Slashdot Mirror
Italy Floats Official Permission Requirement for Web Video Uploads
An anonymous reader writes with some bad news from Italy, noting that new rules proposed there would "require people who upload videos onto the Internet to obtain authorization from the Communications Ministry similar to that required by television broadcasters, drastically reducing freedom to communicate over the Web." Understandably, some say such controls represent a conflict of interest for Silvio Berlusconi, "who exercises political control over the state broadcaster RAI in his role as prime minister and is also the owner of Italy's largest private broadcaster, Mediaset."
I get the distinct impression will be seeing a surge in Italian YouTube videos with a "Screw you, Berlusconi" theme.
That's horrific. An extremely oppressive requirement. I expect that anyone who disagrees with Silvio will be denied permission to upload anything. This is also impractical, because you can't expect every single citizen to apply for permission just to post videos of their cat onto youtube.
Thankfully, I think that this could be circumvented easily, by transferring video files to another country in an encrypted form, then getting friends in the other country to unencrypt and upload it for you.
It's things like this that make me lament the US giving up any shred of control of the Internet and related systems to the international community.
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
Some time ago, they tried something similar with blogs.
Thankfully, I think that this could be circumvented easily, by transferring video files to another country in an encrypted form, then getting friends in the other country to unencrypt and upload it for you.
You've never mentioned the word "encryption" in casual conversation with non I.T. related friends and relatives?
Deleted
It is "unusual" in the sense that all the countries that at least pretend to operate under some sane judiciary principles do not allow cops to also become juries, judges and executioners all rolled into one, instead they go for the "innocent until proven guilty" ideal. Allowing police to collect fines on the spot is the very anathema of this, the assumption is that whomever the cop fingers is "guilty until proven innocent".
Consider what happens if an incompetent or malicious cop decides to go after you: you get for all practical purposes robbed at gun-point and it is then up to you to run through the hostile, bureaucratic rigmarole to attempt to prove your innocence and maybe even to get some of your fine back. Most people will simply be cowed into subservience and the police will assume the role it ever desires in every country: as the lynch-pin of a police-state.
Italy has a constitution which this law may violate.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
> Democracy is the worst system except for all the others...
Which is a good reason to have as little democracy as possible and none of anything else.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
> How exactly would they enforce this?
Selectively, of course. That's the whole point of such laws.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Paper doesn't blush.
The Soviet Union also had a constitution. With rights for free press, free speech and so on in it.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap