimate objective of equality mainstreaming is to achieve equality.”

cross-posted from: https://belgae.social/post/1289387

It’s sickening enough that they use Twitter without so much as a free-world mirror. Even more in our faces when the DG MOVE (the commission’s transport branch) repeatedly references Twitter in their biennial report (linked). Note as well that the report itself is exclusively reachable only to clearnet users. Everyone else must rely on archive.org for a copy.

Sample paragraph:

“All of these key developments were accompanied by external communication activities, in particular via DG MOVE’s X account, newsletter and website, with the aim to reach relevant stakeholders and multipliers. Under objective 3, these activities focused in particular on the revised TEN-T regulation, which reached a very high number of stakeholders and citizens on social media (274900 impressions on DG MOVE’s social media alone), the Passenger Mobility Package and its new online communication campaign for 2023-2024, to raise awareness of about EU passenger rights.”

In other words, if you want to be kept informed about your EU passenger rights, then lick Elon’s boots. We need to get to a point where licking Elon’s boots is an embarrassment. They are proudly counting the numbers of people they reach. We need to get them to count people who are excluded (as Mastodon excludes no one).

The EU has an unmonitored non-interactive Mastodon account, but that only mirrors general EU content, not DG NOVE specifically.

Also w.r.t. transparency, there is this:

“Digital Culture, and in particular Collaboration and communication was further improved by the migration to SharePoint online.”

Sharepoint is Microsoft garbage that is not open to public access.

Regarding the question of legality-- the EU has open data laws, which IIUC entails making publications accessible to everyone. I suppose I need to get to the bottom of that but my suspicion is that publishing something exclusively on Twitter and thus blocking all who don’t lick Elon’s boots is illegal. Otherwise, it certainly should be illegal.

It’s sickening enough that they use Twitter without so much as a free-world mirror. Even more in our faces when the DG MOVE (the commission’s transport branch) repeatedly references Twitter in their biennial report (linked). Note as well that the report itself is exclusively reachable only to clearnet users. Everyone else must rely on archive.org for a copy.

Sample paragraph:

“All of these key developments were accompanied by external communication activities, in particular via DG MOVE’s X account, newsletter and website, with the aim to reach relevant stakeholders and multipliers. Under objective 3, these activities focused in particular on the revised TEN-T regulation, which reached a very high number of stakeholders and citizens on social media (274900 impressions on DG MOVE’s social media alone), the Passenger Mobility Package and its new online communication campaign for 2023-2024, to raise awareness of about EU passenger rights.”

In other words, if you want to be kept informed about your EU passenger rights, then lick Elon’s boots. We need to get to a point where licking Elon’s boots is an embarrassment. They are proudly counting the numbers of people they reach. We need to get them to count people who are excluded (as Mastodon excludes no one).

The EU has an unmonitored non-interactive Mastodon account, but that only mirrors general EU content, not DG NOVE specifically.

Also w.r.t. transparency, there is this:

“Digital Culture, and in particular Collaboration and communication was further improved by the migration to SharePoint online.”

Sharepoint is Microsoft garbage that is not open to public access.

Regarding the question of legality-- the EU has open data laws, which IIUC entails making publications accessible to everyone. I suppose I need to get to the bottom of that but my suspicion is that publishing something exclusively on Twitter and thus blocking all who don’t lick Elon’s boots is illegal. Otherwise, it certainly should be illegal.