On ICT law, politics and other digital stuff
An upcoming regulation – still in draft – will regulate the possibility for an Italian lawyer to call himself “specialist” of something. This “specialist patch” will be obtained by either attending seminars and courses or by showing evidence of practicing in a specific field (BTW, in the mandatory list of field of practice, there are no reference to high-tech, pharma and telco topics.)
I wonder which company has ever chosen a lawyer just because of the patches he stuck on his gown.
An important Italian online magazine just “discovered” today the possibility to build a “parallel-Internet” by using WI-FI antennas, no need to purchase an access-plan and (allegedly) free form NSA’s peeping eyes. Of course, the buzzword is “revolution”.
I can’t stop being amazed by the candid ignorance of these contemporary “digital cognoscenti” or “digital natives”. They think that the ICT world was born with Facebook and that beforehand there only was a gravitational singularity.
Today only some mature former(?) geek can remember of the BBS Era and witness how does the world worked at those times: mesh networks are nothing but a way to create an independent network like Fidonet was; with the only difference that Fidonet was software-indepedent, while mesh networks might become hardware independent too. In this sense mesh networks are an evolution and not a revolution, and omitting the “r” at the beginning of the word makes a great difference.
But semantics isn’t the (only) issue to deal with. Why, somebody might in fact ask, should we be concerned by this granny’s style rant? Things evolve so do people: who cares anymore about relics such as Bocamodem or Fidonet?
Answer: because the experience of the BBS Era is the basis of all of the modern (social, political and economical) ways to exploit a network and a lot of answers to a lot of questions have already been provided. Just think of issues like online anonymity, forum posting liability, online free speech, online journalism: these are just a few examples of the topics that once were hot and today we still struggle with. The difference between yesterday and today is that the “old school” users were and are more conscious about the actual impact of technology in their own life, while the “digital natives” actually are part of a dumb generation of technology’s passive users. A condition that is everything but different than the one reserved to the human part of The Matrix: fuel for the machines.
Windows XP is dead in Redmond, but alive and kicking in a huge quantity of devices such ? ATMs. When the news hit the media, waves of “concerns” for the security of our money and safety stormed the public, with no actual effect on the Microsoft’s strategies. And history keeps repeating with domotics, wearable technologies and in-car systems.
This aftermath was easy to foresee when some “clever” IT manager chose to go proprietary when moving its ATM infrastructure “to the next step”, but between this and the open source alternative a third option would have spare us all the current trouble: just put into the agreement a source-code escrow provision, to guarantee the (big) client against the End-of-Life of the software.
Sure, this wouldn’t have been a cheap solutions (we’re not talking about a bunch of PHP code, here) but there are no free beers and easy life can’t last forever. If you go proprietary and enjoy the safety(?) of having somebody else who cares about bugs, patches and updates, you need to have a contingency plan for the moment when your licensor plugs-off the cord that keeps alive the software you’re using.
And now history is re-repeating itself. We’re on the edge of a new invasion of pervasive technology based on Apple’s OSX or – again – Microsoft Windows Whatever, and in a bunch of years we will complain again that because of a copyright issue we can’t enter our home, use the fridge, watch the television, start the car, know what’s the time, have a medical diagnosis and so on…
A final, collateral, question: where do the corporate lawyers were, when those agreement have been signed?
The European Court of Justice ruling against Google Spain is another step toward the deletion of the History (capital “H”) and collective memory. In the name of “privacy” the Court allowed the possibility to completely remove a lawful information from public scrutiny, as is clearly stated at the end of the ruling:
Article 12(b) and subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 14 of Directive 95/46 are to be interpreted as meaning that, in order to comply with the rights laid down in those provisions and in so far as the conditions laid down by those provisions are in fact satisfied, the operator of a search engine is obliged to remove from the list of results displayed following a search made on the basis of a person’s name links to web pages, published by third parties and containing information relating to that person, also in a case where that name or information is not erased beforehand or simultaneously from those web pages, and even, as the case may be, when its publication in itself on those pages is lawful. (emphasis added)
Now, with the support of this decision, corrupts politicians, scammers, con artists, bad payers and similar breeds can easily re-gain their anonymity, and historians from the future will not be able to discover and understand how our society was working.
And, to some extent, this wouldn’t be a bad thing…
Better late then ever: a press release from the Italian Data Protection Authority ? advertises the data-protection oriented review of a certain number of apps.
This initiative should be a major concern for the (yet unaware) software industry, whose intellectual and industrial property might be endangered by a deep peep into its well protected secrets. Neither are clear the criteria that will lead to the app selection, nor whether or not the DPA will asks the developers for source code access.
Unless this IDPA investigation is just an empty PR stunt, it should be carried on by accessing the source code or reverse-engineering the executables: but doing so without signing NDAs and/or provide guarantees of non exploitation is an approach that the industry will likely reject.
Furthermore, if the software check will target only a certain kind of companies, leaving the other players of the same market safe from the scrutiny, this might be held as an unfair alteration of the market dynamics. And things might be much worse if the targeted companies are the smallest one, instead of the big fishes in the pond.
Mind, the lack of data-protection compliant programming isn’t a new or unforeseen issue – as the history of software can witness – but the IDPA never actually cared that much. For instance, it didn’t move a finger when back in 2002 ALCEI (a civil-rights Italian NGO) asked in vain the IDPA to check the claims of the existence of hidden features of a certain series of Telindus routers that posed significant threats to the users’ data protection.
