Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Trovato il grimaldello?

Qualche esperto potrebbe spiegare in dettaglio (ma in termini comprensibili
per un non-hacker) il pericolo che correrebbe la libertą di parola, qualora
passasse la direttiva Gonzales (fermo restando il sacrosanto diritto di
combattere la pedopornografia)?
Namib
---
Associated Press / September 19, 2006
Gonzales Wants ISPs to Save User Data
WASHINGTON -- Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Tuesday that
Congress should require Internet service providers to preserve customer
records, asserting that prosecutors need them to fight child
pornography.
Testifying to a Senate panel, Gonzales acknowledged the concerns of
some company executives who say legislation might be overly intrusive
and encroach on customers' privacy rights. But he said the growing
threat of child pornography over the Internet was too great.
"This is a problem that requires federal legislation," Gonzales told
the Senate Banking Committee. "We need information. Information helps
us makes cases."
He called the government's lack of access to customer data the biggest
obstacle to deterring child porn.
"We have to find a way for Internet service providers to retain
information for a period of time so we can go back with a legal process
to get them," he said.
Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller have met with several Internet
service providers, including Time Warner Inc.'s AOL, Comcast Corp.,
Google Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Verizon Communications Inc.
The law enforcement officials have indicated to the companies they must
retain customer records, possibly for two years. The companies have
discussed strengthening their retention periods _ which currently run
the gamut from a few days to about a year _ to help avoid
legislation...
The subject has prompted some alarm among Internet service provider
executives and civil liberties groups after the Justice Department took
Google to court earlier this year to force it to turn over information
on customer searches. Civil liberties groups also have sued Verizon and
other telephone companies, alleging they are working with the
government to provide information without search warrants on subscriber
calling records....

 Namib
Qui puoi trovare le opinioni di chi ha da dire in proposito:
http://www.stallman.org/
Da questa pagina estraggo due sotto links che tocca la domanda che tu
poni:
http://www.iris.sgdg.org/info-debat/comm-filtrage0905.html
"oppose the proposed law to require internet providers to block
"automatically by default" based on what someone thinks is good for
children."
http://www.readerprivacy.org/
"This would make the police once again have to get search warrants
before they can get information from bookstores or libraries about what
you have read or borrowed."
http://www.stallman.org/millions.html
"Thousands dead, millions deprived of civil liberties?"
neurino

restando il sacrosanto diritto di combattere la pedopornografia)?
Nessun pericolo.  Sono semplicemente piu' indietro che in Italia.
Qui da noi e' gia' obbligatorio tenere i dati per 2 anni e anche piu'.
-Stefano

 Namib
#_Da quello che ho capito, ma sono (credo) al pari tuo per mancanza di
esperienza riguardo sistemi elettronici; tutte le comunicazioni vengono
intercettate da Echelon (uno strumento orwelliano); una organizzazione
preposta, che e` sparpagliata in diverse aree del globo (una ce n'e` proprio
qui al Nord dell'Isola Sud).
Lo scopo di questa, e`di vagliare, tramite l'uso di un filtro, tutte le
comunicazioni contenenti parole ritenute "sospette",  trascrivendo poi i
messaggi (pescati)  e metterli in archivio nella loro integrita`, per essere
poi usati
"to whom it may concern" dove quel 'whom' suppongo comprenda uffici
investigativi: FBI, CIA, Interpol.
La direttiva Gonzales riguarda il Patriot Act 2, dove in quel filtro
sono state introdotti termini "antipatriottici" che se apparissero ripetuti
nei messaggi di un mister X, potrebbero rendere costui, in progressione,
indiziato sempre piu` severamente.
Son tempi duri insomma, specialmente per tutti i cittadini e non, che
ricadono entro la giurisdizione USA.
Forse intendevi dire su che base giuridica possono essere validati simili
indizi circostanziali...in questo caso non saprei di preciso.
Giano
