Not all banks in all countries do this. One of my banks required me to email my passport, drivers license, and case number to the person I was talking to over the phone in order to prove my identity.
My passport was 1000 miles away. My drivers license was expired (was living in NYC at the time, and not driving). My bank had no physical branches outside of the state of Louisiana.
All of this after answering the security question, and providing my SSN. How I eventually was able to re-enable my account was calling a friend who worked in the mortgage department to have my account reset. If I didn't have a friend at the bank, I wouldn't have been able to reset my account without flying either back to NYC or having a family member drive me from Texas to Louisiana.
The BBC has edited the article and the line I quoted I can no longer find. I was pretty sure that particular person the quote was from was described as living in the US (as is another one of the examples in the article).
One of the other individuals in the article lives in Saudi Arabia, which has a very highly developed banking system.
"The 2 May 2023, 6 months later, the regulation started applying and the potential gatekeepers had 2 months to report to the commission to be identified as gatekeepers. This process would take up to 45 days and after being identified as gatekeepers, they would have 6 months to come into compliance, at the latest the 6 March 2024.[8][32] From 7 March 2024, gatekeepers must comply with the DMA. [33]"
Yeah but that's not THE apple review that everyone complains about online. Notarization is a faster process. I know because I did it on my personal project without submitting it to the app store.
And it's notarized and can be used on other people's computers.
My name contains Ø, and im guessing i would not be able to enter that with your method. I would consider that mangling my name if i had to write o or oe.
This kind of thinking is how your users end up getting emails from your buggy service like "Hello Østein & friends, ..." and your JSON API consumers encounter the same silly output.
Don't escape input. Escape based on output. Escaping doesn't mean anything until you've also specified an output format. It's not always HTML.
You are grossly misrepresenting my post, I have said nothing about whether the escaping should be applied to input or output, please edit or delete your comment.
If someone criticised Jesus Christ in their podcast (for example), they would be putting Liberapay at risk. I don't believe Liberapay would allow that, so they'd just ban the user. That's what makes Liberapay a risky option.
That's quite different from "free speech is not considered". Every country has free speech exceptions: for example, in the USA "there are several common-law exceptions, including obscenity,defamation,incitement to riot or imminent lawless action,fighting words,fraud, speech covered by copyright, and speech integral to criminal conduct"
In th EU:
> The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union has been legally binding since December 1, 2009 when the Treaty of Lisbon became fully ratified and effective. Article 11 of the Charter, in part mirroring the language of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, provides that
> 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
> 2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected. The European Court of Justice takes into account both the Charter and the Convention when making its rulings. According to the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Union accedes to the European Convention as an entity in its own right, making the Convention binding not only on the governments of the member states but also on the supranational institutions of the EU.
So, is speech in USA "freer" than in the EU? Yes. But in both cases free speech is recognized as a right.
Article 67 states: "Citizens are guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, demonstration and association. The State shall guarantee conditions for the free activity of democratic political parties and social organizations."
That podcaster might be ordered to cease the blasphemy, and if they don't comply their website might be blocked, but I don't think that puts Liberapay at risk if they don't operate as a publishing platform but only handle payments. That woman didn't lose her bank account, did she?
While many EU countries duo have blasphemy laws, they're almost never enforced. They're laws that the majority of people find ridiculous and would be quickly removed if anyone started to actually enforce them. If Liberapay did block someone for blasphemy without being legally compelled, they'd likely face a huge backlash themselves. If they were legally compelled the law would soon be changed.
The charge was blasphemy, or, in the words used in the article: "disparagement of religious precepts". It could not be defamation because there is plenty of evidence that Muhammad did marry and have sex with a child. That was not doubted even within the Muslim community until it became a source of controversy in modern times.
With Ireland's recent repeal, it seems there are now only 17 European countries with blasphemy laws, including Austria, where this case happened:
> Andorra, Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy, Liechtenstein, Poland, Portugal, the Russian Federation, San Marino, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland and Scotland) and the Vatican City. This list excluded countries like Belgium and Luxembourg, which provide narrower provisions for insulting the objects of a religion in places of worship or public ceremonies.
Well, it seems my understanding of the word blasphemy is not the commonly used: I was considering only "lack of reverence to a deity", while "insulting or showing contempt" to the practice is also considered blasphemy.
Specifically, it covers disparagement and mockery of religions and traditions if it is likely to cause justified anger. That leaves a lot open to interpretation (when is anger justified?) but it seems clearly aimed at blasphemy.
