Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy The Internet Politics

Italian MEP Wants To Eliminate Anonymity On the Internet 223

Posted by timothy
from the why-that's-charming dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Italian MEP Wants To Eliminate Anonymity On the Internet

Comments Filter:
  • GNAA RULEZ! (Score:5, Funny)

    by koreaman (835838) <uman@umanwizard.com> on Saturday June 19, 2010 @01:37AM (#32622726)

    This troll was not posted anonymously in order to comply with regulations in Italy.

    • Using child porn to take away our freedom. How low can these guys stoop?
      • Re:Dirty Move (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Shakrai (717556) * on Saturday June 19, 2010 @04:16AM (#32623408) Journal

        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?

        • At least as low as the people who have used DWIs

          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?

          • by Tanktalus (794810)

            So, um, you want to raise the minimum age for getting a driver's license to at least 20?

          • Re:Dirty Move (Score:5, Informative)

            by Runaway1956 (1322357) on Saturday June 19, 2010 @09:57AM (#32624804) Homepage Journal

            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)

          by interval1066 (668936)

          "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)

        by dimeglio (456244)

        If only they would take away the right to drive petrol powered vehicles. Many lives would be saved.

    • Re:GNAA RULEZ! (Score:5, Informative)

      by cappp (1822388) on Saturday June 19, 2010 @03:43AM (#32623306)
      The original directive can be found here: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:105:0054:0063:EN:PDF [europa.eu] and I’ve copied out the internet-relevant portions for ease of discussion. Could someone with the relevant European legislative knowledge perhaps give a less hysterical assessment than the usual suspects? 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? Isn’t that information already available following a warrant anyway? Heck, isn’t it good that the Directive lays out explicit retention and destruction requirements?

      Member States shall ensure that the following categories of data are retained under this Directive:
      (a) data necessary to trace and identify the source of a communication:
      (2) concerning Internet access, Internet e-mail and Internet telephony:
      (i) the user ID(s) allocated;
      (ii) the user ID and telephone number allocated to any communication entering the public telephone
      network;
      (iii) the name and address of the subscriber or registered user to whom an Internet Protocol (IP) address, user ID or telephone number was allocated at the time of the communication;

      (b) data necessary to identify the destination of a communication:
      (2) concerning Internet e-mail and Internet telephony:
      (i) the user ID or telephone number of the intended recipient(s) of an Internet telephony call;
      (ii) the name(s) and address(es) of the subscriber(s) or registered user(s) and user ID of the intended recipient of the communication;

      (c) data necessary to identify the date, time and duration of a communication:
      (2) concerning Internet access, Internet e-mail and Internet telephony:
      (i) the date and time of the log-in and log-off of the Internet access service, based on a certain time zone, together with the IP address, whether dynamic or static, allocated by the Internet access service provider
      to a communication, and the user ID of the subscriber or registered user;
      (ii) the date and time of the log-in and log-off of the Internet e-mail service or Internet telephony service, based on a certain time zone;

      (d) data necessary to identify the type of communication:
      (2) concerning Internet e-mail and Internet telephony: the Internet service used;

      (e) data necessary to identify users’ communication equipment or what purports to be their equipment:
      (3) concerning Internet access, Internet e-mail and Internet telephony:
      (i) the calling telephone number for dial-up access;
      (ii) the digital subscriber line (DSL) or other end point of the originator of the communication;

      2. No data revealing the content of the communication may be retained pursuant to this Directive.

      • Re:GNAA RULEZ! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by oliverthered (187439) <oliverthered@hotmai l . com> on Saturday June 19, 2010 @04:39AM (#32623464) Journal

        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)

          by h4rm0ny (722443) on Saturday June 19, 2010 @07:58AM (#32624240) Journal
          I suspect a lot of the politicians voting through these laws are old people who haven't really taken up Internet usage. They have people who bring them printed out reports and do the typing up of their notes for them. They get their news from papers or television and they communicate with their friends by meeting up or telephone. For people like this, it may not have even sunk in that Internet is a part of people's everyday communication with each other and that's what they're snooping on. They probably think of communicating by Internet as some sort of aberration or tool for criminal behaviour. After all, it's a method of communication and socialising used by other people.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        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?

      • by houghi (78078)

        Heck, isn't it good that the Directive lays out explicit retention and destruction requirements?

        Destruction, yes. Retention? No. Obviously governements will say "But phone companies hold the same information". The big difference is that the reason telcos hold that information is not to give so much help to Big Brother but rather be able to send bills and collect money.

        What they could do if they think somebody is very suspicious is to record his behavior (and even all the content) after court gave them permi

        • by cappp (1822388)
          Do you really believe that child porn is that pervasive? I'm asking a serious question here, at most I would have thought it represented the smallest fraction of content out there - and would surely not be offered for free, be it in popup or not, on any adult website. Even if you're aggregating over thousands of five-knuckle breaks, I don't see how that could possibly be true. Is the problem that much more significant than I'm aware of? A couple thousand pictures at most, surely? And that among probably bil
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by miquels (37972)

        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

        • by Gnavpot (708731)

          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.

        • by cappp (1822388)
          Huh, that I didn't know. Thanks for the clarification - so we're talking about a far more radical shift than I thought in the first place. Maybe that's part of the problem, if a self described Star Trek fan (aka geek) was unaware that this represented a significant shift in the permitted intrusion into the private sphere then what hope do we have that your average stay-at-home mom is going to up to date on the facts?
  • by KarlIsNotMyName (1529477) on Saturday June 19, 2010 @01:41AM (#32622746)

    "And hand over all your freedom"

    Why does that work?

    • by TubeSteak (669689)

      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)

        by rtfa-troll (1340807)

        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

      • 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

    • by Statecraftsman (718862) * on Saturday June 19, 2010 @02:00AM (#32622826) Homepage
      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.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Hurricane78 (562437)

        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)

          by flajann (658201)
          80-90% of the world (by my wild-ass estimate) are what I call "Mindless Vessels of Belief". They are easy to program with whatever beliefs you want them to have once you understand their "language" and know how their "instruction set" works.

          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)

        by JaredOfEuropa (526365)
        The same goes for mentioning Hitler. In fact, "Think of the children", or the more modern variant "child pr0n, ohnoes!" should be made into a political Godwin. Any proposal for a law that does not specifically and narrowly targets child abuse, yet mentions children in the law or the proposal, will be automatically thrown out and the submitter of the proposal shall be summarily defenestrated.
        • "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.

        • 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

      • 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

      • by nurb432 (527695)

        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)

        by flajann (658201)

        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.

    • Because we already handed it over to google and they're not protecting anything.

      • by Zixaphir (845917) <Jinira AT hotmail DOT com> on Saturday June 19, 2010 @03:56AM (#32623358) Homepage
        It's because Google isn't hiding behind any need to protect anything that I'd rather give my so-called "rights" to them. Their agenda is well known and obvious: They are a corporation and are expected to behave like one, including first and foremost existing to turn a profit in spite of all else. Google may be corrupt, may be shady, but their agenda is clear and not muddled. On the other hand, the government's agenda is mixed, it's muddled, confused, sprawled, and a mess. We originally submitted to a government under the terms that under a government, we should be better off, because a government can protect us from each other. The amount of rights we hand to the government should be comparable to the amount of protection we want or need. However, this isn't the case, as the government had developed a patented strategy of giving us protection we don't want or need at all, usually under a clause of protecting the children or protection us from the evil terrorists. I'd rather take my chances with Google than with this sprawling mass that acts like a corporation run by a madman whose job is to protect us from ourselves. At least Google has a stable economy.
        • 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

      • by ChunderDownunder (709234) on Saturday June 19, 2010 @04:04AM (#32623380)

        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?

    • the public chastisement (fittingly also exposing the source) of anyone in office advocating a strategy from that book [slashdot.org], which said:

      As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 19, 2010 @03:04AM (#32623132)
      It's important that we create a future for our children where they'll not be able to blow the whistle on corruption, where nobody will be able to speak ill of those in power. Sure, we could be short-sighted and keep our wretched anonymity and freedom now, but what of the consequences for the coming generation? They'd be faced with choices and uncertainty in their lives, with the ugly reality. Some countries are ahead of us and have created a utopia for their citizens, never having to question those in power. Why would you deprive the coming generation of that?
    • by ultranova (717540)

      "And hand over all your freedom"

      Why does that work?

      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

    • Why does that work?

      It works because about half the population is dumber than the average person.

    • by SamSim (630795)
      Possibly because nobody logically combines the two: "Hand over your children's freedom" would definitely get a negative reaction.
    • 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

    • 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)

    by alexandre (53) * on Saturday June 19, 2010 @01:41AM (#32622750) Homepage Journal

    Of course, It's the best excuse [youtube.com]...

  • by dreampod (1093343) on Saturday June 19, 2010 @01:45AM (#32622756)

    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...

    • No, no, no. Just like the Patriot Act [wikipedia.org] and its intended purposes, this would only be used to pursue child pornographers.

      Right?

      • by dreampod (1093343) on Saturday June 19, 2010 @02:03AM (#32622836)

        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.

    • 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.

  • Crying wolf (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mykos (1627575) on Saturday June 19, 2010 @02:03AM (#32622834)
    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".
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Tangentc (1637287)

      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

      • 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.

        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)

      by QCompson (675963)

      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

  • by ignavus (213578) on Saturday June 19, 2010 @02:35AM (#32622996)

    Will they let us see everything that politicians do?

    Or is this surveillance all one-way?

  • I'm afraid that Google an Facebook have beaten 'em to the punch. It's a nice thought though.
  • 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.

  • by divisionbyzero (300681) on Saturday June 19, 2010 @03:25AM (#32623214)

    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.

    • by Shin-LaC (1333529)

      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)

      by Sal Zeta (929250)

      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

  • by Animats (122034) on Saturday June 19, 2010 @03:44AM (#32623314) Homepage

    "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".

    • 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

  • 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.

  • by srussia (884021) on Saturday June 19, 2010 @04:11AM (#32623396)
    I'm looking at you Silvio.
  • by Burz (138833) on Saturday June 19, 2010 @04:19AM (#32623418) Journal

    ...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...

  • I'm always astounded by the complete ineptitude of politicians when it comes to anything with a remote whiff of high tech.

    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

  • 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)

    by Windwraith (932426)

    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

  • Have the politicians learnt nothing from the mistakes committed by others? Or does the European parliament have, as a requirement for being elected, an IQ under 75?

    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 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! ;-)

  • 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)

    by moxley (895517) on Saturday June 19, 2010 @08:04AM (#32624274)

    ...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.

  • by Novus (182265) on Saturday June 19, 2010 @08:10AM (#32624298) Homepage

    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)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Saturday June 19, 2010 @09:40AM (#32624724) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by sTeF (8952) on Saturday June 19, 2010 @11:22AM (#32625310) Homepage Journal
    • according to the eu privacy commissioners opinion the searches themselves are part of the traffic, as such they are protected and not to be collected and stored under the data retention directive.
    • the Data retention directive is unconstitutional in a number of EU countries, in Sweden it hasn't even been adopted yet, since the government does not want to drive voters to the pirate party, let's see what happens after the elections in autumn.
    • it's also important, that the EP rejected the Data retention directive multiple times, only after pressure from the council was it adopted, so extending it will be a hard time for the initiators.

    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:

    "Today, we have indicated our agreement to complete freedom of the internet, to the promotion of an electronic civil society, to the promotion of fundamental freedoms and best practices and to the identification and isolation of all those individuals, in particular, paedophiles and sex offenders"

    Also notable is, how much he is is interested in anonymity and blogs:

    "Subject: Blogs, freedom of speech and protection of personal dignity Answer(s)The right to freedom of opinion thus becomes a tool with which to harm other people's dignity, including that of children, by hiding behind the anonymity of blogs. This gives rise to a kind of Internet free-for-all, in which citizens do not all enjoy the same rights; it also allows the administrators of blogs defined as 'open', i.e. unmoderated, and the service providers which host them to avoid prosecution for the published content, unlike the editors and publishers of online newspapers."

    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:

    Use of video surveillance systems in childcare centres: "...whether the need to protect the privacy of people exercising a number of key occupations (such as childcare workers and teachers) should be regarded as secondary to the right of babies and children to a serene educational environment?"

    and

    "...making childcare centres, kindergartens and schools safer for those attending them, installing video cameras..."

    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]

  • by ibsteve2u (1184603) on Sunday June 20, 2010 @03:25AM (#32630502)
    ...if the Romans had had the power to seek out those who fail to keep their thoughts and speech within the bounds of what is condoned by "the State"? If the Romans had had the power that today's politicians seek? One message on the web, and John...Paul...all of 'em would have been crucified, right quick. Poof...no Christianity.

    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?

Luck, that's when preparation and opportunity meet. -- P.E. Trudeau

Working...