The Social Card and the usual losers.
It is not the first time in politics that the idea of having to provide users' realities in order to access social networks has arrived, and by observing the past we can say one thing, that is we can state a theorem.
" Let X belong to the group of politicians that proposes to provide the generality and demolish anonymity on the Internet, then it will disappear from the political scene in the next elections ".
You can easily make a statistic, and note that only politicians at the end of their career, especially when they are part of an endangered party, make this policy proposal. I don't know if this is a cause or an effect: I don't know if this proposal is a symptom of a disease that leads the politician (or the party) to disappear (such as the sensation of heat that leads the dead to exposure to undress first to die) or if this proposal is the one that leads the politician (and his party) to disappear from the scene.
However, the correlation is very high: even if the correlation is not causality, when there are numbers high enough to make statistics and it is possible to make a VAR, then the causality of Granger provides reliable results. Personally, I consider Marattin one of the "disappearances" of the upcoming elections.
But the point is that this thing does not work, for the simple reason that it does not change the problem in the least, it does not even affect it, it solves nothing, and it does not improve anything.
Suppose also that I have to put the name (real) on the social network. Now, at a first search I have established that on Facebook there are at least 9 of my homonyms. Some look like good people, others are kids who seem nice, one comes back and forth from the nation's prisons for violent crimes related to the fans, one has an MBA from Bocconi and deals with finance. This is to say how far we can be.
Now, Marattin says that using the ID card instead of the pseudonym everything is simpler because at that point you "know who to report". And how would everything be more comfortable? Let's see the difference. Suppose that Facebook's Giuseppe Rossi has filled you with insults. You sue him. What happens now?
- Today the plaintiff / PM must ask to provide IP and Timestamp to Facebook. Which evaluates the request, and SE decides to release the data, it does. . At that point, with a simple request to the post office, he will have the name of the person behind the screen. Unless you use a VPN that blurs the IP. If this happens, you must redo the request for all possible VPN companies.
- After the Marattin proposal, to avoid suing every homonym of Italy, it is necessary to make a request to Facebook. Which evaluates the request, and SE decides to release the data, it does. At that point you know who to sue, unless he used the document of his eighty-two-year-old grandfather, or the document of a deceased (there is a vast trade). Moreover, all the minors who are on Facebook use the document of mother / father / brother who are not there. It is the equivalent of the VPN in the real world.
But the problem does not come in the final part (ie in the way of falsifying the generality). The problem comes in that part that I put in bold: Facebook, Google (Blogger), Disqus, and all the others ARE NOT OBLIGATORY to provide the data.
And this is what "makes it difficult to file a lawsuit in case of abuse on social media". It's not anonymity. Facebook knows who we are, how much we earn and where we are with absolute precision. No one is anonymous on Facebook. The data is NOT missing.
But Facebook is not obliged to release any data, except in the USA. When he receives a request from a foreign authority, he judges the request. If for example he comes from Russia and the guy is indicted for "gay propaganda", which is not a crime in the US, he does not respond to the request. And it doesn't just happen to dictatorships. Similarly, if the request comes from Austria and it is because a guy has denied the shoah on Facebook, which in Austria and Germany is a crime, Facebook will refuse the request because in the US it is not a crime. He's already doing it.
The bottleneck, dear Marattin, is not the lack of data. If Facebook wants to find you, it finds you. Its mobile client (Facebook + Whatsapp) sends so much information that a minimum of computer forensic activity is enough to find anyone, even behind a VPN. The problem is that Facebook simply does not release data.
Now, let's imagine I have to sign up using my electronic ID card. Is Facebook obliged to release the data to your lawyer / PM, dear Marattin? The answer is no".
Then you will say dear Marattin, that apart from names like Giuseppe Rossi the problem of the homonymy is not very serious. And therefore it is enough to publish another datum, like the "city" to solve the problem. Sure? Good. Try searching for the name of some of your friends, let's say a Venetian person named "Contadin" surname. Even in the same city, dear Marattin, you will find dozens and dozens of homonyms.
What do you want to do then? To make public, besides the city (which is not enough), also ALL the personal data? Beautiful! Congratulations, you have now obtained that all the scammers of Italy are forging your identity. Get ready to find yourself married to dozens of Moroccan women (a marriage regularly celebrated in Morocco), to sign contracts, (and here I want to see you use the calligraphic expertise to challenge a contract: NEVER works in Italy) and everything.
We'll lose this idea, right?
Or do you want to publish only a checksum, in "Digital ID"? Good. That too will be abused, unless you force Facebook to verify the correctness of each registration certificate it receives. And how would you do it? Exposing to Facebook an API that provides the complete personal details of every citizen upon request? Do you have a "vague" idea of the security problem that it would be, to say nothing of the fact that you are selling the complete personal data of every citizen to a foreign company?
Even by restricting access to this API, you cannot give access only to Facebook: you will have to give it to ANYONE who opens a social network and wants to operate in the area, unless you run into legal problems. Vkontakte (Russia), WeChat (China), Gab.Ai (USA) … are you sure you want to give access to the registry office to any foreign entity that can make a social network? Get ready to give your details to Fazadakul , the social network of North Korea, who has decided to operate also in Italy!
And then no, not even this is possible. Facebook is not the Chamber of Commerce, which is a wholly Italian entity. It's a foreign company, remember? Moreover, enough talk about the casual use of data, and involved in a scandal-data on average every two years. Are you sure you want to open the registry doors?
I remind you that to enter into a fairly credible contract in your name, all your personal details are sufficient: name, date of birth. So the cases are two: either you make them public, or you give them to the social (ie public to the first "attack of hackers"), or (to avoid the disasters that would follow) to have them you need a request from the authorities. And in that case, Facebook is not obliged to give you the data. As it does now.
But we are digressing: because if you provided all the data to Facebook, Facebook would be bound to use it as foreseen by the GDPR, so they could not be public, nor disclosed to your lawyer, except in the case of authorities requesting public , which Facebook would refer to the sender in most cases. How it does now.
The problem is not the lack of data. The problem is that Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp. Instagram, and everybody IS NOT OBLIGED TO GIVE you all the data you ask. They are obliged to give them ONLY to the FBI.
With the data Facebook has on EVERY user, it is possible to reconstruct a person's life down to the smallest detail. This is what Cambridge Analytica did. There is no data shortage. The problem is, if anything, the obligation to supply them.
If Facebook were today obliged to provide user data, IP address and timestamp would be more than enough. Of course, people can use VPN, Tor and Proxy, but the Facebook client is so invasive that if you have Whatsapp, to say, Facebook also knows your phone number, and on Facebook you just need to cross the data and see your phone also from "behind" the VPN, because at a given moment the anonymous Facebook account has the same IP as the Whatsapp client, whose phone number is known.
And I don't say it:
Now, dear Marattin, when they tell you that you are incompetent, that talking about social networks and the Internet, you are the equivalent of a grillino that talks about vaccines , they HAVE REASON.
The social credit card is the equivalent of chemtrails.
And I remind you that I did not mention any other problems: to say, in the last German elections the "troublemakers", if you prefer the "trolls" were almost all Russian and Turkish immigrants. Which can easily subscribe to social media from Russia and Turkey (just a SIM: the GPT tunnel ends in the home network. It costs more for roaming, but you have an IP from another country. A SIM in a foreign country is a IP proxy terribly effective) and then use the foreign account from Germany.
The same goes for trollbot networks: I can make them act from any cloud, like Amazon's, from an Asian or American area. At that point, since in the US the freedom of speech is almost absolute, it is up to Facebook to decide whether to shut down the botnet, and it is up to Amazon / Cloudflare / Microsoft / Whatever you decide to provide the data. They won't, just like they don't do it now.
As you see, Dear Marattin, your proposal does not solve anything, it does not even affect the problem, and introduces annoyances for users.
Your mentality is that of the Bourbon bureaucrat: ah, do people abuse such freedom? Then tomorrow to enjoy it you have to apply in triple copy on stamped paper, in three different offices, and then send the paper via Registered Mail with Receipt (or PEC) to three ministries, and wait for the answer.
And this is your reasoning: do people abuse Facebook? Well, then from tomorrow to use Facebook you must have the document signed and authenticated, and send a copy to …
A Bourbon bureaucrat . No wonder you made this proposal, the mark that certifies your demise in the next election. In 2019 there is no place for those with the mentality of the Bourbon bureaucrat. And mind you, I did not say that there is no place "in politics".
There is really no place in this century for those who think like this.
For those who think like you, as a Bourbon bureaucrat.
Go around selling that " even more restrictive laws are being thought about in Europe ". Already'. But don't put the names on it. If you put them there, you would see politicians who have the same brand on your skin as you have: the politicians who leave the scene in the next elections.
Bourbon bureaucrats (if you refer to the German proposal: Die Preußische Beamterin ) that we will no longer see from future policies: some have already announced that they will not run, others would disappear if they were to run.
The truth is that the social media world has its own food chain. There is who is a predator and who is a prey. The parties that are still at 1990, like yours, and the politicians who are still at 1859, like you, are just food . That's all. You are an endangered species.
You are just an animal unable to survive in the new environment. The political ecosystem has changed since the arrival of the Internet, and your species is not suited to survive in the new environment. You are the Dodo of our century.
This is why I don't take your proposal seriously. It is only the cowardice of those who do not want to force Facebook to ALWAYS give the authorities access to its data (this is what would make the lawsuit "easy", dear incompetent antivax-of-the-net ), and therefore reacts with the look of the Bourbon bureaucrat: "from tomorrow you have to apply in triple copy".
You will disappear in the next elections, like all the endangered politicians who make this proposal. I don't take your proposal seriously for this.
And nobody else should do it.
Because even if your proposal went through this zombie government , you'd be just the new nuisance that forces Italian users to sign up using a VPN. In this way they will appear as foreigners, and Facebook will not consider them users subject to the obligation, which would only concern Italians . Just use a VPN. What the Italians are already doing to watch Netflix movies, to use streaming services of all kinds, and to overcome all the "localizing" effects of antiquated laws that Bourbon bureaucrats like you are scrambling to keep alive, deluding you of delay your extinction.
As you saw in Umbria, deluding yourself in vain.
