The following proposal is vile:

THE Home Office has quietly adopted a new plan to allow police across Britain routinely to hack into people’s personal computers without a warrant.

The move, which follows a decision by the European Union’s council of ministers in Brussels, has angered civil liberties groups and opposition MPs. They described it as a sinister extension of the surveillance state which drives “a coach and horses” through privacy laws.

The hacking is known as “remote searching”. It allows police or MI5 officers who may be hundreds of miles away to examine covertly the hard drive of someone’s PC at his home, office or hotel room.

Material gathered in this way includes the content of all e-mails, web-browsing habits and instant messaging.

Under the Brussels edict, police across the EU have been given the green light to expand the implementation of a rarely used power involving warrantless intrusive surveillance of private property. The strategy will allow French, German and other EU forces to ask British officers to hack into someone’s UK computer and pass over any material gleaned.

That’s the equivalent of allowing a policeman into every living room to listen to every conversation, without a warrant. The vagueness of the legislation simply invites abuse. Police may indulge in this espionage if they “believe” it’s “proportionate”; that is, whenever they feel like it. There is no check on this power, and so no check on its abuse.

And the idea comes from the EU Council of Ministers - which means, if previous experience is anything to go by, it’ll be quite hard to shift. Are they really trying to put the entire internet off the entire institution?

The idea of an all-powerful market without any rules and any political intervention is mad. Self-regulation is finished. Laissez faire is finished. The all-powerful market that is always right is finished.

Nicholas Sarkozy

News from Italy:

The Minister of Justice in Italy has given prosecutors permission to use a Fascist-era law to punish a comedian for mocking the Pope.

Sabina Guzzanti is accused of “offending the honour of the sacred and inviolable person” of Pope Benedict XVI.

The satirist and comedian, during a routine at a rally in Rome in July, condemned the Vatican‘s interference in issues such as gay rights.

“Within twenty years the Pope will be where he ought to be, in Hell, tormented by great big poofter devils — and very active ones, not passive ones,” she said.

So, that’s censorship, racism and troops on the streets of Rome. Mussolini would be proud. The Catholic Church, as in the 1930s, is perhaps the only force strong enough to challenge the government in Italy. Berlusconi knows this well enough to enforce laws designed to appease the Vatican without actively diverting from his own purposes; social authoritarianism already forms part of his platform. When the government and its most active public critic share a desire, the very concept of opposition fails.

And so Italy suffers.

I note that this week a “New Anti-Capitalist Party” was launched in France. The idea, it would seem, is to unite the formerly disparate and scattered forces of the substantial French far-left and capitalise on an underachieving Socialist Party, a premier who the French have taken an obsessional on-off dislike to and a far-right that recently faced the absolute humiliation of selling their headquarters to the Chinese.

So far as can be determined the French can’t quite decide whether to ditch or retain their national fixation, Sarkozy, the Socialists are splintered over who their next leader shall be (although the charismatic mayor of France seems both the most likely and winning candidate) and the once startlingly popular French right seems unlikely to live beyond its figurehead Le Pen in a form that is anything other than laughable.

This means that the opportunity is ripe for the far-left, who have certainly risen to the opportunity. The Ligue Communiste Revolutionnaire (LCR, or Revolutionary Communist League to us limeys) managed to secure 4% of the votes in the last Presidential election without the present amalgamation and in less favourable circumstances. They seem to have done as reasonable a job as can be expected, owing to resistance from the leadership of other left parties. More in this can be found here, with the (believable) suggestion being that in the stead of a majority from non-LCR left parties

the bulk of the people were from trade unions, colleges, women’s associations and so on.

Traningrad has a positive account of her own interaction with the new party, with its shift of name perhaps reminding me rather unfortunately of the constant front groups adopted by the SWP, but the overall project seeming like it might have as much success as the rather more benign Die Linke.

At the moment, in fact, that most objectionable feature I can find in it is the name. “Anti-capitalist” is easy enough to do, its presenting a workable, feasible alternative that always proves the tricky part for socialists (revolutionary or otherwise). Committing yourself to criticising capitalism is a far less interesting goal than stating your conviction to present a supplanter system that you will introduce in its place. Indeed, this is the reason that “Anti-reformism” was rarely anything other than a euphemism for Stalinism or intellectual vacuity.

But, it would seem, even the name is set to change when the party decides upon a new one along with its system for internal democracy next year. It shall be interesting to see how this and the rest of the edifice develops.

It seems that the Vatican is more responsive and timely than I had anticipated. In response to my question in this article asking when the Church would involve itself the answer can only now be “Pretty damn quickly.”

Now I doubt the editor of their affiliate accelerated the Pope, or perhaps worked at his instruction, but it is pleasing that the Italian government has found an enemy in the Church. The Vatican wields considerably more clout when dealing with the Italian right than our own Anglican bishops could ever hope to hold over the Labour party.

The news that Famiglia Cristiana’s editor is to be sued by a leader of the far-right coalition who hold power over Italy suggests that they feel especially vulnerable. We must hope that this measure is doomed to the failure which is richly deserves, but regardless it demonstrates that the instinctive authoritarian instinct to close down debate is in evidence here.

The article contains a worrying aside, however:

So far, church leaders have been far more outspoken in their criticism of the government’s policies than Italy’s main, centre-left opposition party.

Which simply pleads for the question: if the Italian left can’t even muster the guts to call finger-printing innocent children for being gypsies “Indecent” then what the hell are they for?

Signs that the Italian government has not embraced the ideology it is not most easily associated with. Or at least that it does not take kindly to criticism levelled at it from one of the few outlets not controlled by Berlusconi’s ownership (criticism of Berlusconi by those newspapers he does own is of course as common as the Murdoch press scrutinising BSkyB’s tax conduct). In this case a feature upon the unnerving right-swing was published in a newspaper with strong Papal ties. Although this is clearly not representative of the Vatican (instead representing the author and editor’s views) the attacks seem damning and authoritarians always struggle to evade being held to account for their excesses when the press is free. Which is why their immediate impulse is to stamp down or, in Berlusconi’s case, buy out.

This does raise an interesting issue, however: if the Vatican has not spoken out then was has it not and when does it intend to? As foul an organisation as it in many ways is the strength of the Church in Italy renders all true totalitarianism an impossibility, unless there rises to power a leader both bold and mad enough to march on the Vatican. The Church holds a substantial powerbase and if willing to speak out against the government’s draconianism and outright racism could have a substantial impact. Any making pretence that this would somehow be out of line for a religious organisation has clearly failed to grasp the innately political nature of the Church’s structure, intent and behaviour. This is the Church that attempted to prevent distribution of condoms at a Valentine’s Day festival in Brazil, not one which has any qualms about immersing itself in matters of public policy.

On a broader note, we can but hope that the criticism against the government results in a suitable backlash. Perhaps it could even trigger the form of examination and condemnation of Italy’s fascist past which it largely failed to embrace after the downfall of Mussolini. Douglas’ references to pro-fascist Italians are telling: “Mussolini had his positive side. The streets were safe in his day” is by no means a rare sentiment in Italy. Those who were not from the “weak” groups targeted enjoyed the fruits of the social democratic policies Mussolini failed to abandon while forging corporatism after the abandonment of his former comrades on the left. Consequentially the impression is positive, the only partially correct cliche that “Mussolini made the trains run on time” having substantial weight in a nation with as precarious infrastructure and unreliable services. Italians appear to struggle with the notion of the objective historian, seeing the origins and ideology of the writer as something which must be borne foremost in mind while reading, so perhaps the vileness of the past being alluded to in the present will cause many to recall the horrors and others who have never experienced the original power seizure of the fascists to relish the sensation first hand. This is merely my optimism talking, however. For the time being Italy is set for a grim few years. Whether Berlusconi shall have entrenched himself by the end of this time, empowered the left or both remains to be seen.

Italy isn’t a pleasant place at present; Berlusconi recently put 3000 troops on the streets of Rome. This, he claims, is part of an attempt to crush an alleged wave of crime by Roma gypsies.

But who really believes that from a government that placed gypsies on an ethnic register? The move smacks of a barely closeted racism; it assumes a moral panic sparked by the single murder in November is fully justified, and that gypsies are solely to blame for all Italian crime. Pandering, in short, to prejudice.

And that prejudice certainly exists:

On the streets of northern Rome such reservations are hard to find. “All our problems come from foreigners getting drunk, smashing windows and stealing,” said Anna Maria Mercure, who at 80 is old enough to remember an earlier era of Italian discipline. “Mussolini had his positive side. The streets were safe in his day.”

Fascism is fine so long as they don’t arrest me, she means. I direct readers to a rather famous poem, the sentiment of which is entirely sound.

Others want their xenophobic authoritarianism laid out in simple steps, though:

“I would kill them all,” said Virginia Cristell, a mother in her 40s. “Send them to the country – or send them somewhere. They are dirty and there are lots of problems with burglary and thieving. They make toxic smoke.”

Deport them, and then exterminate them - sound familiar to anyone?

The gypsies certainly feel victimised:

That, however, is not the view of Goffredo Bezzecchi, 69, an Italian gipsy who came close to death after Italian Fascists tried to send his family to the death camps. They escaped before they could be deported. Mr Bezzecchi, who was fingerprinted at his home near Milan last month, feels history is at risk of repeating itself. “These things were done in the Fascist days when gipsies were killed or sent to concentration camps,” he said. “The politicians should remember that we are human, not garbage.”

To summarise; ethnic profiling, ethnically targetted policing enacted by the army, and plans to move people around the country on the grounds they belong to an ethnic group. Berlusconi’s government has, in effect, denied that the Roma can be defined by anything but their ethnicity, and so their individual humanity. Very 1930s.

Today, Tory MEPs confirmed their party’s civil libertarian credentials - by voting not to condemn the finger-printing of Roma children in Italy. All but one of the party’s MEPs has voted against a resolution condemning ethnic profiling by Berlusconi’s government. One said:

“Fingerprinting is the only way to ensure the children are sent to school” - Charles Tannock MEP

So, to summarise - the Conservative MEPs have refused to condemn a racist and authoritarian measure which effectively dscriminates against a vulnerable minority. That hardly fits in with their current narrative of the party of civil liberties, valiantly struggling against a tide of CCTV cameras and police forms.

Unless, of course, Cameron sends an internal memo condemning the MEPs as fascist fellow-travellers. Which seems unlikely. Perhaps David Davis should resign his membership in the hope of raising public attention…

(Hat-tip: Question That)

I hate to fearmonger, but:

Could Europe be drafting a new law to disconnect suspected filesharers from the internet? MEPs have already signalled their condemnation of this approach. But last-minute amendments to telecommunications legislation could bring the so-called “3 strikes” approach in by the backdoor. If you want your MEP to stick to their guns on 3 strikes, write to them today to voice your concerns.

The legislation would oblige ISPs to disconnect (suspected) filesharers from the internet after two warnings. It wouldn’t matter who’d done the sharing; it wouldn’t matter if it was someone else in the house; it wouldn’t matter if your machine had been assaulted by malware and used without your knowledge. It wouldn’t even matter if filesharing hadn’t taken place - note suspected filesharers.

And that wouldn’t be all, would it? A vague section of the legislation might give rightsholders the right (hah…) to demand personal information about subscribers from ISPs without reference to a court. Other amendments give rightsholders similar powers to leech information retained to fight terrorism.

Now, let’s summarise. A sweeping assault on all filesharing; complete disregard for users’ privacy; an arbitrary system whereby users’ can be struck off as suspects; and a blatant ignorance of what the public actually wants, as evidenced by their continued filesharing. And all this contained in a document as long and obscurantist as most EU legislation, tucked away as a few amendments few were likely to read. In short; a vile piece of legislation which threatens to tip me into outright euroscepticism, and whose sponsors deserve to be torn apart on the vicious rocks of electoral catastrophe.

Oh, and did I mention the vote was tomorrow? Get writing.

(Hat-tips: Jennie at Yorksher Gob, whence the story came to my attention; and panGloss for a highly informative post on the matter)

Is the EU trying to put me off altogether? First the arrogance of the official reaction to the Irish referendum, and now this:

Speaking about her report, Ms Mikko told us “the blogosphere has so far been a haven of good intentions and relatively honest dealing. However, with blogs becoming commonplace, less principled people will want to use them”.

Asked if she considered bloggers to be “a threat”, she said “we do not see the bloggers as a threat. They are in position, however, to considerably pollute cyberspace. We already have too much spam, misinformation and malicious intent in cyberspace”. She added, “I think the public is still very trusting towards blogs, it is still seen as sincere. And it should remain sincere. For that we need a quality mark, a disclosure of who is really writing and why.”

Let’s translate that into a language people will actually understand, shall we? Here’s what Ms Mikko really means:

Speaking about her report, Ms Mikko launched what constitutes an attack on freedom of speech. She feels it’s unfortunate that more people are blogging these days.

It’s her view that there’s too much on the internet that she doesn’t like. This includes criticism of the EU. Much of this “spam” comes from anonymous blogs. She’d seek to challenge this by insisting on a “disclosure of who is really writing and why” - in short, by insisting that people revealed their name and purpose.

So - Mikko wants to protect people from us horrible, horrible bloggers. That the ability to publish anonymously is one of the internet’s great virtues has apparently escaped her; it allows those who’d otherwise fear to speak to speak. It’s liberating, and valuable for that.

Oh, and that the ability to publish anonymously represents a fundamental element of the freedom of speech apparently esconsed in the European Declaration on Human Rights also seems to have eluded her.

Mikko’s proposals would require a blog to gain the seal of approval from the Commission. Blogging would be subject to state censure from the platform down to the posts; a wonderful way to challenge the lack of, “pluralism” in the press that Mikko claims to be so worried about.

This isn’t anything more than a resolution - the European Parliament’s weak equivalent to an EDM. It won’t become law. But the very fact that MEPs are willing to discuss such attacks to the blogosphere worries me. What’s the point in a totally open platform if it’s no longer totally open?