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!"
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?
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
Unlikely, since Berlusconi proposed it to avoid further problems to himself and his gang with Italian justice.
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.
yeah it's funny that in the US people are against the NSA wiretapping, while here in italy people wants to give up their freedom and be wiretapped while the government doesn't want it
also this law doesn't ban wiretapping per se, but it bans the public disclosure, so let's say someone records you while peeing, he can't publish it without your permission
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
So you are basically saying that in the US police can't wiretap gangster phones without asking them before?
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
However the law needs improvements: currently it targets the disseminators (journalists) while the real targets should be the ones who let the information out in the first place (judges and their staff).
A CC-licensed illustrated horror novel
Is this law against one-party consent, or 3rd-party eavesdropping?
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
However the law needs improvements: currently it targets the disseminators (journalists) while the real targets should be the ones who let the information out in the first place (judges and their staff).
Exactly. The journalist should not be held liable if he publishes information he gets from other sources. Those that leak the info are of course responsible. For instance: Bradley Manning is liable for leaking info he was supposed to keep secret, Julian Assange (Wikileaks founder) should NOT be held liable. It's simple. The italian law is de facto introducting censorship.
Roberto
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
No. Even setting aside despotic regimes, in the US the NSA can wiretap as much as they want. In Italy, on the other hand, wiretapping must be requested by one prosecutor and approved by a judge (who is not the same as in the trial) and there are no legal exceptions to this. Illegal exceptions include Berlusconi's friends in Telecom Italia, who provided him details on the communications of leaders of the opposition parties, which he published in his (brother's) newspaper.
Neither is in Italy. However, when the investigations are over, all evidence must become public. This is a cardinal principle of civil rights: you cannot have a trial on secret evidence.
Uh, Monica Lewinsky anyone? Any journalist will, and should, publish anything that is provably true. Doing otherwise is betraying his mission.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
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.
You have the IQ of an office stapler, the wit of a dog turd and a penis the thickness of a single human hair.
It's great practise insulting AC's.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
It is (also) against one-party consent.
What it's being made illegal is also personal recording conversations of which you are part. This is legal in most of civilized world, since is a mere documentation of facts you already know by being present.
Third party wiretapping has always needed a Judge consent.
You're not informed. This law *does* limit wiretapping per se, except for "Mafia and terrorism", and even in those cases it harms it severely. That's why all judges are against it. Just one example: if you're wiretapping somebody for theft, and while doing that you hear that he killed a person, then that recording can't be used as evidence for the homicide! That's foolish, who could benefit from this besides criminals?
Also, publishing somebody's private image without his consent is already forbidden in Italy - there's no need to further limit the freedom of speech, which is already quite low there.
Berlusconi is a lobbyist now?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
I used to stand up for the press when I was younger. Now I know once the press gets a story it is spun, stretched and converted to sensationalistic garbage intent on promoting some journalists job and competing for revenue against other rags. So whats to defend or respect and who cares if they are free to express crap , lies and spin? I guess I will care more when the press actually get around to truthful unspun actual news.
Further , "The UN doesn't like it and they are calling for the abolition or revision of the bill.", who could care what these self important busybodies think? The article means the same thing with or without mentioning the U.N. Adding the U.N. to the soup only increases cynicism and aggravation. HA, the only entity less heard and obeyed than the Vatican.
Call me grumpy and cynical, but this story is a non issue.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
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
Not actually true. Many states have crimes for wiretapping or even just recording. These are extremely useful laws, especially as a curb on overly enthusiastic law enforcement.
>>>in the US the NSA can wiretap as much as they want. In Italy on the other hand, wiretapping must be requested by one prosecutor and approved by a judge
The same is true in the US. The problem is that nobody in the White House or Congress obeys the supreme law anymore, and for some reason think they don't need to get a search warrant. i.e. They are domestic enemies of the People's Constitution because they believe they are above the Law. They should all be kicked out.
BTW:
Wouldn't the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights negate this new Italian "only reporters can record" Law as unconstitutional? This wouldn't be the first time that the EU Court struck down the Italian government and said "no you can't do that".
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
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!
Not actually true. Many states have crimes for wiretapping or even just recording. These are extremely useful laws, especially as a curb on overly enthusiastic law enforcement.
There is a difference between 3rd-party wiretapping, and a participant of a conversation recording that conversation without consent of other participants. The latter is legal under federal law and (last time I checked) still legal in 39 states.
Completely misinformed. Don't spread these false info please.
Spreading of wiretappings is already illegal if they are not used as evidence in a trial. The only case I know where this was violated is when Berlusconi's newspaper published private calls of one opposing politician.
A completely different thing is when you end up in trial based on some wiretapping then the information must be public, because no one should be judged based on secret information. It is a basic human right to be able to know what is the evidence against you.
What happened here is that some members of the government were found to be mafia members and the government wants to stop the evidence from being spread.
I don't want to be wiretapped. I want the magistrates to be able to do it. If they do they will throw away the evidence because I am not doing anything and no one will ever know what I said.
Also notice that the people doing the wiretapping is not controlled by the government, so that political use of wiretapping is not possible. (As I said the only case where private information was leaked was done by the current government to stain the reputation of another politician)
so let's say someone records you while peeing, he can't publish it without your permission
Forgot to add: this is already illegal.
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.
I'm cynical about journalists as well, but note that (based on reading the summary) this law doesn't affect accredited journos; but rather bloggers, random freelancers etc. who might be more likely to break actual stories.
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.
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
Considering your country's definition of gangsters/criminals, i.e. small time drug dealers/users, people speeding, jaywalkers, teenagers caught having sex, etc., I say hell yeah criminals have rights too!
I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.