Slashdot Mirror
Italian MEP Wants To Eliminate Anonymity On the Internet
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 troll was not posted anonymously in order to comply with regulations in Italy.
Le français vous intéresse?
"And hand over all your freedom"
Why does that work?
We are all God's parents.
Of course, It's the best excuse...
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...
omg
fuck the children
find out who uploaded this fake antivirus software to my computer.
There is no ideology which isn't served extremely well by surveillance, unless anti-surveillance _is_ your primary ideology.
Is it really a coincidence that in all hard-left _and_ soft-left societies, there has been endemic surveillance and data gathering on citizens? Is it really a coincidence that in all hard-right _and_ largely soft-right societies, the same has been the case? Of course, because people in generally really hate surveillance everyone belonging to either side will say "Hey, surveillance isn't OUR game, we trust people!", but when it comes down to it the czars at the top who are running the show simply find it too useful to drop for the sake of sensibilities.
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".
It's always the case that the people (usually Right Wing people in authoritative positions like the police, government politicians, CIA, etc) want people to have no privacy for some purported "good" of humanity, and yet for themselves they demand utmost secrecy.
We could stop all this BULLSHIT by just OUTLAWING CENSORSHIP and legalizing child pornography. There will be great amounts of outrage by the Right Wing, claiming that society will collapse, but really, child pornography existed for decades without any moral panic and collapse of society. You need to ask yourself if you would rather be FREE, or believe the government that what they are doing is good for you and children. After all, arresting teenagers for showing naked pictures of themselves is dangerous, according to the government, and even wearing kilts is dangerous for school children, according to authorities.
The Informative thing is that when government and so-called child-advocacy groups talk about banning Child Pornography and punishing people with YEARS in prison (compare "sex crime" punishments [like having pictures of naked children] to the WEAK punishments often given to murderers in the U.S.); and by "child pornography" they often don't mean actual children having sex with each other (which they think is immoral and psychologically damaging), but they often define child pornography as girls wearing skirts or bathing suits. For the Muslim community it means girls showing their naked faces (which I've heard Muslim men saying they would be tempted to rape these people because bare faces are sexually exciting).
We can solve this whole problem and controversy by legalizing child pornography and punishing people who engage in censorship.
Of course, most zealots and haters would (and have) just accuse me of being a child molester and rapist. Ad hominems and other logical fallacies are usually the only arguments censors can think of (apart from outright lies) to defend their authoritarian and control oriented personalities and fetishes.
Will they let us see everything that politicians do?
Or is this surveillance all one-way?
I am anarch of all I survey.
Prophetic at least in name(s) and effect.
Is child porn so common that it is justifiable to filter the internet just to protect against it ? Are there any statistics regarding this ?
If you follow how many liberties are broken just to protect the children, you start to think that a large number of the people in the world are into child pornography.
And why the hell are we paying the police and other institutions of this kind ? Shouldn't they work a lot harder to stop child abuses of any kind ?
As a side note, I heard recently that 90% of burglaries are never solved, and those that are solved rarely have a happy ending (ie. the return of the stolen goods). This is not from an official source, and it is the case of Romania. I suspect that in other countries the police might be more efficient. In any case, this begs the question why the hell are we paying them in the first place ?
I want this guys entire life torn apart with a fine tooth comb. He's guilty of something. Lets find it!
Is it this guy? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQBOaen60Yc&feature=player_embedded
(yes, that's an official electoral campaign video he did, including an hilarious rap song that I suspect he even sung)
Could only garner some of the connections monitored. Assuming there are n people on the net, and that each person is communicating with most other people, and they send m messages from one person to another, isn't the number of transactions to be monitored ~= m*n^2. m would be huge enough not to mention that this only assumes that all the transactions taking place would be on the periphery, what about the connection from each person to another, including every server or node in between. Remember the it is called the www for a reason, the topology of the Internet is like a web. I think the real reason they want to monitor everybody's Internet transactions is so they can have a cache full of porn all to themselves and/or they might want to get off prosecuting people for things that we know they do not do in private, you know just to seem correct/pompous and all.
Society use your Sciences
I'd rather have these freaks inside on their computers than outside hunting down my kids.
They put more effort into hunting down the "addicts" than the "dealers". This does not work.
I'm afraid that Google an Facebook have beaten 'em to the punch. It's a nice thought though.
Your alluded-to attribution is incorrect. That quote comes from an essay by Rabbi Lapin:
http://www.aapsonline.org/brochures/lapin.htm
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.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
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.
Using child porn to take away our freedom. How low can these guys stoop?
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.
Dont we all...who needs anon anyway? (Maybe I should post this comment anonymously? :/)
We should monitor politicians with big wireless suppositories!
or are there people out there still going to google and searching for "child porn" in light of all the high profile news stories about just such things? I would think people would have other routes and this is just an excuse to restrict our rights...
So, when did it become okay to start protecting someone against their will? Stop making unjust laws in my gorram name!
"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".
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.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
I'm looking at you Silvio.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Moronic fail. Quote is a well-known spoof.
...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...
What's a MEP?
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.
Sigs. We don't need no steenking sigs.
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!
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
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.
Is anonymity an "essential liberty" ? It's a liberty for sure. How much non-essential freedom can we give up ? Isn't all liberty essential ? It's a rocky road.
Any determined criminal will find a way around the restrictions while everyone else suffers.
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-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 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 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.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
I worked for a hotel ISP provider. Every week we received subpoenas for people's activities on the internet. We identified the room they stayed in. The hotel would get a subpoena and would turn over the sign in information and even security camera pictures of the individuals. Usually they paid with credit cards and they were known, but even paying cash they had a picture of the individual. Home ISPs are the same, they know where you live. Piggy backing on your neighbor's ISP, it doesn't take too long to track down an unwanted signal. Most people follow the law. Why would we not want sick people who victimize children to be locked up. With under $1000 in off the shelf equipment I can watch what my neighbor downloads. I'm surprised that readers of Slashdot would believe that what they do online can't be monitored, traced, recorded and used against them is a court of law. Read your ISP agreement. Frankly if this bothers you -- what weird sick stuff are you into? Stop it.
The way this news is written, it's just flamebait. It's not the EU parliament that wants to monitor your internet. It's an Italian member of EU parliament. That's a big difference. And if you lived in EU you would understand that it's not like people around here listen to Italian ministers anyway.
Now, if you want a comparison, it would be like when some senator in USA presents a proposal to make creationism teaching obligatory, and you put a news saying: USA want to make teaching creationism in public schools obligatory. That's pure sensationalism.
...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.
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.
Original article 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 a few weeks ago, a few MEPs started to withdraw their support. 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 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just require all child porn seekers to identify themselves before seeking child porn and all child porn providers to do the same.
I am certain that approach will be just as successful as what is proposed.
I say we need to invert these things: the drinking age should be 16, the driving age 21. People should learn how to drink from their parents, and that includes how to drink at restaurants and bars, and teenagers should not be driving cars.
Palm trees and 8
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.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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/
http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-bill-gives-obama-kill-switch-to-shut-down-the-internet.html
Indonesia, June 15, 2010:
http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-49317620100615
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 are available, also his parliamentary questions
I don't have anything 'to hide'
I do have something to hide. Unless everyone starts running naked... Ok nevermind. Whitehouse here I come :D
I completely get where you are coming from but (c) data necessary to identify the date, time and duration of a communication: should at least prove the "My browser speed-up plugin visited those sites, not me.". That still leaves the "an uknown hacker broke-in and used my account" argument out there, however. :)
Privacy just like security is an illusion
I want a buxom, leggy 24 year old blonde female to wake me up every morning with an eye crossing blowjob too, but that ain't going to happen either!
As always, child pornograpy is used as an excuse to try controlling the whole internet and citizens' freedom.
This guy, Tiziano Motti, is from the UDC party, an Italian party full of people that have criminal records and many are involved with the mafia, like for example Totò Cuffaro:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvatore_Cuffaro
He was the governor of Sicily and resigned to be elected in the national Senate to achieve immunity from arrest, because of his convictions.
There are many others, like Aldo Patriciello:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldo_Patriciello
Vito Bonsignore:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vito_Bonsignore
Lorenzo Cesa (in italian):
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenzo_Cesa#La_condanna_per_corruzione
and many others, all from UDC.
What kind of serious proposal would you expect from people like these?
Do you expect proposals from these politicians could ever follow the interest of citizens? I don't.
...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?
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
So, please eliminate it in the street first! It is very very important, it can lead to perfect society!
Do not stop and wait, do it now! Do it, because time is closed. No more time to wait, big brother should have been here NOW!