The title of the Italian newspaper Repubblica.it about the alleged end of the sentimental engagement between Cooper and Shayk (…Social Network users to dream about a liaison with Gaga) is a microscopic but interesting sign of how, in the blurred head of gossipers, the conviction of being able to direct the life choices of the victims of their peepingtomish attitude makes its way.
In the show business, many artists are involved in fake scandals and media combine, and it is not a bad thing if for once it is not they who organise the “scam”.
It is interesting to note, however, the tendency according to which a group of (reciprocal) strangers who gather through a social network pretend to heterodirect the choices of someone else, transforming themselves into a “collective” that writes the texts of their very personal reality show.
Maybe Gaga and Cooper will be involved in the same wedding without the “help” of gossipers. But if this happens, no one will take from their mind the conviction of having played a role in the story (with the “s” in the subscript).
On May 17, 2019 the Council of the European Union has established
a framework which allows the EU to impose targeted restrictive measures to deter and respond to cyber-attacks which constitute an external threat to the EU or its member states, including cyber-attacks against third States or international organisations where restricted measures are considered necessary to achieve the objectives of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP).
In other words, this framework allows the EU to enforce a series of sanctions – including the prohibition of entry into the EU – to those who attack the computer resources located in the Union from other countries. At first glance, everything would look normal and – all in all – acceptable. But since the devil is in the details, a more in-depth look at the matter reveals a few problems.
Firstly, the violation of the principles of due process: a computer attack is a crime and for sanctions to be applied to the culprits, a proper trial is necessary. In the outline envisaged by the Council of European Union, this is not foreseen. A blatant violation of the fundamental rights of the individual (also) recognized by the Nice Charter.
Secondly, even if the first condition is met, it must be remembered that in criminal matters the jurisdiction belongs strictly and solely to the national legislator. What cases and which penal codes or similar rules will be applied in order to decide whether we are dealing with an event which falls within the scope of the ‘framework’ laid down by the Council?
Thirdly, are we talking about public policy, state security or the defense of the interests of the Union? The question is not trivial because in the first case the “domain” is that of a hypothetical “EU Ministry of the Interior”, in the second of the hypothetical “European secret services” and in the third case of the “Ministry of Defense”. Ambiguously, however, the Council speaks of “discouraging” (i.e. “preventing”) and “opposing” (i.e. “reacting”) in order to achieve the objectives of the foreign policy “And” those of the common security. This means that “prevention” and “reaction” to the cyber attacks are instruments of “enforcement” of the foreign policy of the EU also independently of security issues.
Let’s get ready to face very interesting issues…
A short list of the hypocrisy disguised as “human right protection” that floods the Internet:
- Privacy is a fundamental right,
- Weapons are evil,
- Web giants too are evil,
- We must fight to stop climate change,
- I work for the “enemy” not because of the fees, but because I will make him a better self,
- I don’t do it for money, but for “the Principle”,
- Trust me, even if it is gratis,
- China is dangerous,
- Exchange ideas is better than being paid with money
Actually I don’t understand why the Ariana Grande’s lamentation about a photographer to claim copyright over a photo he took of her should be either an issue or a news. A photographer is the sole owner of the pictures he takes, and if the portrayed person wants to use is it he must pay for that (remember the day of your wedding, and the fact that the photographer did not give you the film or the RAW files? This is why.) That’s the basis of the right of author law.
The news is gaining momentum: Osumane Bah, a student that has been charged of multiple theft in Apple stores located in several cities of the United States, filed a suit against the Cupertino-based company seeking for a compensation of one billion USD for having been wrongly identified by Apple as the author of these crimes. The decisive evidence that lead to his involvement in the investigations, this is Mr. Bah’s basis of the claim, is that he has been wrongly identified by a facial recognition system operated either by Apple or a security company hired for the job. Continue reading “Apple, Facial Recognition and the Right of Defense (plus, a sting at the GDPR)”