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.

Comments

GNAA RULEZ!

[koreaman]

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

Re:GNAA RULEZ!

[cappp]

The original directive can be found here: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:105:0054:0063:EN:PDF 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.

"Think of the children"

[KarlIsNotMyName]

"And hand over all your freedom"

Why does that work?

Re:"Think of the children"

[Statecraftsman]

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:"Think of the children"

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:"Think of the children"

[Zixaphir]

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.

Fighting child porn justifies anything

[dreampod]

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

[Daniel Dvorkin]

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

[dreampod]

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).

The need for a scapegoat

[Animats]

"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:Dirty Move

[Shakrai]

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?