Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Italian MEP Wants To Eliminate Anonymity On the Internet

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the why-that's-charming dept.

Privacy 223

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.

cancel ×

223 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

GNAA RULEZ! (5, Funny)

koreaman (835838) | more than 4 years ago | (#32622726)

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

Re:GNAA RULEZ! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32622810)

fucking nigger lips tattoed with INFLATE TO 80 PSI BIX NOOD

Re:GNAA RULEZ! (4, Funny)

koreaman (835838) | more than 4 years ago | (#32622816)

Anonymous Coward

I think you might have missed something.

Re:GNAA RULEZ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32622962)

fucking nigger lips tattoed with INFLATE TO 80 PSI BIX NOOD

Fuck off, Mr. Motti, we saw that. We think thou dost protest too much.
- NSA

Dirty Move (2)

rainmouse (1784278) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623204)

Using child porn to take away our freedom. How low can these guys stoop?

Re:Dirty Move (5, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623408)

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?

Re:GNAA RULEZ! (5, Informative)

cappp (1822388) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623306)

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

Re:GNAA RULEZ! (4, Insightful)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623464)

what if....

what if you've got a 'speed' up plugin for your browser that spiders and preloads loads of stuff, there could easily be links to all kinds of stuff and it would/could look like your browsing, and the files will be stored and cached on your computer.

and anyone not wanting to get caught will use one of the many ways of proxying yourself, or a public connection, or a hacked connection / proxy.

gees, some one needs to give the people that run the world an education, or at least pass a law making it a requirement that all laws are run by several experts, hobbyist and professionals in the field for the obvious and not so obvious errors and pointlessness or even counter productiveness of the legislation being passed. Maybe even run a few fake trials based on the legislation and see what kind of prosecution vs defense comes up.

I would expect that the defense side have an open forum so that anyone can contribute and discuss the prosecution and so aid the defense, we want our laws to be as good as possible and waste as little time as possible. And we want as few of them as possible.

Time spent making them in the first place is time and money saved later down the line, and it would also give some people a little 'respect' in the only profession that comes lower than lawyers and bankers when it comes to honor and decency.

Re:GNAA RULEZ! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32623570)

The issue is not the current directive (which is bad enough as it is, though... Would you like to have the same kind of registration of regular mail?) but the Written Declaration that mr Motti authored, and which was adopted by the Parliament on Thursday.

The Written Declaration calls for an extension of the Directive to search engines in order to combat 'pedophiles' and child abuse. In the interview linked, he states that this was unintentional, but that 'everyone knows what a search engine is, but no one knows what a 'content provider' is'. So apparently he wants every 'content provider', which from my reading seems to be the same as 'hosting platform', or basically, anywhere you can upload content, to retain information about the uploader and make this information available to the 'proper authorities'.

There seems to be quite some confusion about exactly what the Declaration implies, since the reference to the data retention directive is indirect (reference number only, no explanation as to what it is), and has been completely omitted in the huge promotion effort which has seen the EP flooded with posters, pamphlets and pretty girls imploring the MEPs to sign. Add to this Mottis failure to acknowledge the problematic implications, and his inconsistent attitude towards the reference in the Declaration, and you have a proper political mess, which no doubt will be used by the Commission as both an affirmation that Parliament supports the legality of the data retention directive, and as a tool to initiate further extensions.

And as for the difference between 'what sites I visit' and 'what I do on those sites'.. The difference is not as big as one would like. And again, compare this to similar conduct away from the internet and you get a pretty frightening society.

Captcha: repeal, how fitting.

Re:GNAA RULEZ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32623698)

It's the JEWS, stupid.
They are terrified of the internet, because people like me can post up the FACTS about what our Jewish 'masters' are doing to us all...

Who runs the entire media?
Who owns all the banks?
What is 'fractional reserve'? Do you know?
Who is baying for war with Iran, who have done nothing wrong? The JEWS, that's who.
Why are one million people dead in Iraq? Because the JEWS sent YOUR sons and daughters off to die, to save 'precious' Israel, paid for with YOUR labour, in the form of taxes.

It's the JEWS, stupid.

"Think of the children" (5, Insightful)

KarlIsNotMyName (1529477) | more than 4 years ago | (#32622746)

"And hand over all your freedom"

Why does that work?

Re:"Think of the children" (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 4 years ago | (#32622824)

Why does that work?

Because legislators never limit "think of the children" laws to just cases involving children.
It's an easy fix, but it never happens.

Re:"Think of the children" (2, Insightful)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623372)

One problem is that it's not an easy fix. E.g. if a list of all connections you make is recorded for "child protection" then what happens when there's a murder investigation? They, quite rightly, get a warrant which lets them look at the pre-existing data. They have a right to look at anything which they know of and which is likely to help them.

The real problem is that once that mechanism exists it is used for private lawsuits and is abused for tracking down dissidents in repressive countries (which might include your one in future). There's nothing that can be done to avoid it if the data is available.

Re:"Think of the children" (1)

Zixaphir (845917) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623402)

It's been said before and it'll be said again: The pedophiles ARE thinking of the children.

Re:"Think of the children" (5, Insightful)

Statecraftsman (718862) | more than 4 years ago | (#32622826)

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" (2, Insightful)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623656)

It does not suffice to be an emotional creature! (I hate to say it, but only on a geek site...;)
It also requires people to not be dominant but passive. Meaning they don’t check anything for themselves and hence have to buy into the reality of others.

It is my opinion that modern social engineering was used to make people that passive. And that it was intentional, even if it was done unconsciously. But the bad food definitely and feeling of powerlessness in our way too large communities helped in making people lethargic.

It is also my opinion, that if they can do that, we can too. And we can even do it better than them, because we definitely would do it consciously and also they wouldn’t expect it.

Re:"Think of the children" (1)

outsider007 (115534) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623052)

Because we already handed it over to google and they're not protecting anything.

Re:"Think of the children" (5, Insightful)

Zixaphir (845917) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623358)

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.

Re:"Think of the children" (4, Insightful)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623380)

When Google does it, lawmakers see it as an evil corporation infringing civil liberties.

When those same lawmakers (Steve Conroy, yes you) do it it's seen as protecting one's constituents. No apparent hypocrisy here...

I, for one, don't welcome our democratically elected totalitarian overlords. There's a slippery slope between "protecting the children" and spying on one's own citizens for political and religious reasons (family values, banning facebook/youtube because of Mohammed, silencing minorities like the Yugur, Dirty War in Argentina etc)

Intelligence organizations already have enough powers post 9/11, no?

Given its author,political careers should end with (1)

D4C5CE (578304) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623106)

the public chastisement (fittingly also exposing the source) of anyone in office advocating a strategy from that book [slashdot.org] , which said:

As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.

Re:Given its author,political careers should end w (2, Informative)

Hunter-Killer (144296) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623166)

Your alluded-to attribution is incorrect. That quote comes from an essay by Rabbi Lapin:
http://www.aapsonline.org/brochures/lapin.htm [aapsonline.org]

Re:Given its author,political careers should end w (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32623410)

Moronic fail. Quote is a well-known spoof.

Re:"Think of the children" (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32623132)

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" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32623144)

This [whale.to] explains it all.

Re:"Think of the children" (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32623424)

I just hope they realize they're destroying the lives of our future children.

Re:"Think of the children" (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623572)

"And hand over all your freedom"

Why does that work?

Because the parts of the mind that deal with high-level abstraction and long-term planning ride on top of the instinctive, reactive parts [wikipedia.org] . This means that there's a subsystem in most people's minds where any perceived threat to a child causes a flood of adrenaline and a frenzy of action.

This is also the reason why people eat themselves fat, and why they engage in irrational behaviour in general. Obesity, ethnic cleansing, etc - it's the cockroach in you getting the upper hand.

In other words, it's a bug in human brains.

for "child porn"... (4, Interesting)

alexandre (53) | more than 4 years ago | (#32622750)

Of course, It's the best excuse [youtube.com] ...

Fighting child porn justifies anything (5, Insightful)

dreampod (1093343) | more than 4 years ago | (#32622756)

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 (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 4 years ago | (#32622782)

No, no, no. Just like the Patriot Act [wikipedia.org] and its intended purposes, this would only be used to pursue child pornographers.

Right?

Re:Fighting child porn justifies anything (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32622806)

nope.. its to pursue anyone that doesnt agree with anything the govt has to say. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwbtJHK4cd8

Re:Fighting child porn justifies anything (4, Insightful)

dreampod (1093343) | more than 4 years ago | (#32622836)

Silly me. I forgot that our 'elected' officials have the good of the public in mind when extremely broad and unaccountable legislation to combat a problem that already consumes a vastly disproportionate amount of resources to its frequency and severity. It is a good thing that our public servants are so incorruptable and service oriented that they would take care of us like this.

Well I guess my concerns are completely unfounded, thanks for reassuring me.

Re:Fighting child porn justifies anything (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32622928)

Isnt stopping child porn only a means of curbing child molestation?

Re:Fighting child porn justifies anything (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32622976)

Nvm, its to stop exploitation of children. Fucken brain needs to think just a little faster.

Re:Fighting child porn justifies anything (0, Troll)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623058)

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.

How is anonymity on the internet a "fundamental right"?

Re:Fighting child porn justifies anything (3, Informative)

gringofrijolero (1489395) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623100)

Because WE declare it so... That is all that is required..

Who is we? (3, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623186)

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.

Re:Who is we? (1)

gringofrijolero (1489395) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623238)

Using a forum as a call to arms and the blood of tyrants is a pretty good place to start.. We can move to the next level at the appropriate time..

Re:Who is we? (3, Insightful)

Zixaphir (845917) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623388)

After some thought and considerations, I assume that the reason that anonymity on the net is a fundamental right is because removing it would allow us to be observed in the privacy of our own homes. To say in the least, it would be like the government requiring you to install cameras in all the rooms of your house. As most computer do have webcams, I can also draw to the conclusion that if you're doing something online that somebody doesn't like and your identity is known because of the lack of anonymity online, it would be rather simple for some black hat hacker or government organization to, say, turn on the cam and observe you as you browse. So, I imagine that anonymity online is simply a right because violating it invades your privacy in your own home.

That isn't to say certain websites cannot or shouldn't require you to identify yourself to access them, but on a whole requiring your computer to identify who you are while you're online is about equivalent to some supposed V-Chip that observes you through your TV or taps your phone calls while you're phone sexing your girl.

Re:Fighting child porn justifies anything (2)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623300)

Because WE declare it so... That is all that is required.

Well, apparently there are a LOT of politicians & bureaucrats that don't believe people are smart enough to decide what their country & government should be like, and even get "irritated" to the point of public assault when someone asks them a simple question on their stance on issues & policies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ru2VLANgPHs [youtube.com]

I wouldn't count on government officials with attitudes like that regarding the people they represent to pay much attention to what "the people" want.

Strat

Re:Fighting child porn justifies anything (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32623196)

The right to communicate anonymously is derived from the effects that identifiability has on public discourse. Sure, you'll get Goatse trolls, but you'll also get "the emperor is naked" if people can say it without fearing repercussions.

Re:Fighting child porn justifies anything (5, Interesting)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623246)

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 (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623326)

Well, anonymity itself is a different discussion, but let's assume that it is a fundamental right. The right to anonymity does not imply that every possible forum of speech must have a provision for anonymity. It doesn't mean that the internet must have anonymity.

But, while writing this, I just had another thought. If anonymity were a right, how would it be expressed legally? As I said, you couldn't just make it legally mandatory to facilitate anonymity everywhere. It would be ineffective to ban laws that outlaw anonymity altogether, since you could easily get sinister effects like "free speech zones". How would you enforce the right to anonymity?

Re:Fighting child porn justifies anything (4, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623434)

The right to anonymity does not imply that every possible forum of speech must have a provision for anonymity.

No "provision for anonymity" is necessary; all that is necessary to preserve the right is not to actively take it away. Nor is it necessary to "make it legally mandatory to facilitate anonymity everywhere" -- what an absurd strawman. Just don't interfere with it, and it will facilitate itself just fine, as it's currently doing.

And if it's a right, then it's a right everywhere. That is one of the main differences between rights and priveleges.

Re:Fighting child porn justifies anything (5, Insightful)

dreampod (1093343) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623390)

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).

Re:Fighting child porn justifies anything (2, Insightful)

Zixaphir (845917) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623420)

I, on the other hand, DO have things to hide. My porn browsing history and embarrassing hobbies being some, illegal activity and anarchist cookbook "curiosities" being others. Maybe more, maybe less, but the fact is, a lot of things that are laws, I do like having my abilities to civilly disobey them if I disagree with them without having to fear men with flame throwers breaking down my door with axes to eliminate my free will because it was too dangerous for "the children" and adults alike. I'm not perfect, nor am I a lawyer. I don't know how many of my activities are illegal of the ones I thought were legal, and I don't like having to writhe in fear for my every movement online. So I like wikileaks? So I like being educated of ways my government is out to "protect me" today? Maybe I just like conspiracy theories cause I think they're funny and hide behind 14 proxies because it's fun? If the next area 51 leak means I'm set off to be sanitized, what then?

So, yes, I'm rambling, but my point is simple: I don't want my privacy to be invaded and I have my reasons, even if crazy and slightly insane. The fact of the matter is, though, they're still my rights, and I'm sure we all agree that our privacy is something we want because it's OURS to do with as we want.

Re:Fighting child porn justifies anything (1)

laughingcoyote (762272) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623680)

Because the right to speak freely is a fundamental right, and you cannot always (in law or in fact) always speak freely if you cannot sometimes speak anonymously.

It is, of course, on the reader to judge the reliability of anonymous or pseudonymous information. But that certainly does not mean that anonymous or pseudonymous speech should be prohibited altogether. What if it's not even the government prohibiting your speech? What if your employer, family, what have you, would not like what you're saying or doing on the Net? Should you then just be prohibited, in essence, from being able to publicly speak that way?

In the United States, a lot of the early anti-England tracts and pamphlets were published anonymously or under a pseudonym. I would say for a pretty good reason. We don't need "Papers please!" in real life, and we sure in the hell don't need it online.

Re:Fighting child porn justifies anything (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623164)

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.

Plus it's stupid politics. Had he said "We need to eliminate anonymity on the internet so... uh... you can find who you want on facebook and twitter and invite them to your farmville," everyone who was saying it was a bad idea would be drowned out in a sea of twitter posts and escaped cows.

voglio un cavallino (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32622766)

omg

It's time someone said.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32622772)

fuck the children

I'm with you if you can do one thing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32622784)

find out who uploaded this fake antivirus software to my computer.

Re:I'm with you if you can do one thing... (1)

graden (945448) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623080)

Assuming for a moment that authorities were able to handle the technical difficulties, so that the vast majority of internet users could be identified when they had done something - wouldn't it be possible to find out who was responsible for giving you virus, or fake AV software?

Since you posted as AC, you obviously like being able to be anonymous online. So do I. But when somebody else attacks me online (viruses, hacking attempts at sites I run etc.) it would actually be nice if there were not only laws, but also the real possibility of finding and punishing them.

I do not think I like this particular attempt of the EU's. And I am not trolling. But isn't internet still very much a wild west when it comes to law and order? In the real world, I would take a dependable, transparent justice system with equal rights for every citizen over "the law of the gun" any day. Is the internet different in this aspect?

I'm not saying anonymity is bad - far from it. But I am saying that accountability can also be a good thing.

Cheers. :-)

As often repeated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32622808)

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.

Crying wolf (4, Insightful)

mykos (1627575) | more than 4 years ago | (#32622834)

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".

Re:Crying wolf (1)

TruthSauce (1813784) | more than 4 years ago | (#32622902)

You give "people" too much credit.

Most people probably nod their head and say "I don't know about no internets. The gubment needs to make the chillins more safer."

I'm dead serious. If you think that 30% or 40% of the population wouldn't have something ABOUT that intelligent to say....

Re:Crying wolf (1)

rts008 (812749) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623308)

If you think that 30% or 40% of the population wouldn't have something ABOUT that intelligent to say....

Your low level of pessimism implies you haven't been paying close attention lately, but with your ./ UID, I'd say you still have a chance to develop a suitable level someday. :-)

You give "people" too much credit.

Indeed. From the mouth of babes....

Oh yeah, GET OFF MY LAWN! (obligatory here) ;-)

BTW, please apply a 'Good natured ribbing' filter to the above comment. :-)
For the record, I do agree with you, with the exception of your(IMHO) overly optimistic estimates.

Re:Crying wolf (2, Interesting)

Tangentc (1637287) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623452)

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".

I really wish I could share your optimism, but I seriously doubt that will happen.

Even if they do run out of the ability to initiate it at the legislative level, there's always the option to astroturf a community of "concerned parents who really'd like it if you'd think about the children and consider signing this petition to make the internet "safe again" by making sure that anyone who traipses onto any site deemed inappropriate, by any means, will be shot." And it'll work, because child porn really is one of those things that pretty much everyone can agree is a bad thing that we'd like to not exist anymore, and it's easy to rally people for it.

Solve Problem by Legalizing Child Pornography (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32622868)

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 [dailymail.co.uk] 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.

Re:Solve Problem by Legalizing Child Pornography (4, Insightful)

TruthSauce (1813784) | more than 4 years ago | (#32622924)

It is interesting to point out that child sex offenses have an average sentence in 2009 of 41 years, where first degree murder has an average sentence of 34 years.

There are over 300 people serving "indefinite civil confinement" for child pornography. Many states adopted these rules for sex offenders during the last 15 years, and in many of these states NOBODY has EVER BEEN RELEASED after being placed in such a confinement. This is de facto "life sentence" for possession of digital images.

I won't even BEGIN to argue that the creation of child porn is a good thing, but I will strenuously argue that its mere possession does not warrant a life sentence, regardless of what sort of doublespeak you can come up with about which sort of non-human that person is and what sort of evil deeds they "might one day do".

Sounds like drugs (3, Insightful)

MikeK7 (1826472) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623104)

They put more effort into hunting down the "addicts" than the "dealers". This does not work.

Re:Sounds like drugs (2, Interesting)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623668)

Like drugs, It works perfectly... your just looking at it from the wrong angle. Prosecuting an endless supply of people who happened across the wrong image online, helps clock up points that enable careers in law enforcement to advance, secures more funding for the department to expand, enables the political bosses enact new laws to restrict rights, AND makes the general population feel warm and fuzzy (without needing drugs) when they read in their local papers "50+ Sex/drug offenders prosecuted this year alone, 60% increase over last year" in the headlines. Go after the dealers??! Are you nuts!? That would put an end to the endless parade.

Re:Solve Problem by Legalizing Child Pornography (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32623506)

[citation needed]

or I'll think you are talking bullshit

Re:Solve Problem by Legalizing Child Pornography (4, Interesting)

koreaman (835838) | more than 4 years ago | (#32622952)

What about the people producing child pornography? I absolutely agree that simple possession of an image should carry no legal penalty, but I also think there should be a punishment for causing a person to engage in something potentially psychologically damaging before that person has reached the age to make an informed decision about whether to do so. However, I do think that the age of consent to appear in porn should be lowered to 15 or so.

Also, "this wasn't illegal for a long time, and society did fine!" is a bad argument. Hundreds of years ago, most people lived in abject poverty without what we would consider today to be the most basic standard of food, housing, education, or health care. It's only because in rich countries we've mostly solved those problems that we can turn our energies to comparatively minor issues like child pornography.

Re:Solve Problem by Legalizing Child Pornography (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32623054)

If informed consent is all that matters, and if there really is a huge demand for kiddy porn, can I take pictures of children, keep them in a bank vault, and when they reach the age of majority they can either burn the images or sell them for college money? Everyone is happy, nobody is hurt, everyone's life is improved.
    The most elementary principles of justice seem to me to be that you can enter into a contract of your own free will, and that if nobody is hurt then there was no crime. To the extent that our governments attempt to deny this they are the criminals and the majority of the people in prison are the victims of a rather large kidnapping and extortion racket.
    But ... I kind of think we all agree on that pretty much anyway.

Re:Solve Problem by Legalizing Child Pornography (1)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623130)

can I take pictures of children, keep them in a bank vault, and when they reach the age of majority they can either burn the images or sell them for college money?

Then even the subject of the photo would be jailed for CP. (There were similar rulings with sexting.)

Re:Solve Problem by Legalizing Child Pornography (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32623234)

We should also jail cigarette manufacturers because children are smoking. Also their parents for allowing their children to smoke. Those people then should be required to register as people who harm children and then reregister where ever they go. The same goes for alchol. A kid drinks, the executives and all the employees of said company should go to jail and have to register with the Child Endangerment Registry - here lives someone who directly or indirectly caused a child to ingest toxic and carcinogenic compounds!

Cigarettes and alcohol cause lasting and permanent physical damage to children. It should be treated just as harshly as child porn. But it isn't. Why is that? Could it be a reflection of our own sexual hangups and possible shame towards our natural sexuality?

If this were a couple of hundred years ago, I could be "marrying" a 15 or 17 year old and having sex with her. Now I'd be a pervert. Or in ancient times, when all those old men were "begetting" those women, do you really think they were older than 18? Nope. Women died young and they needed child bearing women - you had to marry what is now considered a child.

Society is mentally ill.

Re:Solve Problem by Legalizing Child Pornography (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32623352)

What about the people producing child pornography? I absolutely agree that simple possession of an image should carry no legal penalty, but I also think there should be a punishment for causing a person to engage in something potentially psychologically damaging before that person has reached the age to make an informed decision about whether to do so.

As I've already stated earlier, "child pornography" is a bogie-man (there is a reason governments don't let you know what they are censoring.) In fact child pornography can be anything as benign as wearing a bathing suit.

As for the "producers" as you call them, existing laws about rape, kidnapping, and confinement, etc should be just fine against arresting REAL abusers. As for the psychological damage hypothesis, I have seen absolutely no evidence that sex is harmful to ANYBODY, children or adults (pop-psychologists like Dr. Phil obviously don't count, neither do the testimonials of police officers or people who seek financial rewards from lawsuits).

The best way to deal with childhood sexuality is through the family, and that the parents should decide about consent if the person is under a certain age (something realistic like consenting for people under 12 years old. This shouldn't even be an issue for teenagers). The family have defacto legal and political control over children (regarding issues of religion and corporal punishment), and it shouldn't be any different for sex. In fact religion is far more dangerous than sex is (and it is often forced upon children who cannot and often refuse to consent), and so is violence (like spanking) legal in many democracies (it always amazes me that people define violence as good and sex as bad. Authoritarian people are perverts). Most people who are against childhood sexuality, you will find, lack any type of morality in other matters pertaining to their children. Hypocrisy is usually a sign of immorality. And so we have the governments with their secret agendas...

As well, you said,

Also, "this wasn't illegal for a long time, and society did fine!" is a bad argument. Hundreds of years ago, most people lived in abject poverty without what we would consider today to be the most basic standard of food, housing, education, or health care.

You are comparing sex with negative things like poverty. Of course I NEVER said that sex was bad. In fact you will find that when laws against sex (usually child pornography) get implemented things don't get better, they get a LOT worse. People are put in jail for years, taxes are spent on the jail-economy, etc. In the province of Ontario there was a corrupt police chief named Julian Fantino who bribed male teenage prostitutes to claim that their customers raped them and forced them into sex. Of course these bribes were to be paid AFTER the customers were arrested and convicted, for which the police never did give them any money. This police chief later got promoted to become police cheap of the City of Toronto where he illegally raided gay night clubs and bath houses, for no other reason than to harass the gay community. After his reign of terror in Toronto was over the "Liberal" premiere of the province promoted him to become Commissioner of the OPP (Ontario Provincial Police). These are the type of people who rally against Child Pornography and advocate for children.

Re:Solve Problem by Legalizing Child Pornography (1)

LainTouko (926420) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623374)

What about the people producing child pornography? I absolutely agree that simple possession of an image should carry no legal penalty, but I also think there should be a punishment for causing a person to engage in something potentially psychologically damaging before that person has reached the age to make an informed decision about whether to do so.

Well, most frequently nowadays, the person producing it is the 'victim' themselves...

Just have a generalised law against sexual activity with children who are very significantly younger than the offender, which covers both 'sex' and 'making porn'. That'll cover any age-related abuse without even involving collections of pixels.

Re:Solve Problem by Legalizing Child Pornography (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32623670)

For one, the making of child porn usually involves some acts that are illegal no mater if the camera is present or not. Having sex with a kid for example. In this case having a video recording can serve as evidence at the trial.

For those things that would be legal if not for the camera, you could modify the law to say that before releasing the images you have to wait until the subject is 18 or whatever the age of consent is and then ask for consent. Then either release or destroy the pictures/video.

Will they let us see ... (4, Insightful)

ignavus (213578) | more than 4 years ago | (#32622996)

Will they let us see everything that politicians do?

Or is this surveillance all one-way?

Re:Will they let us see ... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32623044)

Oh very much so. Mr. Motti is very clear in that the world consists of three groups of people:

Government/authorities, who are infallible and benevolent without fault

Citizens/Children/Women, who can be mildly mischievous at times, but at ultimately harmless, and should at all times be protected from

Criminals/Child abusers, who must be found, hunted to extincion, preferrably locked up for good, or quietly submitted to a mental institute or so.

In the world Mr Motti presents to those who listen, there is never an overlap between these groups.

Re:Will they let us see ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32623596)

Government/authorities
Criminals/Child abusers,

is there a difference here?

is it so common ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32623004)

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 ?

What about what i want? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32623010)

I want this guys entire life torn apart with a fine tooth comb. He's guilty of something. Lets find it!

Tiziano Motti? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32623012)

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)

Utterly impossible (1)

hawkingradiation (1526209) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623056)

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.

This will only make things worse (1)

MikeK7 (1826472) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623092)

I'd rather have these freaks inside on their computers than outside hunting down my kids.

Too late! (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623108)

I'm afraid that Google an Facebook have beaten 'em to the punch. It's a nice thought though.

playing whack-a-mole with DDT (-1, Offtopic)

mentil (1748130) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623154)

It seems Motti is saying (judging by the translation) that he wants data retention of the IPs of kiddy porn uploaders, not retention of IPs of people who search for certain things on search engines. He specifically mentions Facebook and Youtube. Problem is, no law would be made that only requires retention of IPs that were connected to uploading kiddy porn (since any site could save money and work around the law by not trying to detect it as it's uploaded, and not storing IPs to later connect to flagged content). The only 'effective' solution is to keep every uploader's IP for a long time -- think of how long the TSA holds on to laptops, that's how long they need. The few non-trolls uploading kiddy porn to websites will move to non-EU servers (as if they didn't already) or another protocol.

Now, every insult becomes grounds for a defamation trial, with a guarantee of finding a defendant! Try not to say anything bad about royalty or religious icons, either. Uncovering astroturfers isn't made any easier, so this won't negatively affect the government/corporate overlords.

I swear politicians see 10 different moles to whack, figure out a way to whack 1 of them, and say "see I'm doing something about the mole problem" while ignoring the collateral damage, and the rat problem, rabbit problem, etc.
It'd help alot if there didn't exist such universal revulsion to any practice or a group associated with it; some sanity to combat the anti-paedo witchhunt will go a long way preventing these kind of directives. I think the average person realizes that terrorism is really rare in western countries and there likely isn't a terrorist living next door, so maybe the panic will die down there first. But then we'll need a new ideological bogeyman, wonder what it'll be next. Pirate party politics maybe?

freakin spaghetti eater (0, Troll)

cheezegeezer (1765936) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623180)

why dont this freakin spaghetti chewer go play five knuckle shuffle in the fast lane of his nearest motorway during it's bussiest period a self inflicted end to suit it is time all these twats that try to force us to give in to their ideals were dealt a deathly blow in the goolies ( i have heard that a pair of size nine's work well but i got some 11's that work even better) .

They only want everyone to ID themselfs so they can spam the living crap outta us so screw em.

Quid Pro Quo (1)

nathanh (1214) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623194)

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.

It sounds like he's Berlusconi's bitch... (4, Insightful)

divisionbyzero (300681) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623214)

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.

Re:It sounds like he's Berlusconi's bitch... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32623620)

Having looked up a bit on Motti's background in Italy, he does seem to have quite a few contact in high political cycles, including Berlusconis party, though no actual direct connection seem to exist.

The way he got elected to the EP is both hilarious and scary at the same time. Basically, he created a magazine/pamphlet for detailing the services and businesses of a certain geographical area, and made deals with a bucketful of municipalities of northern Italy for them to pay the costs of printing and distribution to all the households in their municipalities. Motti included his own campaign material in the deal, presumably because that was important information about a local service.

His campaign basically boiled down to 'Vote for me, I'm like you!', portraying himself as a regular working-class guy, as opposed to those damn conceited politicians. He then asked his followers to vote for him regardless of whatever political party he ended up actually running for, regardless of their previous political stance. Three days before the lists for the EP election were due, he accepted an offer from a Christian Democrat party, which he accepted. It ended up with him displacing their regular candidate, which may or may not have been the intention.

Re:It sounds like he's Berlusconi's bitch... (1)

Shin-LaC (1333529) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623730)

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.

"Track down political adversaries"?? What the hell is that supposed to mean? There are parties, and newspapers, and trade unions, and countless public personalities that daily denounce Berlusconi as the devil's incarnation, and you seriously think he's drafting elaborate plans to find out the real identity and whereabouts of the freedom fighter who wrote "belrusconi scemo!!!11!" under the pen name of goku92 on a videogames forum?

Anonymity (1)

copious28 (983855) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623220)

Dont we all...who needs anon anyway? (Maybe I should post this comment anonymously? :/)

We should monitor politicians with suppositories! (1)

kawabago (551139) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623242)

We should monitor politicians with big wireless suppositories!

Is it just me... (1)

atomicxblue (1077017) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623250)

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...

Think of the Children.. (1)

matthiasvegh (1800634) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623276)

So, when did it become okay to start protecting someone against their will? Stop making unjust laws in my gorram name!

The need for a scapegoat (5, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623314)

"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".

Including his own? (1)

MrKaos (858439) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623366)

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.

Stop Thinking about the Children (3, Funny)

srussia (884021) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623396)

I'm looking at you Silvio.

This is targetted at Tor, I2P and Freenet (3, Insightful)

Burz (138833) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623418)

...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...

wop (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32623436)

n/c

MEP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32623472)

What's a MEP?

Re:MEP? (1)

Dark$ide (732508) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623476)

What's a MEP?

Member of the European Parliament. You'd have found that at MEP [slashdot.org] if you'd bothered to use Google.

Politics and high tech don't mix. (1)

Dark$ide (732508) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623526)

I'm always astounded by the complete ineptitude of politicians when it comes to anything with a remote whiff of high tech.

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.

Yeah, and I want gravity to go away... (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623624)

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!

LOL (2, Insightful)

Windwraith (932426) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623674)

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.

Stupid waste of time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32623682)

This will help no one.

They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety.

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.

The more you tighten your grip, ... the more ... will slip through your fingers.

Any determined criminal will find a way around the restrictions while everyone else suffers.

Stupid politicians! (1)

uffe_nordholm (1187961) | more than 4 years ago | (#32623696)

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!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?