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:Dirty Move (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:Dirty Move (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:Dirty Move (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 their own people, and China has shown that it is willing to brutally suppress dissent. In light of those realities your statement is simply a pale mockery of a country you obviously jealous of, or owe a lot of tax to.
Re:Dirty Move (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:GNAA RULEZ! (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 knows what a 'content provider' is'. 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'.
There seems to be quite some confusion about exactly what the Declaration implies, since the reference to the data retention directive is indirect (reference number only, no explanation as to what it is), and has been completely omitted in the huge promotion effort which has seen the EP flooded with posters, pamphlets and pretty girls imploring the MEPs to sign. Add to this Mottis failure to acknowledge the problematic implications, and his inconsistent attitude towards the reference in the Declaration, and you have a proper political mess, which no doubt will be used by the Commission as both an affirmation that Parliament supports the legality of the data retention directive, and as a tool to initiate further extensions.
And as for the difference between 'what sites I visit' and 'what I do on those sites'.. The difference is not as big as one would like. And again, compare this to similar conduct away from the internet and you get a pretty frightening society.
Captcha: repeal, how fitting.
Re:GNAA RULEZ! (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?
Comment removed (Score:2)
Re:GNAA RULEZ! (Score:2)
Perhaps you're refering to the sliding notion of what constitutues child porn? The shift to include ever more under the umbrella?
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:GNAA RULEZ! (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), but that is for one user specifically, and nothing is recorded- a copy of the data that passes over the line is just sent in real-time to the justice department.
Re:GNAA RULEZ! (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:GNAA RULEZ! (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:"Think of the children" (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:"Think of the children" (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 might include your one in future). There's nothing that can be done to avoid it if the data is available.
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 companies, because the "children" are unable to find a job. Lets face it if they are going to sue people for downloading mp3s and DVDs they ought to sue the people who they know have the money to pay for it, or they ought to sue people who are making obscene profits at their expense via actual piracy. To sue people for downloading or uploading is thought control in some cases and a way to guarantee profits in other cases.
It's nothing more than an entertainment tax. If you don't like the government taxing the hell out of you, how do you feel about being taxed by entertainment companies? And of course none of the companies taxing/suing/complaining that you aren't shopping enough are going to hire you.
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:"Think of the children" (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 people lethargic.
It is also my opinion, that if they can do that, we can too. And we can even do it better than them, because we definitely would do it consciously and also they wouldn’t expect it.
Re:"Think of the children" (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 past? The Hutu/Tusi genocide? Not to mention the Bush regime, the Nazi era, and so on?
Look at the educational system in the United States. Sucks. But why? Think of what the people of the US would become if its educational system didn't suck!!!!!
Re:"Think of the children" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Think of the children" (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 5% of prisoners. So we are getting into a frenzy over a fear that isn't based on any known statistics.
If they come out with a statistic that 20% of the people on the internet are rapists, pedophiles, terrorists, or just all around dangerous individuals, then maybe putting surveillance on the internet to protect the children makes sense. But to do this level of surveillance without there being millions of dangerous criminals, risks creating an environment where the technology itself and the political pressure PRODUCES the criminals AFTER the fact.
Do we expect them to built the technology, the prisons, and hire a bunch of cops, and not use it against us? Once the technology, the prisons, and the cops are in place, then it's just a matter of tweaking the laws so as to generate as many or as few criminals as they want.
That is the problem. The laws create the criminals, the technology and cops catch the criminals, and the prisons house them. Usually the technology comes first, then the prisons get built, then the cops get hired, and finally the laws are tweaked so that it looks like the cops are doing their jobs. 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.
Re:Hitler was real at least. (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 they don't like it when you and your friends download mp3s or avi's. So they want to monitor the entire internet so they know who to sue.
While there are pedophiles and terrorists, the majority of individuals on the internet are not pedophiles or terrorists. In fact I'm willing to bet that less than 1% of people on the internet are pedophiles or terrorists. On the other hand probably more than half of the internet is downloading mp3s and avi's. And it's the very young college aged individuals who do this the most.
So what would the result of this surveillance be? More young people being punished and either locked up in prison or sued into even deeper debt. It's another way to keep young people in debt. I suppose if you were smart enough not to take out college loans, and smart enough not to use credit cards, you still might have been dumb enough to use bearshare or limewire.
It's ultimately not a solution to increase surveillance unless it's TRULY going to be done in a way that the results of this unlimited surveillance does not result in increased criminal prosecutions. If the increased surveillance is supposed to result in an increase in crime and an increase in criminal prosecutions, this means an increase in the amount of prisons being built, which means there will be a need to fill them up, and you'll have the same "War on Drugs" type of situation in Europe via these laws that the USA has.
Get ready to have a million + prisoners. If they are SERIOUS about going after terrorists then they need to limit the scope of when this technology can be applied. If they basically apply it to every kind of possible crime then the results will be obvious and this will be bad for the economy of Europe and for the "children." as they say.
Re:"Think of the children" (Score:2)
And the fact that most people are stupid and cant fully understand what they are supporting even on a good day.
Re:"Think of the children" (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:"Think of the children" (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 did it, Stalin did it, Mao did it, they all do it. Who are the criminals?
The criminals are whoever the lawmakers say are the criminals. The terrorists are whoever the lawmakers say are the terrorists. The jews are whoever the lawmakers say are the jews. The communists are whoever the lawmakers say are the communists.
And if you don't fit the definition of whoever they want in prison, they can always change the law at the last minute and criminalize whatever it is that you do. If you eat fried chicken, possession of fried chicken can be made illegal tomorrow. If you break ANY of the ten commandments, any sin you make can be made illegal at the stroke of Obama's pen. It's not supposed to be fair.
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:Given its author,political careers should end w (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:"Think of the children" (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 getting the upper hand.
In other words, it's a bug in human brains.
Re:"Think of the children" (Score:2)
Why does that work?
It works because about half the population is dumber than the average person.
Re:"Think of the children" (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 those computers as a medium to exchange encrypted information which could be anything from child pornography, to blueprints for a terrorist attack, to something completely innocuous.
To punish individual IP addresses for being connected to illegal information is to basically criminalize every node and computer on the internet. The only way to actually accomplish anything is to work with the owners of these computers and create software to help the computer owners log and defend their own networks. To put legal liability onto the servers isn't really fair because most people who are running servers don't even know they are running one.
The best solution is to have the government secretly watch everything and go after only the terrorists and worst offenders. If an individual is trading gigs of child porn, or is running a proxy for terrorists, it's not the same as an individual whos computer downloaded 10 megs here and there of questionable content. To log everything when the laws are ridiculous is to basically make everybody a criminal.
So thats how we protect the children? By basically criminalizing everything? So once every child is a criminal then we punish the children? Of course in order to punish the children we need even more police, more surveillance, etc. It's a circle and it does not end until the government literally builds satelites that can read our thoughts from space.
And how long until some politician decides that we need to use these satelites on everybody to find out which among us are thinking like pedophiles? I don't like pedophiles either but I'm not dumb enough to believe technology like this will be used only on pedophiles. Replace pedophile with jew, replace it with homosexual, replace it with non-white, or any other group that has been hated or suppressed in the past.
When these technologies are invented to stop the so called "pedophile elite", there is no guarantee that once all the pedophiles have been found that this technology wont be used to hunt down virtually everybody else who doesn't think straight. We have to either change our laws so that individuals wont get a decade to life in prison for possession of bits, or we need to stop building technology which we know before it's installed that it's going to create hundreds of thousands or millions of criminals.
And I'm not even getting into the file sharing angle. Yeah of course they say this technology is to stop the pedophiles but there probably isn't even a million pedophiles in most countries. So to log every bit on the internet is a bit extreme. On the other hand theres probably hundreds of millions of file sharers. So you download that mp3, you download that movie, or if you upload it, now they have a way to sue you.
Once again you are the "child" and the MPAA are the "parent." Or the RIAA is the parent. Or just the Corporation in general.
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:Fighting child porn justifies anything (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:Fighting child porn justifies anything (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:Fighting child porn justifies anything (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:Who is we? (Score:3, Insightful)
That isn't to say certain websites cannot or shouldn't require you to identify yourself to access them, but on a whole requiring your computer to identify who you are while you're online is about equivalent to some supposed V-Chip that observes you through your TV or taps your phone calls while you're phone sexing your girl.
Re:Fighting child porn justifies anything (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 pay much attention to what "the people" want.
Strat
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:Fighting child porn justifies anything (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 outlaw anonymity altogether, since you could easily get sinister effects like "free speech zones". How would you enforce the right to anonymity?
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:Fighting child porn justifies anything (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 there would be restrictions on "not interfering". However, I would expect you would object if, say, anonymity were to be relegated to (like I was saying in my previous post) specific times or specific places. For example, if it were banned in political debates.
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:Fighting child porn justifies anything (Score:2, Insightful)
So, yes, I'm rambling, but my point is simple: I don't want my privacy to be invaded and I have my reasons, even if crazy and slightly insane. The fact of the matter is, though, they're still my rights, and I'm sure we all agree that our privacy is something we want because it's OURS to do with as we want.
Re:Fighting child porn justifies anything (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:Fighting child porn justifies anything (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 doing on the Net? Should you then just be prohibited, in essence, from being able to publicly speak that way?
In the United States, a lot of the early anti-England tracts and pamphlets were published anonymously or under a pseudonym. I would say for a pretty good reason. We don't need "Papers please!" in real life, and we sure in the hell don't need it online.
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:Crying wolf (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 of those things that pretty much everyone can agree is a bad thing that we'd like to not exist anymore, and it's easy to rally people for it.
Re:Crying wolf (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. But do I support outlawing it? Absolutely not. Abusing children should absolutely be against the law, but having an image being a crime? Not a crime. If having a copy of Lolita is not a crime, having a copy of such images should not be. And I'd far rather see neither be a crime, than both.
Ultimately, I would like to see it not be illegal to possess any writing, image, video, or concept of any type. The making of some, of course, might be illegal, but simple possession would not. The only way we'll eliminate this crap is if we eliminate the idea that simple possession of information can be inherently bad.
Re:Crying wolf (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 line. In most jurisdictions, you're much better off facing a criminal charge of actually molesting a child then you are facing any sort of child porn charge (which can inevitably be prosecuted on the federal level).
People have inundated with the "child porn = worst evil evar on earth" propaganda for so long that they only weakly question if an upskirt pic of 17 year old Miley Cyrus taken in public should be considered child pornography: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/17/earlyshow/leisure/celebspot/main6590770.shtml [cbsnews.com]
Whether an actual child is being exploited is no longer of any concern. It's simply the easiest way for governments and law enforcement agencies to have some control over the flow of information on the internet.
Re:Crying wolf (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:It sounds like he's Berlusconi's bitch... (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:It sounds like he's Berlusconi's bitch... (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 connection with a group that used to liquify the children of their enemies inside vats of acid [wikipedia.org]: Prostitution rings related to the rebuilding of the city of Aquila, Intentional disservices inside Hospitals which refused to give bribes to the Department of Health,the discovery ot the full approval in the past of mafia crimes by some members of the government, you name it.
So lately the main (and basically,the only) italian party has tried to silence such "annoyances that tarnish the image of Italy abroad", as Berlusconi once said, by closing or imposing a strict control to all news services not directly controlled, depriving both the parliament and the magistrature (which, of lately, had taken a more aggressive approach to the situation) of a lot of powers, and lately, a new law that in theory would make illegal any kind of journalistic investigation, any whistleblower revelation, and the publication and achievement of any legally-mandated wirettapping until any investigation is over, basically making a good part of the aforementioned processes a farce.
As you may imagine, I am clearly not impartial to the whole situation, but even the remaining part of the remaining right-wing politicians and industrial groups are more than ashamed with the whole situation. Despite a clear minority of support, the P.D.L.(party of freedom, love the irony) party has used the tactic of saturating the regional election pools with their own representatives, which in turn basically elect the actual government.
Unfortunately, most the population is completely apathetic to situation, as they seems to care only to soccer (most of such laws are being proposed during the world cup, accidentally) and the various local reality shows.
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:The need for a scapegoat (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 corrupt. And yet if you speak out against it here, you will be modded to negative infinity by people who really do not want to hear any criticism of their "Patriot Act".
It's important that people feel that their sensible, intelligent and government-approved views are under constant attack from the ignorant masses. If you can make someone feel like that, he'll defend just about anything the government wants to do without really thinking about it. And this is how government goes from bad to worse - with the thunderous applause of those who demand 'hope' and 'change' at any cost.
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 service/military/[insert other target system here] and foils the plot to blow up the world/starts the end of the world/[insert other disaster here].
The Italians buy this stuff hook line and sinker, they force me (a non-Italian) to change my passwords every 90 days (because I work for a global computer company). They've demostrated with that that they don't understand the Internet and the global nature of the internet. They've failed to notice that the child pornography moves from one IP addr to the next every day (and when we switch to IPv6 the bad folks will switch IP addr every minute if they need to.
The world is full of paedophiles, the world is full of bad people and the internet means that everyone is a child pornographer. Except that's not true only a tiny number of folks subscribe to that stuff and sometimes the authorities get ahead of them, sometime they're ahead of the authorities (just like the spammers and phishermen). Chase the server not the client, when you find the server it's logs will have all the stuff (punter's credit card numbers, ip address, whatever) that you need to find the ponces who peddle and trade this stuff. It'll be located in China or Russia or other Eastern European countires (it always is), In the UK I would get years in prison and registered on the Sex Offenders Register for life just for accidentally finding a child porn image on Google Images and looking at it so it's unlikely to be here.
This is not the way to control the problem. The way to control the problem is not the folks looking at this stuff, it's the folks publishing it and when you catch them castrate them (that's probably too weak a punishment). Sniffing my exceedingly boring internet traffic doesn't work - because I know how to use SSL and I know how to use an internet proxy with a secure VPN and if I were inclined to want to use child pornography then those are the first two requirements.
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 many politicians will surely regret this eventually. Power is not forever and precisely politicians are the type to have bizarre fetishes.
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-action. So now the situation is that a lot of the traffic that we would like to stop is encrypted, and the law enforcement cannot find out what it is.
If this Italian idiot manages to get enough support for his stupid ideas, all he will accomplish is teaching the citiens of Europe how to encrypt their traffic, to use proxies outside Europe and in general make life for the authorities miserable! If my internet traffic is to be analyed or stored by the authorities, I am going to do something to foil them. And if I find a reasonably priced proxy in (just as an example) Russia, nothing the European Parliament decides will affect my proxy!
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 or private, and then propose the same for every Italian citizen. Italians relate to their government like fans at a football game, so if t5his made the first level and the second got proposed, figure the odds on the offending blowhard still being in office in order to bring it to a vote, even the next day. They'd storm the Parliment and drag him to the street.
They want traceable? Fine. They can trace me as Pope John Paul II at the Vatican, trading ethnic jokes with my pal Yassir Arafat in Palestine. They said traceable, they didn't say accurately or living.
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:Sounds like drugs (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 alone, 60% increase over last year" in the headlines. Go after the dealers??! Are you nuts!? That would put an end to the endless parade.
Re:Solve Problem by Legalizing Child Pornography (Score:2)
Then there was the recent Supreme Court ruling that "federal officials can indefinitely hold inmates considered "sexually dangerous," even after they complete their prison terms." which you can read more about at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126887029 [npr.org]. The case itself can be found at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1224.pdf [supremecourt.gov] .
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:Solve Problem by Legalizing Child Pornography (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 very significantly younger than the offender, which covers both 'sex' and 'making porn'. That'll cover any age-related abuse without even involving collections of pixels.
Re:Solve Problem by Legalizing Child Pornography (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:MEP? (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.