ciferecaNinjo

I would like to understand this paragraph:

§ 2. 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.

Argos Translate yields:

§ 2. When (an operator of a [¹ public electronic communications network]¹) intends to establish cables, airlines and related equipment, to remove or perform work therein, it tends to seek an agreement on the location and method of carrying out work, with the person whose property serves as a support, is crossed or crossed.

I think tends is a false friend here because it seems unlikely in this context. A commercial machine translation yields:

§ 2. When (an operator of a [¹ public electronic communications network]¹) intends to establish, remove or carry out work on cables, overhead lines and related equipment, it shall seek agreement as to the location and method of carrying out the work with the person whose property is used as support, is crossed or is being traversed.

Sounds more accurate. I’m disappointed that there seems to be no requirement that the telecom company obtain consent from property owners. Is that correct? The telecom operator does not need consent on whether to use someone’s private property, only consent on how they deploy the cables?

I have always wondered what is the real difference between priority mail (“prior”) and non-priority (“non-prior”) mail in Belgium. Apparently the meaning became quite pronounced four years ago when bPost decided to only deliver non-prior mail twice per week.

I have noticed that mail has slowed down but I did not attribute it to anything. I’ve noticed that it usually takes at least 1 week for a letter to travel from Brussels to Brussels. Well this article has the answer.

Recently a letter arrived to me from a public service with “non-prior” rubber-stamped on it. I wondered what is the point? Why stamp non-prior when that is likely the default service anyway. It’s as if the sender wants to say: “please ensure this letter doesn’t move too quick”.

The costly EU postage stamps I complained about have “prior” integrated into the stamp and the domestic stamps I have do not. I guess I will see if I can find non-prior EU stamps to save money.

Another mystery: the election mail that arrived very late (a week after the election) was delivered on Saturday. Seems weird that non-priority mail would get Saturday delivery, but perhaps extreme tardiness changes things.

Anyway, this is the English translation of the linked article:

From March 2020, bpost will limit the delivery of letters franked with a normal stamp to twice a week, according to the columns of "La Dernière Heure" on Tuesday. However, "prior" stamped mail, parcels and newspapers will continue to be delivered daily.

On Tuesday morning, bpost CEO Koen Van Gerven stated on radio 1 that the delivery of letters franked with a normal stamp should take place on Mondays and Wednesdays.

This measure is justified because while in 2011, 12 million letters were still delivered per day, this figure had fallen to barely 7.7 million in 2018, the public company indicates. In addition, only one in two homes receives mail every day. "While the costs of this round remain the same", emphasizes Keon Van Gerven.

This summer, bpost will test the system in a few offices. "Customers won't notice anything for now. It's just a discreet survey to understand how we organize the rounds, how the mail is delivered."

In order to "ensure the viability of correspondence in the long term", bpost will group non-urgent mail together from March and post it twice a week, in response to customer expectations. "Today, 80% of the stamps sold are not 'prior' and 20% are. The customer's signal is therefore clear: we want a fifth of the mail urgently", the CEO further emphasizes.

You will have to pay more to benefit from a fast service

Urgent mail, however, will continue to be delivered every day: parcels, newspapers, registered letters, death notices and "prior" letters.

The decision to no longer deliver non-urgent mail on a daily basis was taken in July last year and was normally due to be implemented in 2021. However, the implementation was brought forward to 2020, due to the faster-than-expected decline in mail.

The unions will monitor the project closely. "We must of course evolve, but citizens have the right to maintain full access to the postal service. What we see is that they will have to pay more to benefit from a fast service. And the staff must also maintain their status".

The unions are arguing in particular for mail and parcel deliveries to be kept grouped together. "Otherwise, management will soon create a separate company that will only handle parcels and for which staff will be hired with precarious contracts".

The disappearance of the daily postman's visit is a very sensitive point since it is an obligation that is included in bpost's management contract. However, other countries have already experimented with the future Belgian system. In Italy and the Netherlands, mail delivery has been limited. And in Denmark, non-urgent mail is only delivered once a week.

Surely the tax law must be reachable in other forms like Moniteur Belge publications which are openly public. But it’s still alarming that any public service would operate exclusively. I’m not sure what FisconetPlus is exactly and if it uniquely gives access to any information.

If FisconetPlus is entirely redundant, then it can be scrapped¹. If it’s not entirely redundant, then it’s an injustice that it’s exclusive. People excluded by FisconetPlus probably do not get out of their tax obligation.

¹ Redundancy is good for security reasons, but in the event of an outtage of other services it would be an injustice if FisconetPlus were the sole means of access which is then exclusive. It violates human rights (Universal Declaration of Human Rights art.21¶2).

That article is in French but here is the English machine translation:

PTB demands that FPS Finance stop submitting to Microsoft and protect privacy

Federal MP Marco Van Hees (PTB) believes that FPS Finance should take back the keys to its tax database FisconetPlus. This is in fact in the hands of the multinational Microsoft, which is abusing this situation, as indicated by the Data Protection Authority. "The use of private subcontracting has led to blind submission to a multinational that imposes the violation of privacy for its own interests", denounces Marco Van Hees.

At the beginning of 2018, Marco Van Hees undertook, as he had done for years, to consult FisconetPlus, the tax legislation database of FPS Finance. He then noticed that it was no longer possible to access it without first having opened an account with Microsoft. Initially, the site even mentioned the obligation to have an address from the American multinational: "You will have to enter a Microsoft email address.”

On 28 March 2018, the parliamentarian questioned former Finance Minister Johan Van Overtveldt (N-VA) in the House Finance Committee. He responded that the requirement to enter a Microsoft email address to register was the result of clumsy wording and that "the current homepage, which could be confusing, is currently being rewritten to this effect."

However, he fully justifies the requirement to open an account (regardless of the email address used to do so) with Microsoft in order to access FisconetPlus: "Access to this platform requires the creation of an account. Microsoft prohibits anonymous access to its platform. Creating an account is easy and free.” And the minister adds: "The obligation to create an account is legal"

Spying on users for commercial purposes
No, it is not legal, the Data Protection Authority (the former Commission for the Protection of Privacy) ruled today. In its recommendation 01/2019 of 2 February 2019, the Authority analyses the FisconetPlus procedure in detail by comparing it with the rules on respect for privacy.

It points out that "if the proposed application only concerns the provision of public information that does not contain personal data (such as a database containing legislation), the requirement to create an account to access this information, involving the processing of personal data, is contrary to the principles of data protection by design and data protection by default defined in the GDPR. »

The Authority thus notes that, by default, the multinational applies this setting which demonstrates spying on users: "To display ads better suited to your interests, we will use your browsing, search and other online activity data associated with your Microsoft account. Ads may be less relevant if you deactivate this setting."

After ten pages of analysis, the conclusion of the Data Protection Authority is clear: "The imposition, by public authorities, of the use of a Microsoft account to access an application that only makes public information available and not personal data is contrary to the GDPR."

The Authority adds: "Public services must always guarantee free access to official sources of legislation, without attaching any condition that constitutes an interference with privacy and/or involves risks for the rights and freedoms of the persons concerned. ”

« The excesses of an increasing recourse to private subcontracting by public services »
For Marco Van Hees, « this situation shows the excesses of an increasing recourse to private subcontracting by public services. In the present case, this policy has led to blind submission to a multinational imposing the violation of privacy for its own interests. »

The MP believes in any case that the FPS Finance must comply with this recommendation from the Data Protection Authority as quickly as possible by removing any procedure for registering for a Microsoft account for future users and by deleting Microsoft accounts for those who are already registered. Marco Van Hees will call on the new Minister of Finance, Alexander De Croo, to act in this regard.

During the “legal guarantee” period (which has a default of 2 years in the EU), if an electronic appliance dies or stops conforming to spec consumers have a right to return it to the shop or the manufacturer. That is the consumer’s choice. Shops have an obligation to deal with the defective item on behalf of the consumer.

This is sensible since the shop has a business relationship and communication channel with the supplier. This approach rightfully gets consumers off the hook for shipping costs.

Aldi has a 60 day return policy, which is fine. If you are outside of that (in the range 60 days .. 2 years) you are still legally entitled to return something that breaks. But Aldi simply refuses. The staff are trained and conditioned to refuse any returns older than 60 days.

Just a heads up.. don’t buy anything from Aldi that will bother you if it breaks after 60 days unless you’re fine with tracking down manufacturers (who often ignore consumers in my experience). Consumer protection doesn’t really work in Belgium.

BTW, Aldi is split into 2 companies: Aldi North and Alidi South. IIRC some kind of falling out among owners caused it to split. All Aldi stores in Belgium are Aldi North (the same Aldi that folks should boycott anyway due to Israel ties and shenanigans with concealing the source of food from Israel). It’s quite possible that Aldi South respects EU law in case anyone is reading this from outside Belgium.

I was given some legal advice at one point which basically goes like this (paraphrasing):

You should of course read everything before you sign. But that’s not always possible or convenient and you may at times for various reasons end up signing something on-the-fly without reading it first. You should always make sure you get a copy of what you sign so that in the very least you can later review whatever you are on the hook for.

I adhere to the /keep a copy/ advice to a much greater extent than the /read before you sign/ advice. It’s about knowing your rights and responsibilities. So a bank once demanded that I sign something in order to keep using their service. It was long and in a language I did not know. They basically said I had to sign on the spot and I could not go home with it and bring it back later. I said, okay, but will you make a copy of this for me? Answer (paraphrasing): no, you do not get a copy. That is not our process. He also acted like I was weird for expecting a copy.

So I signed but pulled out phone and started to digitally image it. The banker snatched it away from me faster than I could get it in focus.

My mistake was not photographing first, then signing, then rephotographing with the sig if possible.

That actually happened pre-GDPR. The GDPR possibly accidentally solves this problem because your signature is personal data. OTOH, a clever bank could technically respond to an access request with just the signature portion of the doc and not the rest of the doc because the rest of the doc is not personal data -- correct?

I don’t know if I will encounter this again but I would like to know if there any laws that prevent the bank’s non-transparent practice of blocking people from knowing what they agreed to. Banks often want on-the-spot signatures but I guess I should try to insist on bringing such docs home and returning later.

It’s quite inconvenient though because you can no longer just show up at a bank and get service. Banks have very narrow open hours on just 1-2 days out of the week. Lines to talk to someone are quite long, which makes appointments popular. So popular, that appointments are schedule a month out. So things are organised to exert pressure on people to quickly sign and bounce.

Registered letters have become extortionately costly in Belgium (around €10). So to save money I make hand-deliveries and request recipients sign for it. I have no idea if this ad hoc proof of delivery would meet courtroom standards of evidence. But I’m fine with the risk.

The recipients are not natural people. It’s always companies, orgs, and gov agencies. It mostly works as far as getting the signature. Most receptions treat me like bPost.

But there are exceptions. A gov agency refused to sign for a letter. Since I was not wearing bPost swag, they were alienated and said “we don’t do that… that is not how we work… send an e-mail”. I said “what if I send this by bPost registered letter? Would you accept it or refuse it?” They said they would accept that because I have to pay bPost. That’s bizarre, is it not?

I realise some people are like robots. They want every task to be in their job description. They want everything scripted. And if an unfamiliar request or situation arises, they’re like “nope, can’t do it… that job is not on my list so I cannot handle it”. Because of this, I sometimes have to go through a few people. But in the case at hand 3 different staff independently confidently refused to sign for the letter.

So the question is, is this legal? The sketchy legal theory I am envisioning is that this is kind of like bundling. That is, they are imposing a 3rd-party purchase on their otherwise free reception service. I wonder if anti-competition law can be stretched in this way. So I also wonder if there are any more direct laws that require gov offices and companies to sign for deliveries when asked.

The FOSS app Argos Translate enables people to locally translate their documents without depending on an external service and then hoping their content is not snooped on (while simultaneously hoping to get translation service for free). Argos does okay with quite popular language pairs but it’s really not up to a good standard of quality overall.

The machine learning input into Argos known as “models” are trained on samples of (hopefully manual) translations. The models require huge amounts of data. Apparently the effort to gather large volumes of input leads to grabbing poor quality samples, which ultimately leads to bad translations. To worsen matters, you have a sparse scatter of different projects making their own models. So the effort is decentralised in a detrimental way. End users are then left with having to experiment with different models.

Shouldn’t Académie Française (the French language protection org) have some interest in the public having access to resources that give high-quality translations into French?

Consider that Académie Française members each spend €230k on clothes (yes, that “k” after the number is correct), surely they have money sloshing around to promote French. If playing dress-up is worth €9.2 million (€230k × 40 members), just imagine how much money they must have for their mission of supporting the French language.

It’s hard to get solid info on this. Yes, cheques are very unpopular. But I’m looking for concrete info. Has anyone seen a cheque being used in the past five years (outside of a museum)?

A young banker just told me cheques do not exist. I said “what about cashier’s cheques?” Response: all cheques are gone - non-existent. A banker should know but maybe this young banker is speculating on the basis of never seeing one.

The linked page shows Ing’s fees for cheque processing, which suggests the banker I spoke to may be misinformed. What is a “Circular cheque”? Is that the same as a personal check or is it a banker’s cheque? (edit: possible partial answer)

People were saying cheques are gone 10 years ago, but I know it was misinfo then at least in terms of banker’s cheques. Suppose banker’s cheques are really gone (which was predicted 10 years ago). How are people making a down-payment on a house these days? Electronic transfers are not instant. IIRC even the fastest transfers take hours to execute. A house deal involves the simultaneous exchange of money and signatures at a meeting that could go as quick as 45 minutes. Only a banker’s draft (cheque) can accommodate that. There is a reason why a screenshot of an electronic transfer often has a phrase like “this is not proof of payment”.

One problem I hope a cheque will solve is a creditor is demanding payment and they refuse cash. I refuse to open a bank account just to pay them. bPost has problems. So I’m looking for more options. I wonder if any bank would give a banker’s draft in exchange for cash, and I could perhaps deliver the cheque by hand or by registered mail.

This question is inspired by Belgian law but there is no Belgian law forum and I think it’s likely that Netherlands would have the same problem. So answers w.r.t. Dutch law would be interesting enough.

It’s increasingly common for law to mandate that people give the government their email address in various situations. If someone has no email address, I have to wonder how can they be expected to comply with the law? When the law requires disclosure of information that does not exist, is it implied that we must take necessary steps to make that information come into existence in order to disclose it? Is it implied by that law that we must enter the private marketplace and subscribe to email service, then periodically check our email?

I happen to have email addresses but I refuse to disclose them to users of Micosoft Outlook or Google. That includes government offices because the gov uses MS Outlook and simultaneously does not use PGP. Since my workflow of non-disclosure to MS & Google has ensured that email has the tiniest of roles in my life, it would not be a big step for me to nix email altogether and end my subscriptions. But I need to know if it’s even legal for me to do so.