Slashdot Mirror
Italian Draft Wiretapping Law Under Fire
newsblaze writes "Italy has a draft law on surveillance and eavesdropping that could jeopardize journalists and threaten freedom of expression. The UN doesn't like it and they are calling for the abolition or revision of the bill. Anyone not accredited as a professional journalist could be imprisoned for up to four years for recording a conversation without the consent of the person involved and then publicizing that information. Four years seems a bit draconian, but people should know they are being recorded. Across Italy, journalists and citizens protested against the draft law, and most journalists went on strike (only the newspaper published by the premier's brother was open for business). I couldn't discover what would trigger the maximum penalty. This is similar to a 2007 bill that was stopped — lobbyists never give up!"
huh?
I would be embarassed to be Italian if this made any difference. You can be sure that even if the law stays it'll be sidestepped or ignored. Fortunately.
What if I just remembered the conversation I'd be otherwise (for example) recording on tape?
Do they cut my brain media off? And send the rest to prison?
Poor Italians
ops !
in all places of the world is illegal to record conversation with out consent by spying other people. in US with Obama as president, as example, it looks like that is not even allowed to take photos of the oil spill.
in all countries of the world a judge must grant permission to wiretap, and nobody is allowed to have access to the evidence that is being collected for security of the investigation itself and for privacy of other parties involved: for sure no journalists never publish that on the newspaper before the trial or even the investigations is closed.
an Italian guy !
Anyone else noticing how the UN has been in the news in regards to issues such as these and being portrayed as Good Cop? Obviously I hold a hint of healthy skepticism in these articles. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Today you see the UN in this light, tomorrow however, your rights and freedom may not be so defined or protected. I believe it to be foolish for anyone to trust in a body of law makers whom are easily out of reach within ones own society. No respect, no control, no accountability. It is only a matter of time and blind faith. Here being laid before your very eyes, is your path to trust in world governance.
In case you don't understand what is happening: corrupt government does not want citizens to know about its corruption. Corrupt government(s) already passed laws over the past several years that make it almost impossible to jail anybody for corruption and similar charges, mostly through shortening of statutory terms (that in Italy run also through the trial and its appeals). Corrupt government still looks corrupt because evidence is being published through newspapers, even if corrupt members of government are pretty sure not to go to jail. Corrupt government makes law ("it's for your privacy!") so that journalists still telling the people that the government is corrupt will have to shut up.
Note: I really, really hate Berlusconi, but this is not only his fault: the "opposition" Democratic Party also want this law (they had it in their electoral program in 2008), because they are just as corrupt, even though they pretend they don't like it to score cheap political points.
So, here you have it: you can make despotic laws in the name of privacy.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
is designed to protect Officials, not secrets. - Yes Minister
and I can assure you that this draconian law is not a coincidence, considering the increasing number of corruption lawsuits involving the prime minister, his ministers and his close men. A significative part of the law makes it very difficult for detectives and judges to allow wiretapping of a possible criminal, and when it is allowed it is limited to 75 days for telephone tapping, and 3 days for surveillance. Furthermore the law is retroactive, so, in any pending process, any wiretap that lasted more than 75 days is discarded.
In Italy we call it "legge bavaglio", meaning gag law I guess.
(only the newspaper published by the premier's brother was open for business)
Not true. Several other national newspapers of different political standing didn't go on strike (Il Foglio, Libero, Il Riformista, Mf, Italia Oggi).
It should also be noted that Italy wouldn't need a new wiretapping law if the existing laws against divulgation of confidential judiciary documents had been enforced. The whole thing stems from the habit of several magistrates and/or judiciary employees to covertly leak selected wiretap documents to likewise selected journalists. And no, not for pure idealistic purposes ;-)
The current draft also jeopardizes the freedom of the press by forbidding the publication of wiretaps that are already in the public domain before the conclusion of the trial (and trials in Italy are incredibly slow). The editor whose newspaper fails to comply must pay a fine so huge that it would send small editors directly out of business.
lobbyists never give up!
In this case the lobbyist is the president and his gang of thugs. The voters still love him though, so he stays in power despite countless scandals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvio_Berlusconi#Legal_problems ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvio_Berlusconi#Controversies. Democracy doesn't work so well when people vote on looks and television presence rather than actual issues. Or when one person control vast amounts of the news media.
"Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference, which is an elegant name for ignorance." - G.K. Chesterton
I am a bit puzzled because most Italians I know abhor Berlusconi. Still he was elected and re-elected and it seems that only him manages to stay in power for more than a few months. How come there is no real opposition in position to win elections and reform the country?
kdawson, you reallly love trolling, don't you?
First: even "the newspaper of the brother's premier" has voiced concerns over the law - the decision not to go on strike was a move by its chief, Vittorio Feltri (who also criticized the law openly), who thought that shutting down information to prevent the shutdown of information was nonsensical.
Second: It was not the only newspaper who didn't go on strike. Others, such as "Libero", "Il Foglio", "Italia Oggi", were regularly in newsstands as well.
Third: the issue with wiretapping here it's that in the current law (the one being proposed) it's misguided - it targets journalists while the fault lies in judges and their collaborators, who like to "spread" news even before investigations are complete. This is mostly a problem for people outside investigations, that are by chance talking with the plaintiffs. Sometimes personal details (completely irrelevant to the matter) make it to the newspapers, tarnishing reputations.
Information is also checking your facts. This wasn't done.
A CC-licensed illustrated horror novel
Actually, it was not just the newspaper owned by the premier's brother (Il Giornale) that was open - all newspapers roughly of the same political side were published. For instance, "Libero", "Il Foglio", and also "Il Riformista". Just to cite a few that have national importance and are widely known in Italy.
Also, this is just another "normal" political battle for Italy, where political parties are only defined by the different levels of personal hatred or worship towards mr. Berlusconi.
Many many cases were resolved by the use of telefonical interceptions. We found out how corrupt the system is thanks to these
being publicated. If we were to wait until the end of the trial, we'd probably never see them. Justice in Italy takes its time.
A long time, and if it takes too much time, the whole thing is considered void. Even the trial on Giuliano Andreotti for its businnes with
Mafia got void! How would we know about it if interceptions were not publicated?
Well, this law will make them unuseful by telling the intercepted people that they are being intercepted.
They are all telling that this kind of investigations doesn't happen in other countries, when after 9/11 we all knew american citizens
are being spyed on day and night. But this is not about spying, this is about investigating and nailing down guilty people.
Our "premier" cheated on his wife, with prostitutes and even with a 16 years old girl. Now he's cheating on us as well.
Being that your mind is NOT an objective recording medium, any statement you would make based on that "recording" would be labeled as everything from a "your version of the story", through "pure fantasy" to "slandering lies".
At best, you would be considered an "unreliable source" - at worst you would be put on trial for defamation.
And in Soviet Italy, that could result in one of the following:
6. Maximum prison term for defamation, libel and insult envisaged in the Criminal Code
Generic insult: not more than six months imprisonment.
Insult with attribution of a certain fact: not more than one year imprisonment.
Generic defamation: not more than one year imprisonment.
Defamation with attribution of a certain fact: not more than two years imprisonment.
Libel through the press, television or other public means: not more than three years imprisonment.
Libel through the press with attribution of a certain fact: not more than six years imprisonment.
7. Maximum fine for defamation, libel and insult envisaged in the Criminal Code
Generic insult: not more than 516.
Insult with attribution of a certain fact: not more than 1,032.
Generic defamation: not more than 1,032.
Defamation with attribution of a certain fact: not more than 2,065.
Libel through the press, television or other public means: minimum fine: 516 (no maximum amount is indicated).
Libel through the press with attribution of a certain fact: minimum fine: 516 (no maximum amount is indicated).
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Do you get paid to astroturf or do you spread propaganda for free? (Surely you can't be naive enough to believe it?)
"Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference, which is an elegant name for ignorance." - G.K. Chesterton
One party of a conversation should know it, but it is perfectly reasonable for a participant in a conversation to record it.
Recording evidence of crime comes to mind as an example, such as being threatened via telephone.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
If this draft was a law in the USA, people would have know Blago's wrongdoings only after the trial or the journalists that published the intercepted telephone conversations (that were in the affidavit) would be in jail. Please remember that the real targets for the proposed Italian law are the lawful* wire taps. Those warranted by a judge. In Italy, as of today, details of an ongoing investigation can't be divulged before an affidavit is issued. Then, it's a public document. And that's where journalist learn about intercepted conversations. While I find the gag to the press disgusting and fascist, it's more way more disturbing the systematic barrage of hurdles thrown on Italian Justice already troubled way. * as opposed to unlawful, unwarranted, widespread NSA wiretaps.
as you can see from the lbbros guy above... he says "commies" had some power but hey! go read some history book dude. unless you call "commies" D'Alema and his party... and they were not, they are responsible for dismantling the biggest italian industry (telecom anyone?) and I blame them too, the italian commies were never given a chance to govern the fu**ed up country, not even when they had (beginning of eighties) more than 11 million votes!!! that was likely due to the cold war, the us influence and blablabla, even though their leader Enrico Berlinguer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrico_Berlinguer#The_break_with_the_Soviet_Union) broke with Soviet Union and was nearly killed in 1973 in what was probably a kgb plan in Sofia. so... in the end, if you take for granted what berlusconi says, go on, but dont misrepresent that as the truth dude.
the changes they try to make to the Constitution of Italy, are all to save mister B. from judges.
the history is very long, and start to the hidden/ghost political powers, that in the past with the objective to eliminate comunist influcences from russia, try to remove all democratic powers from the republic. i talk about P2 (Propaganda 2), Licio Gelli who is the intellectual father of some choices of mister B; the history of these is very intricated and linked to USA history, their movements of big sums of dollars to IOR (the ex-vatican bank), to mafia, in order to drop out comunism from europe and in particular from Italy.
today, in their papers, they promote the government action to show their force to eradicate problems like mafia, camorra and 'ndrangheta, solve problems about the heartquake in L'Auquila, and hidden people that they want to change consitution, in order to grant more power to political class.
they want that people (tele-voting-people :) ), know and see only some things, in order to control them.
Berlusconi is a lobbyist now?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Obviously any country that FAILS TO ABOLISH such as law would identically evil to one IMPLEMENTING the law.
Exactly. This is also the law in quite a few countries, including Norway, but excluding Britain.
This makes it illegal to record evidence of such crime you mention in Britain. So in Britain, a person's right to privacy trumps the other party's right to avoid being harassed or threatened. It makes no sense to me. If you have chosen to engage in conversation with another party, it should be perfectly legitimate for that party to document this conversation.
The original poster wants to lump most of the blame for this bill/law on lobbyists, but I'm not quite sure who those lobbyists s/he imagines would be? Lobbyists (typically) represent forces outside government, and it seem to me this is a case of the government wanting to know when they are on the record (a point the opriginal poster agrees with). Now, the penalties may see a bit draconian, but without knowing how the penalty is imposed, it is hard to have a real opinion.
It sounds like the issue isn't recording a conversation so much as it is the publication of that recording (personal vs. professional use).
Here in the US we have a few states with laws designed to protect private conversations, but we also have states where only one party to the conversation needs to be aware of the recording (participants are protected, third-party recorders are not).
Aside from the punishments, this seems reasonable - you can't record private conversations and make them public without alerting the other party that you are recording the conversation, with exceptions carved out for journalists. You can argue the definition of "journalist" and the punishment meted out, but the basic law is nothing new really.
I am assuming that recording a conversation for personal use is still OK, and that you can introduce such a "private" recording as evidence in a trial...
Ken
"Silvio Berlusconi claimed that complete freedom of the press was not something which should be guaranteed in any democracy"
http://www.globalpost.com/webblog/italy/ill-winds-blowing-sardinia
Four years seems a bit draconian, but people should know they are being recorded.
Why? To protect corrupt public officials? To legally enforce good manners? Neither is an appropriate purpose for criminal law!
What exactly does it take to be considered an "accredited journalist"?
In many US states including IL it is illegal to record conversations without consent of both parties. AFAICT this includes both phone and in-person.
A while back I had the idea that it would be fun to do undercover exposes on scam companies, by getting employed and gathering hidden camera/audio footage. Unfortunately I think there would be legal problems here.
That's why they get paid the big bucks! Otherwise they aren't worth shit.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
One party of a conversation should know it, but it is perfectly reasonable for a participant in a conversation to record it.
Recording evidence of crime comes to mind as an example, such as being threatened via telephone.
If we can record chat IMs, why can't we record all communications?
It's safe to say, free speech is dead. There is no press freedom. Perhaps it has never existed.
The only way you have press freedom is if you have an army protecting your journalists.
Many states in the US disallow the use of tape recorders. Frankly it is as if the law favors crime. Hidden recorders can catch criminals easily and the public should be encouraged to use them. It is not only the creep threatening to cut his wifes head off and play with her brains but also people in public office or holding public jobs that are involved in serious criminal activity. As it stands now a person can end up in prison for using a tape recorder. This needs to stop. And even more offensive is a certain inequality in which law enforcement turns a blind eye to department stores using voice recorders while arresting individuals for the same activity.
Actually this is a good question. I always thought people did have to know they were being recorded. We journalists are always very clear about what is said "on the record" and "off the record," and respecting the difference is as important as protecting anonymous sources. Of course this means that journalists will have some recordings which remain confidential (and which I think in some countries can't even be subpoenaed), and others which can be used or broadcast.
You do see these "hidden camera" sting stories that put people like Fergie on the spot - and I have never quite understood how these are legal.
"Informed consent" is the principle anthropologists and sociologists follow, which similarly requires that people know they are being recorded and what for. Naturally you don't have to tell them what the experiment is actually testing. But this is a professional and moral standard, not a law.
So what are the actual laws about this?
This law is about the criminals and mafiosi in the government making sure they are not wiretapped. Living in a country where the mafia rules with impunity hardly fits my definition of freedom.
Yes it does. It puts into place so many obstacles that it will be extremely difficult to wiretap criminals. There was talk of a maximum limit of 75 days, for example. Suppose a child is abducted (kidnapping as a means to extortion is no longer as common as in the 80s, but not so outlandish either): the kidnappers must simply wait 75 days (not such a long time for a kidnapping) and then contact the family. The prosecutors will not be able to figure out where they are calling from or what they are saying.
Also, the law says that you can wiretap someone only when you have "substantial evidence" that he is the culprit. However if you have substantial evidence you arrest him, you don't wiretap him. Wiretapping is to gather info. You can also place bugs in a place only when you are sure that a crime will take place there. But how do you know that? And would you bug a place instead of simply arresting the criminals if you knew already of the crime?
Then, if some useful wiretaps are miraculously obtained, the second part of the law kicks in: publication is forbidden until the politicians find a way to bury the case, leaving the public in the dark.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y