

Wikipedia shuts down Italian site because of Berlusconi's "Wiretapping Act" - nextparadigms
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Comunicato_4_ottobre_2011/en

======
fosk
I understand this may sound inappropriate by some of you.

I'm italian, I live in the US, and I'm deeply updated on the political and
cultural changes that we're witnessing in Italy. The proposed law we're
talking about is basically against any kind of interception (mostly phone
calls) legally used by police and public prosecutors to arrest criminals and
mafia members. This is scaring the italian government simply because the prime
minister Silvio Berlusconi has been brought in trial thanks to some
interceptions (the sex scandals, lately).

Apart compromising thousands of trials by helping lots of criminals to not be
arrested and uncovered, this law also includes a specific paragraph stating
that any kind of publication publicly distributed referring to an individual
(like on a newspaper, blog or wikipedia) can be deleted upon the request of
the offended part without proving that his motivations are true. Let's say
that a Wikipedia article states that Berlusconi has been accused for
something, he can, thanks to this law, ask the removal of the information even
if they're true and he's wrong. This clearly threatens the freedom of press in
Italy, and this is why what Wikipedia is doing, if put in the current italian
political context, can be not only justified but also approved.

~~~
antirez
Oh and note that according to this bright law proposal even the blog ran by
the 14 years old should remove/change the content _within 48 hours_. It's hard
to get more lame than that. Also note that this is happening at the same time
that in Italy Berlusconi is unlikely to get elected again, so he is exploiting
the last months of being the prime minister to ruin a bit more our country.

------
tomp
I don't understand how this is supposed to make sense... Isn't it just as
possible for an Italian to be offended by something written on the English
wikipedia as it is on the Italian one? Why don't they just shut down wikipedia
as a whole then?

Also, unless their servers are physically hosted in Italy or they have a
number of employees based in Italy, I see no reason why they should abide by
this law. Doesn't China lawfully demand censorship on every website? Maybe
it's time they move their servers to Iceland...

I can't help but see this as a mostly a politically motivated action, a form
of protest and a way of spreading information about this paragraph among the
Italian public, and I cannot see how this is in the spirit of Wikipedia's
neutrality...

Edit: a somewhat similar attitude is present in this post on the mailing list
<http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation/56247>

~~~
ErrantX
_Why don't they just shut down wikipedia as a whole then?_

This is an action purely by the Italian community. The foundation were not
even aware of it till a few hours ago :)

 _I see no reason why they should abide by this law_

It's a protest against an upcoming law that ma lead to Italian editors being
fined for not editing Wikipedia to the demands of companies/people.

~~~
CWuestefeld
tomp asked what I think is a crucial question, that you didn't address: what
does the _language_ -specific wiki have to do with it? Wouldn't the English-
language wiki be subject to the very same law? If so, how does downing the
Italian version protect wikipedia?

~~~
ErrantX
Communication has been oblique from the Italian community, so I can only give
my "best guess" answer here.

Practically speaking there is no way this can affect Wikipedia itself, because
the servers are in the US. The Italians appear to be claiming that, however,
this law would affect the _editors_ directly - leading them to be fined if
they write material that someone objects to (and don't fix it within 48
hours).

I'm not really convinced myself (reading the law) that this is a risk for
them. But it is the reason behind their move.

(or if I was being critical; they are making a political gesture to try and
stop the law, which is terrible...)

~~~
FuzzyDunlop
Non-US domains have been re-appropriated by the US with the rationale that a
_.com_ domain comes under US jurisdiction, and the agency behind it has gone
on record explaining as much (apologies for shit reference, this is from
memory)[1].

Whether or not that rationale stands or if it's even right, that same logic
could be applied to websites holding a _.it_ domain. And since some other
countries require some level of incorporation within their own economy before
being able to use their TLD, (don't know if that applies to Italy), there's a
reasonable assumption to be made that penalties against the business running
the site could be applicable.

As a purely political manoeuvre, however, I suppose that's their collective
decision to protest the legislation. From the sound of it I'd find it
difficult to disagree.

[1] [http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jul/03/us-anti-
pir...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jul/03/us-anti-piracy-
extradition-prosecution)

~~~
Kadin
Well, it's certainly not safe for them to continue running under the .it TLD
if they're in violation of Italian law, but they could redirect to
"it.wikipedia.com" (which, I just checked, actually _is_ the Italian
Wikipedia) and thus be within the US domainspace. That seems pretty safe.

And yes, you're correct that the US has asserted control over the generic
.com/.org TLDs for historical reasons. They have a "silent .us" appended to
them, from a functional standpoint. So they're not safe if you're in violation
of US laws, but that doesn't seem to be the situation here.

------
jarofgreen
Have you seen Mark Thomas "My life in serious organised crime" (DVD and
Radio)? I highly recommend it if you know the UK at all.

In it, he talks about "playing" with the law. There was a law in the UK saying
all protests within a zone (roughly a mile of parliament) had to be licensed
by the police. So he started playing with the law - never breaking it - but
playing with it and generally being a right pain in the ass (at times with
several thousand friends) to point out how stupid the law was. In the end, the
law was removed (altho some people say what it was replaced with was even
worse).

His half hour radio show is on Youtube.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRGZr2m4r7M> (Illegally, I assume - your call)

But anyway, if this law passes play with it to demonstrate how shit it is. For
starters, go through every public statement Berlusconi's party has ever issued
on-line and complain if possible. Then move on to the output of the Berlusconi
owned media.

I don't know Italy well, so I don't know if this would work but certainly
something to think about.

------
muuh-gnu
Italian editors may have done this as a stunt to merely alarm italian readers
of what a law may be comming, but the "italian language" wikipedia, even if
probably mostly populated by italian citizens, is in no way connected to or
obliged to abide by laws of italy, the state. There are probably millions of
italian speakers who are not italian citizens, they are affected by this stunt
even though they are in no way affected by this silly law.

In my view, this is italian citizens effectively seizing italian language
wikipedia to push their particular political interests, which apply only to
italy. I also think that the foundation should not allow particular
"countries" to effectively seize language editions of the wikipedia and
enforce their particular laws on all readers and contributors who happen to
speak that language.

~~~
savramescu
The flaw with your argument is that by not stopping it here it'll snowball and
affect more systems, more countries etc. This should be stopped now, otherwise
France will be next then Germany than US and all of a sudden we'll all move to
China.

------
bdhe
Maybe I'm being dense, but I couldn't gather from the notice the scope of the
Italian law: Servers hosted in Italy? Publishers of said content irrespective
of where it is hosted? Authors of said content? Would the website be
blacklisted if it (loosely speaking the people behind it) do not cooperate
with the law? Does Italy even have an internet blacklist?

~~~
ErrantX
This came to the attention on the foundation wide discussion list earlier
today (I think this is the first time the foundation were aware of it too...)
& I've been digging into it.

The law they are protesting basically says as follows:

\- Any party can post a notice to the owner/publisher of a website or blog
etc. telling them to correct information (and provide the new information they
require) and this must be done within 48 hours or a fine can be imposed.

Obviously it is a silly law. Italian Wikipedians are arguing that it is risky
for them because it leaves them open to receiving these notices and having
fines imposed; and so they have shut down (on their own initiative) it.wiki.

There is a lot of FUD flying around... but as best I can make out:

\- There is nothing in these new laws to actually blacklist of close down
Wikipedia for non-compliance

\- There doesn't appear to be a way to use the law to target editors
individually (although as with many laws it's really hard to make it "fit"
into how Wikipedia is structured..).

My own view I laid out here:
[http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation/5630...](http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation/56302)

~~~
JoshTriplett
The same law exists in France, as far as I can tell; I happen to have
encountered that due to signing up for a hosting provider (gandi.net)
originally based in France, which noted that particular law in their terms.

I can see how such laws could seem like a good idea to someone completely
unfamiliar with how the Internet operates ("Someone is wrong on the
Internet!"). As it stands, it sounds like a good reason to never host anything
in Italy or France that talks about other people in any way.

~~~
Iv
If you have a source about the French part I am really very interested. There
is a similar law but it requires a judgment of a court of justice, it is a law
about public slander and it usually only requires that the "attacked" party is
given the ability to answer in the same medium.

~~~
JoshTriplett
France refers to it as the "Right of Reply", and as far as I can tell it
requires no legal judgment to occur first. The "LCEN" ("Loi pour la confiance
dans l'économie numérique", law on confidence in the digital economy) extends
this to online communications. Anyone designated in online communication can
send a reply within 3 months and force the publication of their reply in the
same location as the original designation.

------
civilian
It's not much, but I emailed the (Honorary Vice) Consul for Italy in my city.
You can find yours at: <http://www.nerone.cc/io/consulates.htm>

------
credo
This is obviously serious, but the _"Wikipedia shuts down Italian site because
of Berlusconi's "Wiretapping Act"_ title seems to be inaccurate.

The wikipedia page talks about a "proposal, which the Italian Parliament is
currently debating".

It appears that the proposal is not the law (yet)

~~~
tommorris
And the site hasn't been "shut down" permanently. It's a temporary protest.

------
_delirium
mailing list discussion:
<http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation/56247>

------
uomoinpolvere
Hi I'm italian, and obviously concerned about this issue. I think this could
possibly be a game changer for wikipedia. I think the principle of neutrality
has been put aside. This seems to me a political move. Please don't
misunderstand me: I hate Burlesquoni and this idiotic law. But I always been
very doubtful about wikipedia's "neutrality". I hope this move could serve
both purposes: increase italians' awareness about their kinda-fascist
government and make wikipedians think deeper about "neutrality", and its
limits.

~~~
fennecfoxen
This is entirely consistent with Wikipedia's existing policies on neutrality,
because Wikipedia's neutrality policies apply to its encyclopedic content. The
Wikimedia Foundation and participants in its projects have never been
constrained by that particular policy, and are free to gleefully offer their
opinions and pursue agendas. Indeed, the foundation is dedicated to spreading
knowledge, and is opinionated about constraints on that goal.

No one has suggested, or is under the impression, that this notice is the same
as an encyclopedia article. The encyclopedia article which ultimately covers
this event will remain free* of opinionated statements, and instead describe
the law, notable expert comments on its implications, the Wikipedia shutdown,
reactions to this shutdown, and the stated motives of various participants,
allowing the matter to speak for itself. It does _not_ need to agitate for
more freedom or pass judgement on the moral validity of the regime.

(* Wikipedia, being a product of mere mortals, will necessarily be an
imperfect representation of neutrality. Nitpicking about this fact too much is
minimally productive. People will do what they can.)

~~~
SoftwareMaven
Just having a (as much as possible) neutral source of information will be
incredibly valuable to to the human race. History has always been rewritten by
the victors, and that is generally a very bad thing. That can't happen
anymore.

------
FrancescoRizzi
Been following the issue regarding this law for a while now. The relevant
twitter hashtag seems to be #NoLeggeBavaglio (Italian for '[Say] No to the gag
law") for those that wish to find out more. This is but one blog (in Italian)
on this topic and the campaign to try and keep paragraph 29 from sticking
around: [http://www.valigiablu.it/doc/540/comma-ammazza-blog-un-
post-...](http://www.valigiablu.it/doc/540/comma-ammazza-blog-un-post-a-rete-
unificata.htm)

------
gasull
Can't this be solved with Wikipedia (who is hosted outside Italy) not showing
the IPs of the wikipedians in Italy?

Also, I think that these laws will move people to the darknets, like Tor.
People aren't going to stop blogging, downloading copyrighted stuff, etc. Tor
isn't even hard to install or use anymore.

~~~
mahyarm
Darknets are so slow that it pushes away normal people unless absolutely
necessary. It's like walking vs. driving.

~~~
gasull
They are slow for some things, but you can perfectly use Tor for blogging,
email, IRC, etc. For video or audio is usually slow.

------
dariosalvelli
I think that this is a good form to protest because most italian users use
Wikipedia so they can understand the impact of the law. I write on my blog:
<http://dariosalvelli.com/2011/10/wikipedia-italia-chiude>

------
hugh3
Now wait a minute, is this a law or a _proposed_ law? If the former, they're
complying. If the latter, they're having a hissy fit.

~~~
harryf
Well it seems like their trying to prevent a proposed law from becoming an
actual law. Whether the threat is significant enough to warrant this action, I
can't judge but it is a pretty effective form of protest, you have to admit,
given that wikipedia is largely taken for granted these days.

~~~
nefe
I'm italian so excuse me for my terrible english.

in the next 24hours this proposal law will be approved or not in base of the
choose of the parlament, that is very influenced(?) by Berlusconi, for this
reason italian writers of wikipedia had written the advice, for make the
italian people think about what is happening. I'm so scared.

~~~
elliottcarlson
Not that a law like this should exist, but why does it scare you?

~~~
nefe
because of the situation that day by day is gettin worse for all the italian
people... I don't know what people of other states of the world really thinks
about our country, I think that to understand all the reasons of what is going
on in Italy could be really difficult for people that doesn't lives here...

it's like there is no way to escape from this situation, a very big part of
the people in italy are old people that gain informations only from the
television, and you know that in italy 3 of the most important channel tv are
Berlusconi's proprieties... so the 60%of the popolation konw what he want them
to know, and notting else... for example probably tomorrow on the news they
doesn't gave importance to wikipedia's advice.

I'm so sorry for my english, I hope you could understand what i'm trying to
explain to you.. :(

~~~
SoftwareMaven
Your English is far superior to my Italian, so no need to apologize.

I had forgotten about Berlusconi's ownership in the media. That does give him
a lot of weight to throw around. Is there anything specific about this law
(beyond its idiocy!) that frightens you, or is it just Berlusconi's ability to
walk all over the Italian people?

