Italian Anti-Tech Lunacy?
A much more appropriate accusation perhaps:
http://www.engadget.com/2011/10/05/w...ian-wikipedia/
I'm trying to understand what could possibly get this law passed. Italian politicians trying to protect themselves? Is Italy one step away from being, I dunno, Russia?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Let me put it bluntly: Italy's politics is a puppet theater. You know, the one where the puppets whack each other over the head, with boxed laughter in the background and the Benny Hill theme.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Is this the same law that wanted to force ISPs to cut off people from the internet based on a single accusation of copyright infringement, from anyone?
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
No. This is a law which requires anyone with an Italian webpage to rewrite your page to your opponent's liking if he feels that something portrays him in a bad light. Within 48 hours. Without judicial oversight.Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
That's funny. I understadn the spirit of the law, but the law as is will create a circus!!!
I honestly don't see how this is different than other Euro laws which allow me to take my photo off anyone's blog or Flikr page if I happened to be in the background of their vacation photos.
This Italian law shares a belief that the mere existence of information on the Internet is a depredation if it wasn't explicitly approved by everyone involved.
I let that one speak for itself. Though I'm sorely tempted to speculate about Dread's willful ignorance and its relation to his intellectual capacities.
Not to mention that such a law does not even exist in Germany. Nor any other European country I know of (save Italy, that is) - but Dread is welcome to provide actual examples instead of painting the EU with a broad brush.
Last edited by Khendraja'aro; 10-06-2011 at 02:04 PM.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
My original question was more towards the idea if this was a package of laws getting fast tracked, like we do over here (ie, patriot act).
in relation to Dread's hangup: libel ≠ privacy
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Can you please, please go through one thread without insulting someone? For the love of God, just try. Are we not trying to promote an atmosphere where people like you don't immediately insult people? Do you not see how your behavior sets a very ugly tone?
So, I'm begging you, just lower your voice, relax a bit and entertain what others are saying.
I think judicial oversight of a bad law doesn't really help anyone.
In the other thread we discussed how EU privacy laws make it possible to sue someone to take their photo off any blog or Website if it's up there without authorization. Is there much difference between me suing someone to take down a photo of me, and me suing someone to take down a blog post about me?
The common theme here is the laws favoring those who are being written about and photographed, instead of those doing the writing and photographing. In practice, both privacy and Italian libel laws have the same impact of limiting free expression. That concerns me a lot.
If written and enforced correctly, yes. The privacy laws stop me from spreading factual information of you that you don't wish to share. The libel laws stop me from spreading false information.
IE, writing about how you rape children, compared to a photograph of you playing with your kids at the park on a day you called in sick to work.
Thats not to say that this law is written properly, but lumping libel laws and privacy laws as having the "same impact" is simply off the mark. You seem to have a problem putting so much control in the subject's hands, and that concerns me, a lot.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 10-06-2011 at 04:45 PM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Italy and most of Europe, yeah. Though, Italy specifically, did file criminal charges against one of its comedians for making fun of the Pope a few years ago, so Italy's a spectacular cesspool of corruption and, erm, "crony socialism" (I'm trying to understand what could possibly get this law passed. Italian politicians trying to protect themselves? Is Italy one step away from being, I dunno, Russia?) or however you want to label their pseudo-democratic, hard-left political system/cult of personality.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
Well, Dread, first of all, for me to stop insulting you, maybe you should think about stopping painting all of the EU with a broad brush and telling us about laws which don't even exist? That's the problem here - you're mouthing off without having even the faintest inkling about what the laws actually look like. So, next time you see something about one European state, maybe for Glod's sake, could you refrain from stating that each and every EU state must look like this and, even better, try to make it look like it's a European thing, when in fact, every single country has its own laws?
And, yes, Dread, we already went over this. Privacy does trump your precious "free expression" in some places. Nevermind that "free expression" does not even exist in the first place. I also note that you're still unable to supply an actual example of a law where a person in the background of a photo is able to do such a thing. Have fun. Because such a law does not exist.
Maybe you are confused with actually existing laws of individual member states (which actually do retain their autonomy to a large degree, contrary to your obvious belief that we don't have any legislative powers anymore and "the EU" does everything for us)?
Here in Germany we have something called a "Right to your own picture". It's a bit complicated but it works. Basically, every private citizen has to give his permission if you photograph him and if he is the main objective of the photo. This means that if you photograph a church or something and I am somewhere in the background, I cannot hinder you from publishing the photo. If I photograph a demonstration with hundreds of people,the objective of the photo is also considered to be the demonstration rather than the individual people in the photo, and so on. That's basically it. There are exceptions for public persons (like politicians, movie stars and so on), that's where it gets a little complicated.
What it amounts to is that you actually have to consider the rights of the person you're photographing. Yes, Dread, the other person actually has rights, too. Sorry if that concept is too complicated for you.
The UK has vastly different photography laws and I dare say that's why the tabloids over there are so vicious.
Last edited by Khendraja'aro; 10-06-2011 at 09:27 PM.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Plus, it's racist against Germans for Dread to politely ask you to refrain from being a raging jackass.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
My rage is also directed at the EU data privacy commissioners, but there is plenty that's objectionable with the national data privacy commissioners.
Warning, quote modification follows.
Sounds pretty similar to the Italian law once you just swap the word "photo" for "essay".
Uh, no? A photo is quite dissimilar to an essay. It's complicated to identify a person based on an essay alone. It's not complicated to identify a person based on a photo.
That's why we have mug shots instead of mug essays. Not to mention that in our law you still have the option of going to court if you don't want to take down the photo.
And you obviously believe there's no right to privacy. Well done. Maybe we should plaster your photos all over some billboards in New York until you get the hint.
Last edited by Khendraja'aro; 10-07-2011 at 02:54 PM.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
it's not just "photo", it's "photo of face". the law as it pertains to photos gives people some right to control photos of their faces.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
not to mention the latter would amount to restricting thought and fantasy.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
When I walk outside or interact with people, I don't think I can reasonably expect my public face or my public interactions to be private. If I say something or do something, and someone sees/photographs that, I don't understand my supposed "right" to stop them from posting that photo online or writing about what they saw.
Yes yes I realise this, what I'm saying is that the ECHR has ruled that the right to limited control over photos of your face is a part of the right to identity, for reasons xyz. i can't find the ruling right now alas. you're allowed to write about what you've seen, except possibly in italy if someone disapproves. maybe. but italy's frickin' crazy man. Look, I'm sure there are several rights the EU recognises that you don't. Maybe you'll have to agree to disagree with the EU in some matters, because clearly neither party will be changing the other one's mind through argument and I strongly doubt either party is significantly more reasonable and learned than the other. I believe Hazir has once made a similar statement re. unions or something.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Again: It's about the aim of the photo. If it's just some random photo of some identifiable stranger on the street, then, no, you don't have the right to publish that wherever you want. Just as you may not take a photo of some supermodel and use that one for your latest advertisement campaign.
It becomes a different matter if your actions are relevant for the public - e.g. a politician giving a speech. If your actions are not relevant to the public then your rights to your own picture stay your own.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
The advertising campaign is a commercial product, totally different.
Look, as Aimless pointed out, I think we both understand each other's perspective on this. We just also find it mystifying. Where I think the greatest breakdown here is:
1) Amerikans have no expectation of privacy if they are outside of their homes or if they do anything someone else might notice.
2) Your reasoning on this seems to assume that, even though theoretically someone could completely abuse your privacy laws to stifle free expression for completely arbitrary reasons, that won't happen. Whereas we take more of a "slippery slope" view when it comes to these issues (which we see as issues of free expression, not privacy).
Re. your first point, the consent for photos thing is about the right to identity rather than simply being about the right to privacy. Re. the second the point, the Italian law doesn't seem to be a direct consequence of EU laws about privacy or identity. That's why I would reject the slippery slope argument you've attempted to use since the beginning of this thread. Not all slippery slopes are the same: some are fallacious.
Even if we were to accept that the natural and logical consequence of EU laws would be this Italian law, we can defend ourselves through judicious inconsistency. I'm not convinced by the position that, if you let people reserve some of their rights to identity, you must let them effectively censor, without any checks such as judicial oversight, a site like Wikipedia. Why would you allow that if it were clearly likely to be abused and with dangerous results? Laws should take effects into consideration as well as overarching and abstract principles.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Then make it a non-commercial campaign, say "anti-abortion". Bonus points if the model in question is pro-choice.
Y'know, something like "Your daughter would've looked like this if you hadn't aborted her."
It's as always with some of our US-Americans here a question of moderation. They simply don't seem to grasp the notion that the slippery slope fallacy cannot be applied to any and all concepts where limits and constraints are involved. Rather, they tend to the extreme notions that this or that ideal has to be strived for in order to achieve true happiness.
When reality works in quite a different framework - they always forget to take the human character into account, namely that freedom and limitless choice simply do not work. We need limits, laws and rules. The amount of which can be argued about, but the notion that "pure freedom" and humanity are compatible is quite a laughable notion.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Funny how it always seems to come to pass with governments, though.
Before you know it, an entire country is stuck in the electronic dark ages because their retarded "privacy" laws are applied obscenely broadly, and prohibit pictures being taken to map public streets.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote