Italian MEP Wants To Eliminate Anonymity On the Internet 223
m94mni writes "The European Parliament wants to monitor your Internet searches for child porn offenders, as previously reported. The declaration was adopted yesterday, and in an interview with the Swedish news outlet Europaportalen.se, the Italian MEP behind the declaration, Tiziano Motti, shares his views on the Internet and anonymity. In essence, Motti wants to completely eliminate anonymity on the Internet. 'Each upload of text, images, or video clips must be traceable by the authorities', says Motti. This is in line with the secretive UN initiative Q6/17, revealed two years ago." The doublespeak here seems to go beyond the imprecision of automated translation.
GNAA RULEZ! (Score:5, Funny)
This troll was not posted anonymously in order to comply with regulations in Italy.
Dirty Move (Score:2)
Re:Dirty Move (Score:5, Insightful)
At least as low as the people who have used DWIs/gun-violence/terrorism/boobies/other-boogiemen-of-the-day to infringe on our rights?
Re: (Score:2)
You think it's a good thing that people operate machinery weighting over a ton, moving at speeds up to 100mph while severely lacking both coordination and judgment?
Re: (Score:2)
So, um, you want to raise the minimum age for getting a driver's license to at least 20?
Lower the drinking age, raise the driving age (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Dirty Move (Score:5, Informative)
Of course it's not a good idea to operate a ton or more of equipment while incapacitated. Only a moron would think it's a good idea.
But, the fact that some people are morons does not justify setting up roadblocks to question every passerby who happens by. Nor does it justify sitting at the nearest watering hole, waiting for people to exit and drive home, then pull everyone over. Nor, does it justify today's blood alcohol limits, which are unreasonable.
When I first got my commercial driver's license in the '80's, the department of transportation still had regulations that said a driver could drink a drink with his dinner. Not get drunk, not drink a sixpack, not drink a 5th - he could have a drink with his dinner. The brewery in Frankenmuth Michigan had free beer in the driver's room, for the drivers to sample. You could drink one or two, and still be sober.
Today, if you sniff a bottle cap, you're legally intoxicated. That's bullshit, plain and simple.
The laws for non-commercial drivers are lagging behind those for commercial drivers, but they are following right along. I've seen that "open container" law applied to people picking up aluminum cans along the roadway. FFS, the laws should at least be SANE!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man. We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Hmm.. while I agree in principal that your statement applies to almost any government, I'm curious to understand why you single out the US gov., when there are many more egregious governments out there. Aside from the obvious target that our government makes by its size, the Gov. of N. Korea essentially holds its populous in slavery and actively seeks to develop nuclear weapons and promotes subversion, same as Iran. The Republic of the Congo and other governmental bodies of various N. Africa nations murders
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If only they would take away the right to drive petrol powered vehicles. Many lives would be saved.
Re:GNAA RULEZ! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:GNAA RULEZ! (Score:5, Insightful)
what if....
what if you've got a 'speed' up plugin for your browser that spiders and preloads loads of stuff, there could easily be links to all kinds of stuff and it would/could look like your browsing, and the files will be stored and cached on your computer.
and anyone not wanting to get caught will use one of the many ways of proxying yourself, or a public connection, or a hacked connection / proxy.
gees, some one needs to give the people that run the world an education, or at least pass a law making it a requirement that all laws are run by several experts, hobbyist and professionals in the field for the obvious and not so obvious errors and pointlessness or even counter productiveness of the legislation being passed. Maybe even run a few fake trials based on the legislation and see what kind of prosecution vs defense comes up.
I would expect that the defense side have an open forum so that anyone can contribute and discuss the prosecution and so aid the defense, we want our laws to be as good as possible and waste as little time as possible. And we want as few of them as possible.
Time spent making them in the first place is time and money saved later down the line, and it would also give some people a little 'respect' in the only profession that comes lower than lawyers and bankers when it comes to honor and decency.
Re:GNAA RULEZ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The issue is not the current directive (which is bad enough as it is, though... Would you like to have the same kind of registration of regular mail?) but the Written Declaration that mr Motti authored, and which was adopted by the Parliament on Thursday.
The Written Declaration calls for an extension of the Directive to search engines in order to combat 'pedophiles' and child abuse. In the interview linked, he states that this was unintentional, but that 'everyone knows what a search engine is, but no one k
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So apparently he wants every 'content provider', which from my reading seems to be the same as 'hosting platform', or basically, anywhere you can upload content, to retain information about the uploader and make this information available to the 'proper authorities'.
Since i have zero control on what a "content provider" logs right now, I assume that they are logging all this information right now. How exactly can we assume that a web site *isn't* logging your details when posting/uploading content?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:GNAA RULEZ! (Score:4, Insightful)
> Are you sure of the age of *every* picture in your porn collection? For each picture can you direct an investigator to the appropriate Custodian
> of Records? And are you sure the model didn't lie about their age to get the gig?
Well, why wouldn't you assume that to be the case. Afterall, I am sure that there has never been a well known public case of a girl who was a porn star underage, and then whose real age came out. Never! [wikipedia.org] Ever! [wikipedia.org]
You don't even need an internet connection to end up with "Child Porn" and not even realize it, its been happening for years.
-Steve
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
As far as I can see the directive would require ISPs to record what sites I visit, not what I do on them. Isn’t this what they already do?
No, ISPs do not record what sites you visit. At least none that I know of (and I work in the industry). Why would they ? It would be outrageously expensive, for no gain.
Isn’t that information already available following a warrant anyway?
Well no, as ISPs do not record what sites you visit. They can put a tap on your line after a warrant though (Lawful Intercept
Re: (Score:2)
No, ISPs do not record what sites you visit. At least none that I know of (and I work in the industry). Why would they ?
Because they are required to do so?
I don't know about the rest of the EU, but the Danish implementation of the directive requires ISPs to record what sites I visit.
I don't know if this is one of the requirements that are voluntary for the member states to implement, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:GNAA RULEZ! (Score:5, Funny)
Anonymous Coward
I think you might have missed something.
"Think of the children" (Score:5, Insightful)
"And hand over all your freedom"
Why does that work?
Re: (Score:2)
Why does that work?
Because legislators never limit "think of the children" laws to just cases involving children.
It's an easy fix, but it never happens.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One problem is that it's not an easy fix. E.g. if a list of all connections you make is recorded for "child protection" then what happens when there's a murder investigation? They, quite rightly, get a warrant which lets them look at the pre-existing data. They have a right to look at anything which they know of and which is likely to help them.
The real problem is that once that mechanism exists it is used for private lawsuits and is abused for tracking down dissidents in repressive countries (which mi
Slashdot="the children" (Score:2)
When they say "think of the children", they are talking about us. The problem is these laws don't protect the children, they protect profits of the businesses and industries they run at the expense of the "children." The "children" will be punished for downloading mp3s and DVD movies that they probably couldn't afford because they are college students.
Rather than hiring the "children" these businesses and corporations would rather sue the "children" who already are in debt to loan companies, banks, credit c
Re:"Think of the children" (Score:5, Insightful)
The Internet and communication technologies in general threaten power. Don't be surprised if power tries to protect itself.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It does not suffice to be an emotional creature! (I hate to say it, but only on a geek site...;)
It also requires people to not be dominant but passive. Meaning they don’t check anything for themselves and hence have to buy into the reality of others.
It is my opinion that modern social engineering was used to make people that passive. And that it was intentional, even if it was done unconsciously. But the bad food definitely and feeling of powerlessness in our way too large communities helped in making
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But because they are the majority, they will always represent a deadly threat. Anyone who has their ear can sway enough of them to cause serious trouble.
And we see this happening all the time. Did it not happen in Bosnia with the ethnic strife there in the recent pas
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"will be automatically thrown out and the submitter of the proposal shall be summarily defenestrated."
and on the second offense we don't open it and use a 4th story one.
Hitler was real at least. (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if Hitler was 60+ years ago, he actually did try to take over the world. The talk about the pedophile elite on the other hand, what evidence do they have that this pedophile elite even exists? And even if it does exist somewhere, it's probably not going to be in the sort of numbers that would require this level of surveillance.
I know there are pedophiles, rapists, and generally sick individuals in the world. But most estimates are that it's less than 5% of the population. Even in prison it's less than
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
talk about the pedophile elite on the other hand, what evidence do they have that this pedophile elite even exists?
It's called the Catholic Church's program of relocating child molesting priests, heard of it? In fact the pope has been implicated in having personally been involved in relocating molesters. How much more elite does it get?
The law gets tweaked for political reasons, think of the drug laws which were tweaked in the 80s and resulted in over a million prisoners in the USA.
I think you mean "Economic reasons". Or did we not notice the coincidence of prison privatization?
There might be a few elite pedophiles but there is no "pedophile elite." There is a difference. And the Prison Industrial Complex I see in the same way and light as I see racial slavery. It's no accident that most of the millions of prisoners are black and brown. This is just a way to make people work for free in a prison type camp.
Emotion is not behind "Think of the children" (Score:3, Interesting)
Logic and reason are behind "think of the children." It's really "think of the profit losses." The corporations that cannot make a profit off the internet have decided to fundamentally change the nature of the internet itself to rig the game. When album sales aren't good they never think that maybe album sales drop when the economy is bad. They never take note of the fact that when the economy is doing good the album and movie sales rise. They only look at the internet as something they cannot control and t
Re: (Score:2)
And the fact that most people are stupid and cant fully understand what they are supporting even on a good day.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because humans are emotional creatures and threatening children evokes an immediate emotional response. It makes people act. And this action is not necessarily taken after the appropriate amount of thought and discussion. In fact, if you get people worked up enough, they won't be able to think at all and will have no choice but to follow your directions. The Internet and communication technologies in general threaten power. Don't be surprised if power tries to protect itself.
You are right: governments actually hate the Internet. We are at a stage that we simply can say, "go away government; we don't need you anymore."
Think about it. Today's level of hyper-connectivity can allow *ordinary citizens* to directly participate in everything the government normally does for (or TO) them.
Expect a nasty fight in the coming years and decades, as governments become increasingly more and more irrelevant -- and your average Joe finally starts to wake up and realize this.
Re: (Score:2)
Because we already handed it over to google and they're not protecting anything.
Re:"Think of the children" (Score:5, Insightful)
1.Add tech 2.Add prisons 3. Hire cops.4.Tweak laws (Score:2)
It's always done in this order. First you create the surveillance technology so you can see everything everyone does at all times. Then you build the prisons in secret and claim they are just for "terrorists", or "pedophiles" or the "jews" or whomever. Then you hire the cops, lots and lots of cops.
Now that you have lots of surveillance, lots of prison space, and lots of cops, the final move is to tweak the laws so that you can fill the prisons with criminals. It works 100% of the time in any society. Hitler
Re:"Think of the children" (Score:5, Insightful)
When Google does it, lawmakers see it as an evil corporation infringing civil liberties.
When those same lawmakers (Steve Conroy, yes you) do it it's seen as protecting one's constituents. No apparent hypocrisy here...
I, for one, don't welcome our democratically elected totalitarian overlords. There's a slippery slope between "protecting the children" and spying on one's own citizens for political and religious reasons (family values, banning facebook/youtube because of Mohammed, silencing minorities like the Yugur, Dirty War in Argentina etc)
Intelligence organizations already have enough powers post 9/11, no?
Given its author,political careers should end with (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Your alluded-to attribution is incorrect. That quote comes from an essay by Rabbi Lapin:
http://www.aapsonline.org/brochures/lapin.htm [aapsonline.org]
Re:"Think of the children" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the parts of the mind that deal with high-level abstraction and long-term planning ride on top of the instinctive, reactive parts [wikipedia.org]. This means that there's a subsystem in most people's minds where any perceived threat to a child causes a flood of adrenaline and a frenzy of action.
This is also the reason why people eat themselves fat, and why they engage in irrational behaviour in general. Obesity, ethnic cleansing, etc - it's the cockroach in you ge
Re: (Score:2)
Why does that work?
It works because about half the population is dumber than the average person.
Re: (Score:2)
You are the "child" and they are the "parent." (Score:2)
And as children they have to monitor everything you see, because we can't have the children accessing the wrong kind of information can we?
Lets face it these types of laws don't work and aren't mean to work. In fact the unintended consequences of logging every upload based on IP address is that the smart hackers who happen to also be dealing in child porn will start using their botnets to trade child porn. There is no amount of laws that can prevent a worm from infecting millions of computers and using thos
US, Indonesia too (Score:2)
This is not just limited to Europe, governments want control of you and the internet and everything they else they can. And when you have lost Constitutional protections (US) all you need is 51% of the people to say it is a good idea:
US last week:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/15/epidemic-growth-of-net-porn-cited/ [washingtontimes.com]
http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-bill-gives-obama-kill-switch-to-shut-down-the-internet.html [prisonplanet.com]
Indonesia, June 15, 2010:
http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-49317620100615 [reuters.com]
for "child porn"... (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, It's the best excuse [youtube.com]...
Fighting child porn justifies anything (Score:5, Insightful)
It is a sad state of our societies that child pornography can be invoked to justify absurd and highly unethical changes that would infringe of fundamental rights. It is almost certain that these would fail to successfully deter those seeking child porn but conveniently would be easy to use by the police and political system to silence dissent.
But I'm sure that fact is just a coincedence...
Re: (Score:2)
No, no, no. Just like the Patriot Act [wikipedia.org] and its intended purposes, this would only be used to pursue child pornographers.
Right?
Re:Fighting child porn justifies anything (Score:4, Insightful)
Silly me. I forgot that our 'elected' officials have the good of the public in mind when extremely broad and unaccountable legislation to combat a problem that already consumes a vastly disproportionate amount of resources to its frequency and severity. It is a good thing that our public servants are so incorruptable and service oriented that they would take care of us like this.
Well I guess my concerns are completely unfounded, thanks for reassuring me.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a sad state of our societies that child pornography can be invoked to justify absurd and highly unethical changes that would infringe of fundamental rights.
Plus it's stupid politics. Had he said "We need to eliminate anonymity on the internet so... uh... you can find who you want on facebook and twitter and invite them to your farmville," everyone who was saying it was a bad idea would be drowned out in a sea of twitter posts and escaped cows.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because WE declare it so... That is all that is required..
Who is we? (Score:4, Insightful)
It is pretty amazing but not suprising just how misguided the above poster is.
It is indeed a very a good question asked by the gp, where does it say anonymity on the net is a fundamental right.
Because WE declare it so? Who is this WE? Because part of "WE" seems to want this anonymity to end.
Entitlement only works if you are willing to fight for your entitlements. Not just shout very loudly about them on some nerd forum.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Because WE declare it so... That is all that is required.
Well, apparently there are a LOT of politicians & bureaucrats that don't believe people are smart enough to decide what their country & government should be like, and even get "irritated" to the point of public assault when someone asks them a simple question on their stance on issues & policies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ru2VLANgPHs [youtube.com]
I wouldn't count on government officials with attitudes like that regarding the people they represent to
Re:Fighting child porn justifies anything (Score:5, Interesting)
Rule of thumb: take out "on the internet" when you're discussing civil rights (or ... well, anything, really.) In other words, the question is not "is anonymity on the internet a fundamental right?" but simply "is anonymity a fundamental right?" And the answer of history is "yes, it is." From the run-up to the American Revolution to samizdat in the USSR, the cause of freedom has always been better served when those who would be persecuted for speaking out can keep their identities secret from the persecutors.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, anonymity itself is a different discussion, but let's assume that it is a fundamental right. The right to anonymity does not imply that every possible forum of speech must have a provision for anonymity. It doesn't mean that the internet must have anonymity.
But, while writing this, I just had another thought. If anonymity were a right, how would it be expressed legally? As I said, you couldn't just make it legally mandatory to facilitate anonymity everywhere. It would be ineffective to ban laws that o
Re:Fighting child porn justifies anything (Score:5, Insightful)
The right to anonymity does not imply that every possible forum of speech must have a provision for anonymity.
No "provision for anonymity" is necessary; all that is necessary to preserve the right is not to actively take it away. Nor is it necessary to "make it legally mandatory to facilitate anonymity everywhere" -- what an absurd strawman. Just don't interfere with it, and it will facilitate itself just fine, as it's currently doing.
And if it's a right, then it's a right everywhere. That is one of the main differences between rights and priveleges.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh come on. Did you even read my comment? I never claimed that was anybody's position, and I made it very clear that it was absurd. I was just trying to figure out how to enforce anonymity.
I suppose you also didn't read the second paragraph, where I point out that the "just don't interfere with it" approach is legally quite weak. For example, would requiring passports at airports be in violation of that right? Or requiring you to produce ID when applying for a drivers licence? Clearly
Re:Fighting child porn justifies anything (Score:5, Insightful)
No anonymity means no whistleblowers.
No anonymity means retaliation against critics.
No anonymity means no privacy for personal choices.
No anonymity means arguments will be judged by their poster rather than their content.
No anonymity means oppresive regimes can identify disidents.
The government does not have a right to monitor my every action in the real world or online. I don't have anything 'to hide', but I don't see why some bureacrat ought to have a record of which political party I discuss online, what flavour of porn I view, who my friends that I chat with are, which diseases I'm reading up on, how much time I spend on ebay, or if I am looking up information on euthanasia. All those are valid and legal activities (assuming said porn isn't child porn) that I have no desire to share with the world. Why not start implanting everyone with GPS tracking devices so that we can monitor anytime an adult nears a child to prevent pedophilia. It is an outrageous affront to our personal privacy and constitutional rights (in most countries).
Specifically this proposed bill violates articles 13 (personal liberty is inviolable), 15 (freedom and confidentiality of communication), and 21 (freedom of speech, writing, and communication). Arguably it also violates the underlying principles of articles 14 (the home is inviolable), 17 (right of peaceful assembly), and 18 (right to form associations).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a European law so it doesn't in fact violate any of our legal rights. The right to privacy in Europe is " subject to certain restrictions that are in accordance with law and necessary in a democratic society" which the courts are then free to interpret how they wish. The right to free expression is also subject to that limitation.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the right to speak freely is a fundamental right, and you cannot always (in law or in fact) always speak freely if you cannot sometimes speak anonymously.
It is, of course, on the reader to judge the reliability of anonymous or pseudonymous information. But that certainly does not mean that anonymous or pseudonymous speech should be prohibited altogether. What if it's not even the government prohibiting your speech? What if your employer, family, what have you, would not like what you're saying or do
Crying wolf (Score:5, Insightful)
If they keep this up, it's going to dilute honest, real efforts to fight child pornography because people will be conditioned to equate "child pornography" with "government power grab".
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Governments are only going to get so much mileage out of crying wolf by invoking "Because...well...BECAUSE...CHILD PORNOGRAPHY".
If they keep this up, it's going to dilute honest, real efforts to fight child pornography because people will be conditioned to equate "child pornography" with "government power grab".
I really wish I could share your optimism, but I seriously doubt that will happen.
Even if they do run out of the ability to initiate it at the legislative level, there's always the option to astroturf a community of "concerned parents who really'd like it if you'd think about the children and consider signing this petition to make the internet "safe again" by making sure that anyone who traipses onto any site deemed inappropriate, by any means, will be shot." And it'll work, because child porn really is one
Re: (Score:2)
No thought crime in my society, thank you, and I'm not the only one who thinks so. I am one of the few who will say so, because of the hysteria surrounding the issue. But please do not presume to speak for "pretty much everyone", because you don't.
Would I like it not to exist? Sure, given the choice, I'd prefer it didn't
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If they keep this up, it's going to dilute honest, real efforts to fight child pornography because people will be conditioned to equate "child pornography" with "government power grab".
It's already been diluted beyond recognition. The original intent behind child pornography laws was to try and cut off the market for pictures and videos of children engaged in sex acts. Now there is virtually no market to speak of, and thousands of people each year are arrested for simple possession without having engaged in any financial transaction to buy the stuff. Not to mention the teenagers being arrested for taking pictures of themselves in the mirror. And the penalties are completely out of lin
Re: (Score:2)
If you think that 30% or 40% of the population wouldn't have something ABOUT that intelligent to say....
Your low level of pessimism implies you haven't been paying close attention lately, but with your ./ UID, I'd say you still have a chance to develop a suitable level someday. :-)
You give "people" too much credit.
Indeed. From the mouth of babes....
Oh yeah, GET OFF MY LAWN! (obligatory here) ;-)
BTW, please apply a 'Good natured ribbing' filter to the above comment. :-)
For the record, I do agree with you, with the exception of your(IMHO) overly optimistic estimates.
Will they let us see ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Will they let us see everything that politicians do?
Or is this surveillance all one-way?
Remember "The ID Monster" (Forbidden Planet,1956)? (Score:2)
Too late! (Score:2)
Quid Pro Quo (Score:2)
I want all politicians to be publicly executed if they show even the slightest malfeasance or corruption.
How about the Italians implement what I want, then we can talk about implementing what they want.
It sounds like he's Berlusconi's bitch... (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically Berlusconi via a proxy, Motti, is using a classic "Think of the children..." argument in order to convince people of the need to remove anonymity from the internet when really he wants to eliminate anonymity to be able to track down political adversaries. It's classic misdirection. I'm just surprised that he thinks the rest of the world does not see through his ruse, but then again, like Putin, he is a very arrogant man accustomed to acquiescence.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically Berlusconi via a proxy, Motti, is using a classic "Think of the children..." argument in order to convince people of the need to remove anonymity from the internet when really he wants to eliminate anonymity to be able to track down political adversaries.
"Track down political adversaries"?? What the hell is that supposed to mean? There are parties, and newspapers, and trade unions, and countless public personalities that daily denounce Berlusconi as the devil's incarnation, and you seriously think he's drafting elaborate plans to find out the real identity and whereabouts of the freedom fighter who wrote "belrusconi scemo!!!11!" under the pen name of goku92 on a videogames forum?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yep, a little background is probably needed. Lately the italian government has been subject of a much more intense scrutiny from journalists not lined up to the "official truth" and private individuals, due to the reluctance from the main opposition to act (or, more probably, acquiescence to the situation) and the complete subservience of television news services.
This has ended up in some scandals for Berlusconi even more embarrassing than the usual,even for a guy that has been found guilty of Mafia connec
The need for a scapegoat (Score:5, Interesting)
"Child pornography" is the current excuse for oppression in the US. "Communist infiltration" stopped being a serious concern around 1975 or so. Terrorism has been slow lately. Militant Islam isn't getting any significant traction in the US. (Some European countries have real problems there, but the US doesn't seem to.) The "war on drugs" had a good run, but it's turning into a real war in Mexican border cities, and that focuses attention on real problems, not rhetoric.
The excuse has to be for something that doesn't have complaining parties who want their cases solved. Where law enforcement has to deal with victims who report crimes, law enforcement performance is measured by the percentage of crimes solved. This keeps cops focused, and they don't get to set their own agenda.
It's significant that the FBI's "child pornography" enforcement operation hasn't been involved in the Catholic child abuse scandals. There don't seem to have been any cases where the FBI actually caught a priest abusing a child. Yet, given the statistics, that's an obvious place to look.
Note what we don't have. There's no "war on financial fraud". There's no "war on tax cheats". There's no "war on polluters". There's no "war on employers of underage kids".
Re: (Score:2)
Fascism is adaptive. It uses different excuse for different people. "Terrorists" and "child porn" are the usual ones - they work on most people, but most Slashdotters will see through them.
But there are other excuses for fascism that do work here. There is a "war on polluters", and just as the war on child porn has very little to do with helping children, the war on pollution ("climate change") has little to do with saving the planet and everything to do with more government control and more power for the c
Including his own? (Score:2)
These polycritters react very differently when it's *their* privacy being examined. Is he thus giving any interested parties free reign to examine all the skeletons in his closet?
It's always the same line "because we want protect the children". Yeah, yeah sure you do.
Stop Thinking about the Children (Score:4, Funny)
This is targetted at Tor, I2P and Freenet (Score:4, Insightful)
...and certain sites like Wikileaks, which uses its own private Tor-based network.
So right now we have the USA crying over "national security" and Italy weeping for the children. That covers the "Terrorism" and "Child Porn" buzzwords. Soon we will learn that drug lords and illegal immigrants use the Internet, too...
Politics and high tech don't mix. (Score:2)
It's clear that they've been watching too many movies where the CIA/NSA/FBI/Mossad/MI5/MI6/[insert other security service here] have their massive database at their fingertips and can track everything that's happening on their network. They've seen too many movies where Kevin Costner/Mel Gibson/Tom Hanks/Meg Ryan/Matthew Broderick/[insert other actor here] hacks into the security serv
Yeah, and I want gravity to go away... (Score:2)
And ride my new pony! That doesn’t sound as bad, except that it’s 300 FEET TALL and COVERED IN CHAINSAWS!
Ain’t gonna happen. Ever!
LOL (Score:2, Insightful)
So yeah, right, war against the pedos... When the government of Berlusconi, of all people, says it, it's a lie.
That man likes himself some barely legal girls in parties, and while nothing confirms he goes with actual minors, suspicions have been raised.
Of course we'll never know if it's true, or if the denied claims are the effect of his political power.
Shame this wonderful tool can't be used against politics by the citizens (politicians who like dirty play *will* abuse it for sure against rivals).
I bet man
Stupid politicians! (Score:2)
Not long ago Sweden enacted some laws designed to make it easier to find and identify file sharers. While I see nothing wrong with this in principle (let's face it: most file sharers share stuff they shouldn't...), the discussion before the laws were enacted made it abundantly clear that the people weren't going to take this without counter-ac
Just in case (Score:2)
Just in case this rediculous idea would make it against all odds into a proper law: I predict already now that there will be an exception for politicans! ;-)
I Call BS (Score:2)
Oh, sure, he said it. But I doubt anyone who can manage to get taken seriously due to knowledge of the subject can believe such crap. I think he just wants to get seen saying this, for PR points. My money says he's already assured his compatriots there will be special dispensations of anonymous accounts available to them. Yeah, so they can 'carry out their duties'.
Otherwise, let it begin here. Let's see everything made public that is sent or received by any member or associate of Italian government, public
Fuck this guy. (Score:4, Interesting)
...Also, while we're at it - I wish there was a way to eliminate form office any politicians who uses any of the following rhetoric:
"think of the children"
"if you don't have anything to hide, then there's no reason to worry about monitoring/spying/us analraping your privacy"
"the constitution* was written over 200 years ago, it's no longer valid for our times." (*if we're talking about non-US entities, then change that to whatever law/document/convention gives people their rights).
This isn't about the children at all....The goal is the same as it's always been, regardless of the argument: Control. They want control, they don;t like people being able to anonymously share information and organize - and if I were them, trying to do a lot of the things these people are doing, I would feel the same way - because they're basically criminals - they want to manipulate us out of our freedoms and protections with scare tactics.
In this day and age people should be educated enough about history to recognize these ploys and know what they mean..Unfortunately (particuarly in the US) the majority aren't.
Translation of article (Score:3, Informative)
Original article [europaportalen.se] from europaportalen.se
Headline: "I do not want to save Google searches"
Caption: Tiziano Motti now says he does not want to save Google searches. Photo: European Parliament
Italian Tiziano Motti, who was behind the proposal to save searches on Google says he has been misunderstood. Yesterday, his proposal got a majority in the European Parliament.
"It's not the colour of the cat that matters; it's that the cat catches the mouse. And I'm the cat."
This is how Tiziano Motti presented himself in an Italian TV programme when he was a candidate in the EP elections last year. He was a private entrepreneur without a political party who travelled around in north-east Italy and met young people to get their votes with the slogan: "Vote for me – I'm like you".
The campaign was successful. In just a few months, Motti succeeded in getting enough support for a Christian democratic party to "adopt" him three days before the lists of candidates were to be published, and in the election, he defeated the region's incumbent MEP.
Motti did not do his campaigning in marketplaces or party meetings. Instead, he went to night clubs, where he often stayed until six in the morning. "You have to be where the young people are, and they're at the discos. On on the Net", says Tiziano Motti.
He has a tan, a flawless smile, wears a jacket and jeans, which is unusual for a MEP, especially an Italian one. The election campaign is not the only connection to the Net in Tiziano Motti's case. He is the author of the high-profile proposal to expand the controversial data retention directive to include search engines as part of the fight against child pornography. "Another step on the way to a surveillance society!", critics say.
After Europaportalen wrote about Motti's proposal [europaportalen.se] a few weeks ago, a few MEPs started to withdraw their support [europaportalen.se]. They had not understood what they had signed, since the data retention directive was not mentioned in the proposal. Only the technical identifier, 2006/24/EC, was mentioned. Cecilia Wikström (Liberal People's Party, Sweden) sent a letter to alla 736 MEPs, warning them.
Tiziano Motti is aware of the Swedish debate. He feels it is unfair, but is not surprised. "I expected these reactions. Every time one discusses data retention and the Internet, it's like two worlds colliding: one that wants broad freedoms on the Internet and another that is of the opinion that the right not to be violated on the Net is very important.
And a defender of rights is what Tiziano Motti considers himself to be. He is the founder of the Europe of Rights movement with more than 100 000 members in Italy. Among the honorary members are several MPs, mostly from Silvio Berlusconi's party The People of Freedom. The movement aims to protect ordinary citizens' freedoms and rights.
How does the defence of citizens' rights go together with storing everyone's Google searches? "It doesn't", says Tiziano Motti.
He does not want to save all searches on the Net. "The proposal is actually about so-called 'content providers'; the people who let you put material on the Internet, such as Facebook, Youtube or blogging tools. They are the ones who should retain IP numbers, just like ISPs must do today according to the data retention directive.", he says.
Motti says that the debate is built on a misunderstanding of his initiative. However, the text [smile29.eu] is clear: "The European Parliament [...] Asks the Council and the Commission to implement Directive 2006/24/EC and extend it to search engines in order to tackle online child pornography and sex offending rapidly and effectively".
Why, then, did you write 'search engines' instead of 'content providers'? "I did t
Fascism... (Score:3, Insightful)
At its finest. Citizens need no anonymity or privacy from their government, if they aren't doing anything wrong. And those that speak out and complain need to be investigated more closely as they are a threat to the stability of their government.
some additional info (Score:4, Insightful)
One of the MEPs who started this initiative Mr Motti is an interesting figure. After the vote on the Telecoms package - one of the MEPs who initiated this topic - Mr Motti already foreshadowed his intentions:
Also notable is, how much he is is interested in anonymity and blogs:
In another speech Mr Motti also addressed freedom of speech in Italy, i guess this points in the same direction like what is happening currently in Italy regarding google.
On an ironic side note Mr Motti also seems to be highly interested in setting up cameras in kindergartens:
and
It's ironic, how someone fighting pedophilia wants to setup cameras in childcare centers.
all his debates [europa.eu] are available, also his parliamentary questions [europa.eu]
You realize the fate of Christianity... (Score:3, Insightful)
Fitting, that an Italian MEP should seek to be the new Pontius Pilot - V2.0, as it were. Or would he be 4.0, after Mao and Stalin?
Re:Solve Problem by Legalizing Child Pornography (Score:4, Insightful)
It is interesting to point out that child sex offenses have an average sentence in 2009 of 41 years, where first degree murder has an average sentence of 34 years.
There are over 300 people serving "indefinite civil confinement" for child pornography. Many states adopted these rules for sex offenders during the last 15 years, and in many of these states NOBODY has EVER BEEN RELEASED after being placed in such a confinement. This is de facto "life sentence" for possession of digital images.
I won't even BEGIN to argue that the creation of child porn is a good thing, but I will strenuously argue that its mere possession does not warrant a life sentence, regardless of what sort of doublespeak you can come up with about which sort of non-human that person is and what sort of evil deeds they "might one day do".
Sounds like drugs (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Like drugs, It works perfectly... your just looking at it from the wrong angle. Prosecuting an endless supply of people who happened across the wrong image online, helps clock up points that enable careers in law enforcement to advance, secures more funding for the department to expand, enables the political bosses enact new laws to restrict rights, AND makes the general population feel warm and fuzzy (without needing drugs) when they read in their local papers "50+ Sex/drug offenders prosecuted this year a
Re: (Score:2)
Then there was the recent Supreme Court ruling that "federal officials can indefinitely hold i
Re:Solve Problem by Legalizing Child Pornography (Score:5, Interesting)
What about the people producing child pornography? I absolutely agree that simple possession of an image should carry no legal penalty, but I also think there should be a punishment for causing a person to engage in something potentially psychologically damaging before that person has reached the age to make an informed decision about whether to do so. However, I do think that the age of consent to appear in porn should be lowered to 15 or so.
Also, "this wasn't illegal for a long time, and society did fine!" is a bad argument. Hundreds of years ago, most people lived in abject poverty without what we would consider today to be the most basic standard of food, housing, education, or health care. It's only because in rich countries we've mostly solved those problems that we can turn our energies to comparatively minor issues like child pornography.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, most frequently nowadays, the person producing it is the 'victim' themselves...
Just have a generalised law against sexual activity with children who are
Re: (Score:2)
can I take pictures of children, keep them in a bank vault, and when they reach the age of majority they can either burn the images or sell them for college money?
Then even the subject of the photo would be jailed for CP. (There were similar rulings with sexting.)
Re: (Score:2)
What's a MEP?
Member of the European Parliament. You'd have found that at MEP [slashdot.org] if you'd bothered to use Google.