venerdì 6 marzo 2009

Gag to Internet: politicians and dishonests

Not long ago I wrote to the European Union with the hope of having an answer.

I am very sorry for not being heard as a citizen who is entitled to express their free thought, without someone decides what can be said or not said on the Internet.

Dall'intervista of Alexander the Gilioli sen. D'Alia published on "L'Espresso http://gilioli.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2009/02/10/%C2%ABfacebook-e-youtube-o-obbediscono-o-li-oscuro%C2%BA

Gilioli: I wanted to talk about this amendment: First, explain the purpose and usefulness.

D'Alia: The amendment to Article 50 introduces a security package, which allows the Minister of the Interior, upon notice of the court which is a crime of incitement to criminal defense or offense, gives the Ministry of Interior the power to require that providers of Internet connectivity to use the tools to filter those sites or social network that contain, say, statements and anything else related to these cases of crime.

That is, it's a standard that is used to begin to intervene in the regulation of the Internet and this comes mainly from events that focused on Facebook, the appearance on the social network for groups to inneggianti Riina, Provenzano, the Red Brigades and so on.

And since there is no tool in making an immediate action if it deems such a course of crime, that is, if the judiciary is investigating, the Minister of Interior is involved with a purely precautionary in nature that serve to ensure that there is a proliferation of these sites or illegal these events on the network.

Of course, all this takes place with the possibility of recourse to the court by interested parties, but through a kind of contradictory with the operators of sites to which a notice is served to obscure, or delete those parts which are contrary to the positions mentioned.

A. Gilioli: But, Senator, let me interrupt you.

This claim is made that it is this: I read that right its amendment, no one speaks to cancel the parties, but to obscure the site.

Then they say: if there is a group on facebook that calls for Provenzano rather than other things, the effect of his amendment would delete the page, but obscure the entire site.

D'Alia: But excuse me: If the site does not pay to remove these subjects from the site, it is right that the site is obscured.

The Ministry warns the operator, the operator then has two options: either comply and then delete the site group, or do not comply.

If you do not comply it is an accomplice of those who praise Riina and Provenzano is therefore right that is obscured.

A. Gilioli: In YouTube, for example, there are several videos that may fall, perhaps, within the type that you expressed.

If YouTube does not delete the video is obscured the YouTube?

D'Alia: I will, of course.

A. Gilioli: Yet another case ...

D'Alia: Let me give an example: if one comes out on YouTube video, as it happened, and also there have been several controversies, in which four boys beat their contemporary disabile however, in this case we represent the presence of a crime is not that there is an apology: there is the direct or playing a film in which it is committing a criminal offense is right that a site is maintained?

I think not.

A. Gilioli: Another case: there is a debate online, on sites in the forums.

Among users of the forum may be that there is also that insults or threatens you.

She believes this is a type ...

D'Alia: If someone threatens me, the threat in reality or on the internet is always a crime.

A. Gilioli: Here are another kind: I am allegedly the author of a blog.

Within some of my blog, one of the commentators on my blog, I insult, threat.

I who am the blog master and then I think it is fair to leave my blog open to each entry, including those that threaten me and insult me, do not I hide these items.

Even in this case falls within the type?

D'Alia: Look, cover all those assumptions that are provided under the Criminal Code of the crimes of murder or incitement to disobey the law.

The crimes of apology of crime, which are provided by the Criminal Code or other provisions.

These are all assumptions that are brought to case illegal, who are already punished in the criminal code and that thus need to be sanctioned in all their manifestations.

It is not that changes if I make a stencils to say that Riina ...

A. Gilioli: Excuse me Senator, are we talking about the comments to a blog ...

D'Alia: Well, the comments to a blog is not that different: if in a comment to a blog I would say that the Red Brigades have done well to kill Moro, this is called apology of crime.

What I do on the blog, with a telegram, a card, with a press release does not change:

Always it comes to crime and should be pursued, and should be pursued if the one who makes it complicit publishing these disgraceful, including whether it is an operator of the Internet just be clear.

I think in this way.

A. Gilioli: Senta senator: you are a frequenter of the network?

D'Alia: Yes

A. Gilioli: On facebook there's going?

D'Alia: No, I go on facebook indigna just because I see on that site that you censurino mothers who breastfeed their children because it is considered an aesthetically offensive, unsightly, and then allow the various groups, such as "Homage to Cutolo, who is a relative of pentiti infamous confidants and please do not subscribe to this site dedicated to Cutolo.

I do not go there because this site that censure the mothers, as also correctly says Article 21, and allows these disgraceful is an unworthy, from my point of view.

With all due respect to those who enter.

A. Gilioli: Are you aware that if you close in YouTube and Facebook are Burma worse?

D'Alia: Look, I do not have to close or Facebook or YouTube: I am because Facebook and YouTube respect the victims of the Mafia, terrorism and rapes.

A. Gilioli: And if you do not comply ?

D'Alia: You do not comply can not have respect for the rule.

A. Gilioli: So are closed.

D'Alia: And is evident.


video

The government is preparing to gag Internet

With the safety package approved by the Senate, Berlusconi gives the Minister of Interior the power to close down Internet sites, filtering and fined heavily.

[05-02-2009]http://www.zeusnews.com/index.php3?ar=stampa&cod=9362

Berlusconi had proposed giving a constitution to the Internet world, certainly if the model is what is introducing in Italy is far ahead from the chills.

The safety package just approved by the Senate (still must return to the House) in fact provides that the Ministry may order the dimming of the websites on which commits the offense of apology or instigation to commit crimes. The ministry will request that there be a virus adapted.

The internet provider "disobedient" to pay a penalty from 50 thousand to 250 thousand euros.

In the text of ddl states that: "In case of proven or incitement apology, the Minister has with its interruption of the decree stated, ordering service providers to network connectivity to the Internet to use the appropriate tools filtering required for this purpose by applying financial penalties for breach. "

In practice the government will retain a power that only in totalitarian countries belonging to the police, while in democratic countries can be exercised only by the court and never by the government by administrative means.

The measure was included at the last minute thanks to an amendment by Senator Gianpiero D'Alia (UDC), which takes inspiration from the latest controversy about Facebook Groups in favor of the rapes or the Mafia.

Senator D'Alia commented: "This will give substance to our efforts to clean up the network, and in particular the social network Facebook kinds of emulates Riina, Provenzano, the Br, the rapists of Guidonia and all the other bad examples so far where it was given space irresponsibly. "

Muzzle the Internet, here's what the real purpose.

Perhaps we are not yet to Nazism against which Di Pietro shouts, but certainly fascism began in Italy in a way very similar.


video

Facebook responds to government censorship Italian

The response of the social network to the recent law that allows our government to block any site at will. [12-02-2009]
http://www.zeusnews.com/index.php3?ar=stampa&cod=9428

Block access to Facebook for all the fault of the presence of certain groups is questionable how to close an entire rail network due to some offensive graffiti in a single station: Facebook responds well to the proposal advanced by the government censors Italian.

The problem was born following the discovery of some groups to criminals praising recognized by Riina to the rapists of Guidonia.

The solution?

Put the gag to the Internet regardless of how many use the same instrument for more than lawful purposes.

ISPs, of course, should have been the instrument of censorship, by applying the filters in accordance with the Ministry of Interior, otherwise a fine salt.

It seems that those who sit for Facebook to Rome is the repository - at least for now, until the next fashion - of every wickedness.

Someone should let them see, that the social network is complex because the real world, and that while 433 fans Provenzano there are 369.463 of Falcone and Borsellino.

Senator Gianpiero D'Alia has also sought to correct the roll: not all Facebook is blocked, only the pages involved.

One wonders if the Senator has ever asked what the technical difficulties it would entail for the providers, who could be forced to admit that he can not do as requested.

More time passes, the more it seems that our rulers do not know what the Internet is not how it works.

video
Evidently Rome is not have nothing better to do than try to muzzle the Internet, or if it appears too difficult for obvious technical issues, at least make sure that whoever is found and darkened as desired.

The last, brilliant, tough and smoke - and therefore dangerous - idea is found in the draft law proposed in 2195 by Gabriella Carlucci with the noble aim of "ensuring the protection of legality on the Internet."

The official publication of the text has yet to happen but some parts - especially the second article - are already circulating and receiving considerable attention.

The first paragraph seems explicit: "It is prohibited to make or facilitate entry into the content network in any form (text, sound, audiovisual and computer science, including databases) in an anonymous".

Well, so everything should sign with name and surname? Need a picture? Are banned nickname? Or already anonymity does not exist in practice - because the providers are able to trace with some certainty, from the information contained in the logs (IP addresses, schedules and so on), the authors of certain content - and therefore This paragraph is unnecessary?

For the operators of anonymisation, as Tor or Freenet, it is perhaps ready to take your bags, since they could facilitate the release of content into anonymous ?

The beginning, in short, is bad. The paragraph seems clear, but in reality leaves wide room for interpretation and thus the ability to bend the law at will.

The second paragraph borders on delirium of omnipotence, even going to threaten those who are outside of Italy: "The subject that, even in competition with other operators on the Italian territory, or unidentified or identified, make possible the conduct referred to 1.

We are not responsible - together with those who made the anonymous publications - each and every offense, give or administrative violation caused damage to third parties or the State. "

Who are these individuals is unclear.

Perhaps those who already accept interventions without prior identification - but retain the right IP address - or even those who give pain to register addresses in contravention of, inter alia, to a European standard is not yet in force, or perhaps even the poor managers tor, targeted by the right and missing.

Nor, on the other hand, the providers are equipped to identify each individual act of each individual user in respect of each service used, nor is it clear whether, with this DDL, Ip is sufficient to identify the "guilty".

Since the worst there is no limit, this is the third paragraph, the longer the preceding and following, but we understand only too quickly by reading the first line: "As regards the crimes of defamation apply, without exception, all the rules on the Press. "

Dangerous: the blog read by three friends and ten casual visitors become exactly equal to the Corriere della Sera, the site with pictures of the family is equivalent to the Repubblica, who ignites the forum dell'Olimpo Informatico - as well as evoking a moderator - in danger a good complaint for libel, because everything is "publication", where the wretch ddl collections approving people.

What beautiful, however !

Every webmaster, even manage the website of local polisportiva, will be called Chief. Perhaps it would be agreed to seek advice to English courts, which deal with the case of Royd Tolkien. http://www.zeusnews.com/index.php3?ar=stampa&cod=9262

Certainly commendable that Mrs Carlucci - or for you who made the proposal - both built in doubt, always all'inteno paragraph 3: "If insurmountable technical problems make it impossible to implement certain measures, particularly with respect to right of reply, the Committee for the protection of legality on the Internet (as stated in article 3 of this Act) may be assigned by the competent magistrate of a case such measures could be implemented, however, to give effect to the provisions of the rules force ".

The doubt is easily translates this way: if someone notices that we are ordering the impossible, the court will deal invent something plausible to be done to the Committee for the protection of legality (a name that just makes you feel as urticaria), now that the existing criminal defamation provides precise consequences.

Finally, the fourth paragraph: "In relation to violations relating to standards for the protection of copyright, related rights and Conditional Access Systems to apply without exception to the rules provided by Law 633/41 and subsequent amendments."

That is, in practice the ddl in 2195 is saying that any breaches of copyright, the law on copyright violations. Useless, but unbreakable.

The good thing is that if there was suspicion that Mrs Carlucci - and most of his colleagues - to legislate things that do not know, now it has fallen, turning into certainty.

Understanding the complexity of the network and the number of participants requires effort and a little 'of humility, while the Internet bubble as "wild no man's land" because of criminal-minded groups on Facebook (ignoring everything else) is much simpler and perhaps also to hear more good.

In fact, perhaps, there was a good idea, at least initially, the proposal to abolish anonymity may imply the idea that individual users are to be held accountable for their actions and not - for example - the providers, as from time to time you want to believe. Sin that has been quickly submerged by unspeakable ddl proposals in 2195

video

Senator Gianpiero D'Alia, "you said that those who praise people like Provenzano, Riina, the Red Brigades", it is guilty of Apology of Crime, then I thought of all those characters that are right in what Fini, Alemanno, Silvio Berlusconi, Santanchè, Storace, Mussolini and those of Forza Nuova.

All these are then guilty of Apology to Reato and thus calling for chased away from Parliament, and put in handcuffs for having praise to the Holocaust, squares or Italian armed with sticks and truncheons, seeking confrontation with the police and Silvio Berlusconi that praise by saying that Mangano was a hero.

This is a small part of those who so wish to enforce the laws, but are the first to have violated.

Nessun commento: