Wikipedia shuts down Italian site because of Berlusconi's "Wiretapping Act"
it.wikipedia.org
it.wikipedia.org
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.
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
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.
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...)
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...
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.
So far it seems the Foundation, which ultimately owns the servers and could intervene if it deemed the move contrary to the organization's principles, is standing on the sidelines. In part, that might be because the consensus is so strong; it wouldn't be overruling a handful of rogue admins, but a large portion of the Italian Wikipedia's editors (straw-poll here: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Comma...), which it prefers not to do unless absolutely necessary. A number of people in the organization, speaking in their private capacity, appear to also be fairly sympathetic to the protest, and not inclined to overturn it in a heavy-handed manner (perhaps there will be some informal negotiation to bring the site back online without condemning or officially "overturning" the protest).
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.
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.
You seem to suggest that a geolocation-based "blocking" of Wikipedia would have been more effective, but that would mean this appeal wouldn't have reached any of you - including myself, an Italian student in an exchange period abroad.
Besides, I can't really see wikipedia doing geolocation-based blocking of anything. It's just not coherent with the project of a global, free, libre, neutral, universal corpus of knowledge.
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...
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.
If its scope is as described in the Wikipedia article it's akin to forcing newspapers to follow up every front page Berlusconi expose with a front page statement from Berlusconi that it didn't happen. Would the Italian public stand for that?
As to how they did this; MediaWiki has a Commons.js that is editable by admins. They stuck some JS in to redirect every page to their statement. The content is all there; just "hidden". Turning off JS will allow browsing the site (I think).
EDIT: you'll also need to find a way to remove this piece of css: .portlet, #column-one, #firstHeading, #bodyContent, #footer, #catlinks, #siteNotice, #siteSub, #contentSub { display: none; }
Though people are fighting on the mailing list and calling for all the Italian sysops be desysopped.
Disappointing, I feel. What next; English Wikipedia suspended till the US government sort out copyright laws?
Worrying precedent!
The wikipedia page talks about a "proposal, which the Italian Parliament is currently debating".
It appears that the proposal is not the law (yet)
As Mike Godwin (of Godwin's Law fame) said:
"I'd also like to +1 the thought that the very existence of Wikipedia is not itself NPOV -- it reflects a philosophical and political position, and one that just about all of us here agree with."
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-Octob...
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.)
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.
"You want something stupid? Okay - here's all the stupid you can handle."
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.
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.. :(
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?
And without a court order.
Under penalty of a fine of up to € 12000.
Not sure how this will affect WP given that it's all hosted in the U.S. including the italian one (right?), but I believe the italian editors might fear to be held responsible individually.
However it does certanly makes scary running a blog, not to mention an online newspaper, as an italian citizen.
Those of us in the U.S. have the privilege of knowing that nothing will actually ever pass (and if it does, the chance of effective enforcement is comically slim). Folks in other countries aren't so lucky. :-)
Most people are too willfully ignorant about what goes on politically in their countries, and it's only when they are personally affected that they take a stand in the matter. Other sites should have joined in and made it apparent to all italian internet users the effects this law might have on their web experience.
If anything the Google case should make it clear that it's not a safe bargain to simply ignore these types of issues.
It does seem to be generating some coverage in the Italian press, so might be partially successful if that was the objective (we'll see if that discussion does anything to derail the law).
edit: To clarify, "their" is the Italian Wikipedia-editing community, which seems to have voted something like 40-3 among active admins who participated to blackout the encyclopedia. The U.S.-based Wikimedia Foundation wasn't involved. Presumably the Wikimedia Foundation could force it to be turned back on (they own the servers, etc.), but so far are not intervening.