Sunday, May 30, 2010

Post 277. Privacy Laws.

AustralianPlanet: Australia's search engine

This  post  has  been  written   as  a   response   to-:  
" Let’s open the mouths of the bloggers  "
Follow the link to read the post:

Follow the link to read the post:
Silence, there’s thieving - Marco Travaglio.
Good day to you all. Once more we are talking about the so-called law on wiretapping, the law that will prevent the magistrates from doing wiretapping in most of the investigations into crime and that will prevent journalists, not only from ever publishing wiretapping information but also from publishing the official documents of the investigations, right up until the moment when the investigations are concluded, for years and years, up until the time when, and only if it happens that the investigations reach landfall and get to a preliminary hearing, thus cutting out all those facts that perhaps aren’t actually a crime or that get shelved because meanwhile they come up against the Statute of Limitations, as for example in the Scajola case.

Silence everyone
I don’t want to spend time on what is set out in this law because we have talked about it many times, but as a brief summary, the journalists can no longer publish news and official documents of investigations, nor can they talk about them, summarise them, nor give a brief outline.
We can’t even refer to what has been happening in the investigations until the end of the preliminary hearing. The TV channels cannot record magistrates in the palaces of justice, in the trials if one of the two sides does not accept, it’s not possible to record the debate that is however a public event. The wiretapping evidence can be neither summarised nor transcribed, nor talked about, nothing, nothing, not even if contained in the arrest warrant that is notified to the persons arrested. It’s not possible to plant bugs in the places where it’s thought that a crime will be committed. It’s necessary to have the certainty that in that place a crime is being committed, thus to prevent crimes that could be organized or committed it’s no longer possible to do anything. The typical scenario: the delinquents make a date to get together in a certain place to talk, if you aren’t certain that in that place they want to kill or kidnap someone, but you think that they could do, you don’t have the possibility to check on them and the same is true for the video cameras in the stadia where you keep an eye on the stadium to have immediate images of violent fans: if you are not certain that the fan is already committing some kind of violent act, you can’t install the video camera and thus naturally you have to ask the fan to wait before committing his violent action, to interrupt his acts of violence to allow time for the security forces to install the video cameras. This is the point that we have got to with these funny stories!
Naturally the magistrates will be pursued with regulations that say that for example if they have a press conference in which they explain the operations of the police with the arrest of one or more mafia persons or something like that, they will no longer be able to stay on the case if they have spoken. They have talked about the investigations in a press conference with the police? They will have to stop and hand over the case to another magistrate. It won’t be possible to wiretap spies, secret service agents without having first told the government for whom they work, who naturally, just think of ours, will hastily warn them to watch out for telephone calls, and above all telephone wiretapping cannot go on for longer than 75 days for certain cases. Mafia crimes are excluded. But as you well know often they discover that a crime is a mafia one after the investigation has been done on that crime. Who knows if the one asking a business owner for protection money is a band of ordinary criminals, or Cosa Nostra or the ‘ndrangheta or the camorra? You have to wiretap them to understand that, naturally, but here if the wiretapping lasts longer than 75 days, on the75th day it cannot go on and thus you have to stop it! Thus these regulations are all valid even for mafia crimes that usually are discovered only after and not before that wiretapping takes place.
Finally it’ll no longer be possible to record a conversation with another person, like D'Addario for example, who took care to do her own recording in that famous night in Palazzo Grazioli on Putin’s big bed, that is then what happened the other day when a journalist pretended to be a corrupting business person and he offered a bribe to Sarah Ferguson, the princess of the British royal family, discovering that the princess is happy to receive bribes. It turns out that she was being recorded and even videoed while she received the bribe.
This very briefly is the content of the law that naturally is causing an outcry among the magistrates who are being disarmed and the journalists who are being disarmed at the same time: let’s hope that the citizens wake up to this and realise that they are the main victims of this law because naturally it is not a law against the journalists or against the magistrates. The magistrates and journalists will continue to get their salaries. It is a law against the citizens who will no longer be able to know things that they know today and they won’t be able to have the same guarantees of security. For those who think that our security is already at risk because of criminality and the inefficiency of the state to suppress it, let them know that in the future our security will be infinitely more threatened because an infinite series of delinquents will get away scot free thanks to the impossibility of doing wiretapping.
Posted by Beppe Grillo at 06:22 AM in | Comments (2)
Post a comment | Sign up | Send to a friend | | GrilloNews | listen_it_it.gifListen |
View blog opinions

Blogger's  Post-:
Privacy  Laws. 
Facebook  has  recently  been  attacked   in  Australia   for  having allowed   members   to  infringe   Privacy    Laws.   This  is   a  wide-ranging  issue   that  requires    going  back   to  Basics/Fundamentals.
Stumble  Upon   has  already  been    muzzled   time   ago.
I  shall,  eventually   write   about  my  experience  on  Stumble  Upon. 

I  believe   on   principle  that   people  who    have  nothing    objectionable,   illegal,   criminal   to   hide   do  not  need   Privacy   Laws.
I   admit  though,   as  the  un-complicated   person  I  am,  with  almost  no   vice  (  per  sola  Gratia ),  always  reforming   myself,   that   this  may  be  a   simplistic   statement. 
However,  the  fact  is  that  once  one  accepts    Total   Privacy  as  a   universal   blanket,   one   also   opens  the  way  to  Censorship  in  order  to  indiscriminately   veto  and   hide    information.
This  is  tantemount   to  a   criminal   inconsistency   between  the   ideals  of   Justice  (  Freedom)  necessary  to   a  healthy,  viable    Democracy   and    the  fetterings,   distortions  of  Justice,    which,   while    maintaining    Freeedom   to   Act   for  the    Mafiosi   elements,     removes  these    from  the    checks  of    Righteous   Justice   for  lack  of   supervision  and  information.
Eventually   only   a  bloody  Civil  War   remains   the   solution,    given  the  presence   of   right  men.    Ultimately    a  Civilisation   collapses  in  the   climate  of  general   lack  of  trust  and  confidence.    
It  may  be    uncomfortable   for  a  few   but   discomfort  is  better  than  total  failure.  
In   a   way,   this  is  a   scenario   similar   to  the    criminal    enforcement  of   Silence   or   Omerta'  by    the   Mafiosi   and   somehow,  in   a   theologically   controversial   way,   by   the   Church   of   Rome
They  all   love   Total  Privacy,   Silence,   Non-Disclosure,   White-Washing,   the  Odour  of  Sanctity,  and  one  can   smell   this   fake-sanctity   even   inside  the   Households  of  Mafiosi,   full   of  Images  of   christ-crucified  and  of    holy  maries  and  saints,   while   the   men   of  the   household   wearing    heavy   golden  chains   and   crosses  around  their   hairy,   goat-like   necks,   oppress,    encourage,   foster    and  make   money   out  of   every   conceivable  human   frailty,    weackness  and   vice.     Indeed  a  repetition   of    Jesus'   sacrifice   at  every  corner   of  the   streets  in    an   obscene,  un-holy  distortion   of   the   Sacrifice  of  the   Mass.
Yet   the   future  and   viability  of   Modern  Democracies   requires   the    abolition   of   Total  Indiscriminate  Privacy.
    In  Italy,    the    extreme,   totally  unacceptable,   unethical,   unlawful    Law   has  been  made   by  Berlusconi   in  order  to    negate    phone-tappings    for   himself  and  his  collaborators.   While  it   may  be   legitimate   to    not  have    phone-tappings   brought    to  everyone's   attention, of    Government  officials    who    may  be   discussing    perfectly  legal   matters    related   to   sensitive  activities   required   by   Government,   requiring   secrecy    from  opponents  and   enemies   of   the  State/Civilisation/Culture,  there   should  be   phone-tappings    scrutinised   by  politically  independent,    Security   Officials   who   would   reveal    facts  to the   public   only    if   and   when   illegal,   criminal    activities    were    involved,   not  related   to   Security  Matters.
For  example,    a   Labour  Local  Government  (Victoria) Minister  for   Traffic   and  Transport,  a  Mr.  Campbell   has  recently   been   photographed    exiting    one   night    a    Gay  Club   he  has   been  attending,     unknowingly  to  all  for  years,   misrepresenting   himself   to  his    constituency   as   a   normal    family  man   with  a   wife   and  two   children,   while  participating   in  the   discussion,   drafting,  promulgation  of   Laws   about   sexual    behaviour,   even   if   at  least  at   a   Caucus  level.
No   wonder   that   Facebook's   Liberties   have   been  attacked   by  that  ' nitwit',   the   Labour   Federal   Minister   for   Communication    who   has  sabotaged   Australian  Telstra   in  the  name  of  the   Whitlam-Keating    Level-Carpet-Policy,  in  spite  of  Telstra's   general  efficiency,  in  spite  of   the  Government's   sabotage.    Australia  has   already   got,   by   World's   standards,  a  fast  enough   Broad-band  Network   and  Telstra  honestly  concurrs  on  this.   We   should  wait   untill   the  existing   copper-system  has  been   fully   ammortised,  rather   than   wantonly  writing   it  off   in  the  name  of   a  mad   hubris   for   world-outstandingness,   and  replacing  it  with   an  optical   fibres  one.   
It  is   foreign   Companies    who   advise   a   faster    system    which   would    benefit    a   bare   5%  of   Australian  Business,     whose   interest    is   to   benefit   from   the    enormous   spending   spree   that   the  Labour   Party    desires   for   purely    megalomaniac   aims.
Most  Australians  would  be   sitting  on   their    posteriors     waiting   for  the    answers   of    slower   systems   world-wide.
Southern  Europe   has,  for  example,    for   censorship   and  freedom  inhibiting-reasons,    slower   systems,    Italy  being   typical.    Berlusconi   virtually   owns  the   Media  in  Italy. 
Voters   have  a  right  to   know  the  true  stand  on   most  issues    of   their  political  candidates.   This is  why  there   cannot    be a   secret   life    or   double  life    for  politicians   or    outstanding   public    figures.    They   are    referential   witnesses   (  see   term  as  used   by    Juan  Luis  Segundo  S.J.)  and   the  morons   among  ourselves   rely   on  these   as    exemplars   by   which   to   inform   their    opinions.........i.e.,  if   Campbell   says    that   bunging   arse-holes   is  a    normal  and   safe   practice,   it  must  be  so,  as  he   is  a  normal  outstanding family-man.
Although   there  are   some    who   do  not    find  anything  objectionable   with   sodomy,  I   would  like  to  say  that,     a  politician   who   has   a   say  in  the   discussion,   drafting,    and  promulgation of  Laws  on  sexual  matters,     even   if   at  the Caucus-level,   must   declare   one's  own  leanings,     specially    if  and  when  practiced.   There are  those    who,    suffering   from    sexual   aberrations  and  distorted   views-------this  can  happen  to   anyone  in   one's   life,    even   to   Priests  and  Saints,   and   be  a  temporary  temptation   of    long  or   short   duration--------remain   humble   about   truth,   struggle   with   it   and  resist   it,     never    accepting  it  as  normal,   changing   definitions   and  labels   to   suit   their   failures,  in   a   Martin  Luther's   fashion,   i.e.,   finding   he   was  unable    to  remain   chaste,  he  declared  it   impossible   and    un-scriptural   for   all   humanity,   even  outside   the   realm  of   Grace,   while    extolling  all   the  way   Sola  Fides.  In  short  he   made  himself  the   standard  of   humanity.     Idiotic  is  it  not? 
Yet   in  other   ways   Martin  Luther  was  historically  necessary,   i.e.,   rightly   against   the   sale   of   Indulgences. 
Sola  Fides    by-passing   and   fatally   ignoring   Sola   Gratia,   was   an  extreme  reactionary   claim    to   an   extremely  both   naive   and   paradoxically   malingering  ( depending  on  the  intelligence-level )   Roman   Catholic   claim   of   what   I   call   the  Mambo-Jumbo  repertory.    
The  bottom  line  is  that  a  Politician   has    duties   towards   Self-Transparency.
To   ensure  this  transparency    Privacy   cannot  therefore   not  be  total.
Mr.  Campbell    practiced  the  slimy/damning  vice   while   wishing  to   give   an  impression   of   a   normal    outstanding    family-man.   
As  I  have    suggested   for  years   in  my   Posts,   there    should  not  be   any  stigma   attached    to   homosexuality  per  se,   one  that   does   not  involve   sodomy,   and   one   who  is   so   acting   should  rather  be   called  a   sarcophile (  lover  of    flesh  regardless  of  gender,   age,   species,  yes,  even  animals.......).   Lesbians   are  in  fact  homosexual   persons  of   the  female  gender  indulging  in   mutual   erotic   carnal    games,    which  can    virtually   imitate   sodomitic   acts.
Although  not  as  objectionable  as   the  real   sodomy    performed   by   male  persons,    they   are   not   as  innocent   as    a   pure   homosexual     non-carnal   attraction.
Masturbation   is   always   a  dangerous   beginning   to   more   serious    distortions   but   may    have   some    justification   in  the   real  world.
No  one  appears   to  be  able   to    take  me  up   on  these    fundamental   distinctions  that   should  actually    give  me   fame  and  praises  as  they   can   comfort   many   who  are   homosexuals   without  being   practicing   sarcophiles.  
Freedoms/liberties/human  rights   depend  on  the  prior   performance  of   duties,  i.e.,   the  observance  of   some  minimum   ethical   standards,   else   Democracy   becomes    a  horrible   self-delusion.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home