Italy is a strange country. The State cares of public health by telling everybody that “smoke kills”, while still holds the legal monopoly in the tobacco manufacturing market.
Following the same “we care” apprach, online gambling has been labeled as THE eviliest thing, able to corrupt young generations, waste worker wages, endanger the public security. Criminal court everywhere in Italy are full of trials where the defendants are charged to having organised “illegal betting services” by opening internet points from where people was privately playing with regular British and other EU-based bookmakers.
Despite the EU Court of Justice said that Italy was wrong in discriminating legally established EU bookmakers, the Corte di cassazione – Italian Supreme Court – ruled that (online) gambling must be punished since endagers the Order of the State. But all of a sudden, these concerns disappeared.
Legge finanziaria 2007 “slightly” amends sect. 38 of Decree 223/2006 by legalising – with a few restrictions – the very same online gaming activities that up to a few weeks before were accused of being “families disgregator”. How was that possible?
Easy: just pay the Government a 3% “gambling tax” on every bet, and all the problems and concerns just disappear. At the end of the day – I can imagine the politicians’ defense – we did our job: we told you not to play. If you don’t follow our advice…the choice is yours!
Sect. 1 para 3 of the Decree Law “Bersani” (named after the ministry who drafted the text) states that users must be free to shift from an ISP to another at their will, just paying anything but the “documented cost” suffered by the ISP (for instance, the remaining cost of the yearly-leased ADSL line). This provision has been celebrated as an effective way to protect consumers, no more forced to pay penalties for their own freedom of choise.
The gov’t seems unaware of a side effects of this decree: big telcos will likely retain from asking for these costs, while small and medium ISP’s – for obvious reasons – don’t. What is likely to happens, then, is that the latters will be cut-out from the user-mobility market, since nobody would subscribe a service, knowing that he have to pay for moving to another provider.
The final chapter of this tale is that – just matter of time – only the big operator will continue to stay on the market, while other players may rest in peace.
Despite I made absolutely clear that I didn’t want to be disturbed, yesterday I got again – for the third or fourth time – a phone call from a person posing as Fastweb (an Italian Telco) representative trying to sell Internet access services.
After being (fairly) rude with the operator, I’ve sent the Data Protection Authority a fax complaining about this blatant infringement of personal data handling.
If an US law enforcement officer wants to tap an American citizen internet account, the officer must play by the books. But If the US officer wants to wiretap an Italian citizen whose account is hosted in the US by an US company, does the USofficer need to respect the US regulations, or, since the target is a foreigner, he’d be free to play as he wishes? As far as I know, the answer is a sound “no”: the law enforcement officer must always comply to the US regulation (at least because the company that hosts the account is american and it is established on the US soil.)