Blog

Posted on

DNA Clandestine Collection, Data Protection and Rule of Evidence. Jeopardizing an Homicide Investigation?

After a three years investigation the public prosecutor of Bergamo (a city near Milan) arrested the alleged author of the homicide of a young girl. The suspect has been found thanks to a massive DNA analysis that involved about 18.000 residents of the area, that led, after the skimming of the majority of the genetic profiles, to only two “candidates” .

To obtain the genetic samples to be compared with those found on the crime scene, the investigators faked a routine traffic control check-point, asking the suspect to pass the alcool-test. Further more – as the media say – the investigators were able to collect “organic fluids” from the suspect’s mother unbeknownst to her.

In this way of investigating the homicide there are two issue that haven’t been taken into account so far: what do the investigators do with the 18.000 DNA samples that they’ve collected and, more important, if a “clandestine” DNA sample collection legal under the Italian Rule of Evidence and Data Protection Regulation.

About the first issue: hopefully the “de facto” biobank should be destroyed once no more useful for the investigation, but neither public information is available nor the Data Protection Authority told a word about it. If this is not the case, this 18.000 samples will be used as a comparison for all the future investigation, meaning that those resident who voluntary gave out their samples will be routinely “investigated” unbeknownst to them.

About the second issue: the suspect’s mother has not been charged since there is no evidence of her connection with the crime. So, as a citizen not charged of anything, should have been told by the investigators that they were collecting her genetic sample.

As per the suspect, the available information don’t reveal whether the clandestine genetic sample collection has been ordered BEFORE he was officially charged by the prosecutor or AFTER his official involvement in the case as the potential perpetrator. This might lead to the possibility for the defense lawyer to object the genetic evidence be part of the trial on the basis that both samples have been collected in a wrong way.

Frankly, as this homicide is a major case in Italy, I doubt that neither a judge nor the Data Protection Authority (very aggressive against SPAM and Social Networks misuse) ? will “buy” this objection, even if – as I think – has some merit.

So, provided that the defense lawyers follow this path, the trial will take years to end, because of the legal issues involved with the genetic evidence (think of the Kercher murder, that is still re-tried after having gone up to the Supreme Court and back to the Court of appeals) thus allowing a culprit to stay out of jail longer than he deserves, or an innocent to be acquitted much too late.

As somebody said, big cases make bad justice.

Posted on

Lone Wolf Terrorism and Open Source Intelligence

Tomorrow I shall give a talk about Open Source Intelligence and Lone Wolf Terrorism at the “Terrorism and Crime” ? international conference hosted by the University of Chieti.

It will be a chance to debunk the next “national security excuse” invoked to increase mass surveillance and social control for the sake of our “safety”.

Here is the full programme

International Conference on “Terrorism and Crime”

Dedicated to the memory of Prof. Enrico Todisco

University “G. d’Annunzio”, Viale Pindaro 42, Pescara

THURSDAY, JUNE 19 – 2014

Room “Paolo V”

O9 :00-09: 20 – Welcome and greetings

O9: 20 – 11:00 – “Lone Wolf Terrorism“

Chair: Yair Sharan

(09:20 – 09:40) Yair Sharan (General Director of the EPI/ first group – Israel)

History of LW terrorism

(09:40 – 10:00) Theodore J.Gordon (co-founder, The Millennium Project):

The Possible Evolution of Lone Wolf Terrorism; an RTD Study

(10:00 – 10:20) Yair Sharan (General Director of the EPI/ first group – Israel)

Prospects for Bio- terrorism

(10:20 – 10:40) Elizabeth Florescu (Director of Research, The Millennium Project)

Lone Wolf Profiling and Social Implications

Discussion

11:00 – 11:30 – Coffee Break

11:30 – 13:30 – Terrorism: Contrast and future prevention

Chair: Arije Antinori Discussant: Gianmarco Cifaldi

(11:30 – 11:50) – Arije Antinori (Sapienza University)

The evolution of the LWT through the web

(11:50 – 12:10) – Salvatore Rapuano (Comando GDF Regione Molise)

The security at airports: prospects and scenarios

(12:10 – 12:30) – Gianmarco Cifaldi – Tatiana Yugay (Un. “G. d’Annunzio“, Moscow

State University) – Smart security versus Smart crime

(12:30 – 12:50) – Antonio Cilli (G. d’Annunzio University) – Computer crime and

terrorism

(12:50 – 13:10) – Marco Rosi (Ten. Col. C.C.) – New scenarios of Islamist terrorism:

the phenomenon of the italian homegrown and Foreign fighters

(13:10 – 13:30) – Andrea Monti(University of Milan) – Open Source Intelligence e

Big Data

Discussion

13:30 – 15:30 – Lunch

(15:30 – 16:00) lecture dedicated to the memory of Prof. Enrico Todisco

Prof. Raimondo Cagiano De Azevedo – (Sapienza University)

Live broadcast on: www.unich.it

16:00 – 19:00 – Round table on the future of terrorism

Organizer: Sergio Sorbino Gen C.A. (ris) CC – Moderator:Gianmarco Cifaldi

Participants:

– Arije Antinori (Sapienza Univ.) – Gianmarco Cifaldi (Univ. G. d’Annunzio) – Antonio Cilli (Univ. G. d’Annunzio) – Elizabeth Florescu (Millennium Project, World Federation of UN Associations) – Theodor J. Gordon (Millennium Project, “Edward Cornish Award” winner, Futurist of the Year 2010) – Salvatore Rapuano (GdF) – Marco Rosi (Ten. Col. CC) – Carlo Disma (Col. Rivista Italiana Difesa) – Aurelio Soldano (Ufficiale GdF) – Yair Sharan (Director General of EPI/FIRST) – Tatiana Yugay (Moscow ?State ?Univ.) – Augusta Marconi (Univ. G. d’Annunzio)

17:30 Coffè Break

FRIDAY, JUNE 20 – 2014

Room “Paolo V”

Sessions on “The Future Of Crime”

O9 :00-09: 15 – Welcome and greetings

09:15 – 10:50 – Crime and economic activity. Future trends

Chair: Tatiana Yugay – Discussants: Andrea Ziruolo

(09:15 – 09:30) – Gianmarco Cifaldi – Tatiana Yugay (University “G. d’Annunzio“,

Moscow State University) Deoffshorization of the Russian economy as a fight against economic crime

(09:30 – 09:45) – Augusta Consorti, Massimo Sargiacomo, Michela Venditti

(University “G. d’Annunzio) – Accounting for illegal activities organized

(09:45 – 10:00) – Andrea Ziruolo(University “G. d’Annunzio) – Bodies of Independent

Assessment of local authorities, by overseeing the performance to yet another bureaucratic structure

(10:00 – 10:15) – Fabizio Lisi (Guardia di Finanza)

Future Trends of economic crimeand perspectives of contrast

Discussion

10:30 – 10:45 – Coffee Break

10:45 – 12:00 – Organized Crime. Future Trends

Chair: Giammarco Cifaldi – Discussants: Arije Antinori

(10:45 – 11:00) – John Gale (Miami judge) – Intenational crime: case study

(11:00 – 11:15) – Franco Sivilli(University “G. d’Annunzio) – From digitization to

datizzatione: the phenomenon of the Big Data in the era of Cloud

Computing

(11:15 – 11:30) – Arije Antinori (University La Sapienza) – The integration of Osint,

Webint and Socint in the analysis of complex criminal phenomena

(11:30 – 11:45) – Gianmarco Cifaldi – Tatiana Yugay (University “G. d’Annunzio“,

Moscow State University) – Smart security versus Smart crime

(12:00 – 12:15) – Elisabetta Narciso (Dirigente Polizia Postale) – New criminal

phenomena in the web

(12:15 – 12:30) – Paolo Piccinelli (Col C.C.) – Micro-crime and prevention strategies Discussion

12:30 – 13:45 –Violence, crime and justice. Temporal and spatial Trends

Chair: Francesco D. d’Ovidio – Discussant: Elizabeth Florescu

(12:30 – 12:45) – Mara Maretti – Elizabeth Florescu ?(University “G. d’Annunzio,

Millennium Project) – Gender-based violence: a sociological reading of

past, present and future

(12:45 – 13:00) – Francesco D. d’Ovidio, Rossana Mancarella, Laura Antonucci

Spatial relationships between changes in crime and the efficiency of

riminal justice in recent years

(13:00 – 13:15) – Antonio Cilli(University “G. d’Annunzio) – Digital investigations

and crime mapping

(13:15 – 13:30) – Pasqualino Cipolla – Italo Cucci(University “G. d’Annunzio,

Journalist) – Violence in sport and criminal tendencies

(13:30 – 13:45) – Gianmarco Cifaldi (University “G. d’Annunzio) – Violence against

children: from virtual to real

Discussion and Interview to Italo Cucci – Live broadcast on: www.unich.it

14:00 – 15:30 – Lunch

15:30 – 16:00 – Theodore J. Gordon“Some Future Ethical Issues”

16:00 – 18:30 – Round table on future of crime

Organizer: Sergio Sorbino (Gen C.A. (Ris) CC) – Moderator: Antonio Cilli

Participants:

– Vincenzo D’Antuono (Prefect of Pescara) – Arije Antinori (Coordinator CRI.ME LAB, Rome University) – Filippo Barboso (Quaestor of Chieti) – Angelo Battisti (Sapienza University) – Giuseppe Falasca (Magistrate) – Giovanni Febo (Quaestor of Teramo) – Paolo Passamonti (Quaestor of Pescara) – Paolo Piccinelli (Col. CC) – Fabio Santone (V.Q.A. Polizia di stato) – Yair Sharan (Director General of EPI/FIRST – Israel) – Aurelio Soldano (Cap. GdF) – Armando Tartaro (Univ. G. d’Annunzio)

Conclusions

17:00 Coffè Break

SATURDAY, JUNE 21 – 2014

Room “Paolo V”

Seminars

(09:00 – 09:45) – Arije Antinori – 10 Years of Digihad. The Evolution of Global Digital

Jihadism

(09:45 – 10:00) – Debate

(10:00 – 10:45) – Yair Sharan – New Technologies and Their Implications

(10:45 – 11:00) – Debate

11:00 – 11:15 – Coffee Break

(11:15 – 12:00) – Theodore J. Gordon – New data sources and The Evolution of

Analysis

(12:00 – 12:15) – Debate

(12:15 – 12:45) – Antonio Pacinelli, Simone Di Zio

Conclusions, thanks and future opportunities

13:00 – Lunch

Posted on

Boldrini (the Italian Low Chamber President) Asks For New Internet-related Regulation

Boldrini, a leftwinger, President of the Camera dei Deputati (the Italian Low Chamber), asked for a new set of Internet-related regulations during a conference whose aim was to advocate a (useless) Internet Bill of Rights.

Boldrini, that isn’t new in such exploit, enforces the old rhetorical technique of stating something as a general issue, while then making an exception that reflects the actual message. So, she says, the Internet must stay free BUT we do need to regulate it because of profanities, obscenities and violences available on the Internet.

Boldrini ? isn’t the first and shall not be the last to endorse this wrong position – I’m in the field since more than twenty years (sigh!) and the song still remains the same no matter the singer – confirming what the late Giancarlo Livraghi wrote almost twenty years ago, back in the 1996, in his essay, Cassandra :

Ideas travel quickly; and bad ideas seem to travel even faster.
In Europe, we have an added problem: regulation from the European Union.
Several times (and especially after the “decency act” was declared unconstitutional in the United States) they promised publicly not to interfere with freedom on the net.
I don’t believe them.
In spite of that statement, they are working on all sorts of regulations, controls and censorship, lead especially by the French.
We know at least some of the areas in which they intend to act. Systems of electronic payment (as if they weren’t already solved); protection of copyright (what they really mean is the interests of large software suppliers, or publishers, or the entertainment industry); the fight against crime and “terrorism” in networks (that can lead to all sorts of repression of innocent people while doing very little about organized crime); “pornography” (and we have seen what that can lead to). Also privacy of personal data, which indeed should be protected; but we have seen how even that cam become the excuse for unnecessary, ineffective and repressive bureaucracy. Etcetera…
…
And then… there are the “rule maniacs”.
A certain type of law experts and legislators, who (even in a place like Italy, already plagued with 100.000 more laws than it can possibly need) want to increase at all times the number of rules and regulations, and make them as complicated as possible (also generating an increasing number of cumbersome and inefficient regulatory bodies…).
…
It’s this type of people that keeps spreading the concept of society at risk, of a net dominated by hackers and pirates, or (isn’t that terrible!) invaded by independent and uncontrolled information and opinion. Society is at risk, they say, when minorities have a voice, differences of opinion travel out of control, information falls into the hands of those “common people” who so far had to come kneeling to the shrines of Law and Order.

What Boldrini and her peers fail to acknowledge is that we do need to enforce the regulations already in place (after possibly having reduced its quantity) and not create again and again bureaucracy and confusion that don’t help citizens and prevent the market from working properly.

Posted on

Google Spain’s ECJ Ruling Mistranslated in Italian

The Italian translation of the European Court of Justice’s Google Spain ruling is affected by serious translation errors that undermine its meaning.

The first recital of the conclusions read, in Italian

L’articolo 2, lettere b) e d), della direttiva 95/46/CE … deve essere interpretato nel senso che, da un lato, l’attività di un motore di ricerca … deve essere qualificata come  ?trattamento di dati personali ?, … e che, dall’altro lato, il gestore di detto motore di ricerca deve essere considerato come il  ?responsabile ? (enphasis added) del trattamento summenzionato, ai sensi dell’articolo 2, lettera d), di cui sopra.

The same word, “responsable” appears in the Spanish text, ? while the English text uses the words “data controller”, that Under Sect. 2 of the Dir 95/46/CE is a different legal position

Article 2(b) and (d) of Directive 95/46/EC … are to be interpreted as meaning that, first, the activity of a search engine … must be classified as ‘processing of personal data’, … second, the operator of the search engine must be regarded as the ‘controller’ in respect of that processing, within the meaning of Article 2(d).

The difference between Google being “data processor” or “data controller” is a serious one so it is of the utmost importance to find out which translation is the correct one, since the Italian courts and the Data Protection Authority are likely to refer to the Italian text.

The answer is the the English text is correct and both the Italian and Spanish are wrong. This conclusion comes from the fact that the recital points to sect. 2 lett. d) of the Directive that contains the definition of “data controller”.

But the mistakes of the Italian text don’t stop there. Talking about the role of the websites and blog owners, the translations uses the word “editori” as a false friend of the English word “publishers”. “Editore” in Italian means an entrepreneur whose business is selecting and publishing books and, broadly speaking, contents. While the Court is obviously referring to everybody handles a website, no matter if for business or what.