EU:a State-approved professional to connect a router to a socket? Italy already got it

The “discovery” that Italy is going to enforce the EU directive 2008/63/CE by imposing that only a State-approved professional can connect a router to a socket has generated some sort of ? hype among those who’re not familiar with the Italian legal system. Since 1992, in fact, ? the decree of the Ministry of communication n.314 already establish such burden (and sanction those who don’t comply.)

The true news is that – should the government actually revise the old regulation – things can only get worse… to infringe Italian data protection law?

I’m an old customer and I’m very happy that the Company finally landed in Italy.
It is odd, nevertheless, that’s data protection policy (informativa sul trattamento dei dati personali) is not fully compliance with the Italian Data Protection Code, since mandatory information are missed:
– the identity of the data controller (responsabile del trattamento)
– how long will Amazon handle the personal data
– what will happen when the data handling is no more necessary
– the rights belonging to the data subject (diritti dell’interessato) under sect. 7-13 of the Italian Data Protection Code
Further more’s privacy procedure fails to collect the explicit consent of the data subject for the data processing and didn’t collect the specific consent to handle the sensitive data (those related to customers who purchase political, philosophical, and/or healt-related books.)
This situation, then, poses an interesting question: is actually infringing its customer personal privacy rights?
Strictly speaking, the answer is yes because the law has been breached. Nevertheless I’ll keep purchasing books through Amazon services since I feel more protected by Amazon ethical commitment than by a bunch of legal lingo.
Fact is that bureaucracy asks for its lamb to be sacrificed.

On Apple’s Adobe Flash Ban(g)

So, according to MacRumors, Apple’s explanation for the ban over Adobe’s Flash-to-Iphone compiler is deadly simple: Apple doesn’t want to loose its grip on the users. They invested monies in creating product, capturing a market and now want to raise fences to prevent other eating on theyr own dish (or, better, hunting in the same hunt-resort.

Adobe’s supporters – on their side –  ?shout fire accusing Apple of being unfair, etc. etc. etc. …

Well, I might agree with those criticism against Apple, were the accusation coming from the open source community (where Mac OsX is supposed to come from?) but honestly I can’t accept that an hyper-proprietary company such Adobe (member of Business Software Alliance, among other things) might complain against a business strategy that is entirely into the “mood” of this industry sector. This is the market, catch-it or leave-it.

This is not to say that I do like or approve Apple behaviour.

Preventing user from having multiple choices, liberty in other words, is by definition an unfair move. I think Apple should learn from Google, whose “power” stays firmly in users’ hands.

One may think that this is wrong too. Maybe, but between a leaving in a golden cage (as soon as you can afford it) or be free in the wild I would go for the latter.

Google executives acquitted in Italy from defamation charges

Today the Court of Milan made public the decision in the criminal trial against four Google executives, charged of defamation and illegal personal data handling in relationship to the publication on the video sharing platform ? of a video containing act of bullyism against a person affected by the Down Syndrome.

The legal basis for the charges, following the prosecutor’s theory of the case, was that those executives failed to exercise a pre-emptive control over the contents published by Google final users’, thus allowing the infringement of the reputation of the concerned person and of an NGO representing Down-Syndrome-affected persons.

The Court acquitted all the defendant from the charges of defamation, while found them liable of the illegal personal data handling charge. The whole sentence (including the legal technicalities that support the decision) will be public within the next 30 days.

This indictment is the last component of a long series of court decisions that kill Network Neutrality and turn ISPs and Telcos into Digital Vigilantes while, in the meantime, no actual protection is given to the victims of online crimes.

The Peppermint and The Pirate Bay cases, the legal argument against Youtube and the one between an entertainment-backed lobbying group by one side and Telecom Italia, the ISP’s association and the Data Protection Authority on the opposite and – finally – this indictment are all linked through the same connection: to erode the absence of the legal duty to preemptively contol internet users’ activity established by the UE directive on e-commerce.

What is bizarre, in this Google trial, is that for the very first time the existence of the ISP’s duty to perform a mass-control of user activities has been asserted thank to the data protection regulation. The same data protection regulation that forbade the disclosure of the identities of people allegedly accused by the entertainment industry of copyright infringement through P2P networks.

Is still to early to understand the Court mind (since the basis for the decision will be disclosed within the next 30 days. It is, nevertheless possible to try an educated guess based on the Court records. To put it short, here is a probable explanation for the decision:

1 – there is a rule of law into the Criminal Code that says: to not stop a fact equals to cause it,
2 – data protection law requires a prior authorization to be obtained before handling personal data,
3 – a video to be posted online is personal data,
4 – therefore Google executives had to check whether the user who posted the video got the preemptive authorisation from the people of the video, and
5 – by failing to do so, they infringed the data protection law
6 – furthermore, by not controlling in advance, they let the video to libel the victim of the violence (this charge has been dismissed.)

It is too early to assess the damages provoked by this decision, but it is not unreasonable to imagine that – should this court decision become “case law” – the telco market will suffer an alteration of the competion among the various players. The smallest one can’t handle the increasing risk (and cost) of being sued or investing in momentum-generating policies. Big international players might find Italy a lesser attractive place to do business in.

An essay on Network Neutrality

Axel Spies, a friend and a brilliant Washington-based high-tech lawyer just sent me this paper on Net Neutrality in the US. A must reading.

Net neutrality continues to be fiercely debated in the United States. The new Democratic FCC leadership has committed to expanding and enhancing existing net neutrality restrictions. The current FCC Chairman, Julius Genachowski, recently announced that he will initiate a rulemaking to codify the FCC’s existing network neutrality principles. Those principles, originally set forth in a 2005 “Internet Policy Statement,” declared that to “encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to:”

* access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
* run applications and use services of their choice (subject to the needs of law enforcement).
* connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.
* competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

The Chairman has publicly stated that he plans to propose a fifth nondiscrimination principle that would prohibit broadband providers from discriminating against particular Internet content or applications. However, providers would be able to offer “managed services” in some limited contexts. A sixth principle of “transparency” is also debated to require broadband Internet access providers to disclose network management practices.

The FCC’s informal announcement stirred the ongoing debate over the extent to which broadband and other network providers will maintain control over their networks, free from government restrictions, to “manage” their networks, including the ability to block or slow certain traffic, for the benefit of all users. Proponents of a “neutral” network, including Google, Yahoo!, eBay, consumer rights, free speech advocacy groups, and generally the three Democratic FCC commissioners (Chairman Genachowski, Copps and Clyburn), are concerned that without government rules, service providers will act anticompetitively by restricting content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached to the network, and on the modes of communication allowed. In contrast, Internet Service Providers (ISPs), incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs), including AT&T and Verizon, some cable providers, such as Comcast, free market advocacy groups and generally the two Republican FCC Commissioners (McDowell and Baker) oppose net neutrality obligations.

Earlier legal rulings regarding net neutrality fell short of setting forth a comprehensive policy. The FCC embedded some net neutrality policies in conditions placed on the Verizon/MCI and SBC/AT&T merger approvals. In 2008, the FCC, then led by Republican Kevin Martin, sought to enforce the Internet Policy Statement principles on cable TV provider Comcast when allegations arose that Comcast had blocked consumers from using several peer-to-peer applications. That decision is currently being debated in a federal court appeal. In addition, the FCC principles are currently being imposed on recipients of broadband stimulus funds. “