Basically, if a website is deemed be illegal, a notification is sent to browser makers and to the website owner.
The website owner has 5 days to answer and defend themselves.
Browser makers are forced (as a cautionary measure) to make the browser display a warning upon browsing this website for 7 days following the initial notification. The warning should detail the danger of visiting this website.
If at any point the investigation deems the website is not doing illegal stuff, browser makers are sent another notification telling them to remove the warning.
If the investigation deems the website to be illegal, browser makers will have to block access to this website for 6 months.
If at any point the website is not doing illegal stuff anymore, the block will be removed.
Where I used "illegal" here I actually mean that the website is doing one of these things (explicitly written in the law/referenced laws):
- Identity Theft
- Illegally collecting personal data or using it in a illegal way
- Accessing or maintaining access to a restricted system (basically hacking)
- Collecting, giving access, or making tools that allow fraudulent payment.
If the owner of the website starts a complaint and starts defending themselves, all blocks are suspended for the duration of the procedure.
What I think of it :
It seems to be actually well intentioned given the restricted aim of what is an "illegal" website, it's not about piracy or anything. What is written in the law is really and exactly about websites that harm their users.
The only problem would be if this law gets more edits and starts including other types of infractions