The case of T. C., the woman in the neapolitan protagonist of cyber harrassment dramatic, which has led to an extreme gesture, he seemed to file the judicial halfway between defamation and incitement. Instead of a pronouncement of the court of Naples is addressed to Facebook breaking up one of the few certainties of this habitat: the social does not have the obligation to monitor and, consequently, to delete controversial content without the direction set by the courts or by an authority.
The case, in short, is not finished, and once again the destructive potential vis-à-vis the debate around the web and to the alleged "stocks" (a term unbearable and unlettered). The news comes from the news that the court of Naples has partially rejected the complaint of Facebook against the order of the same that had demanded to delete the contents hard or in any way connected to the videos that they had brought the woman to the exasperation. It would seem a decision that is consistent and fair, in reality as it is – but waiting to read it and understand it better – is a bomb inside the social network. Until today, in fact, has always been a valid principle, which is like a polar star: according to the EU directive and the law 70 of 2003, there is no obligation for the hosting provider (the way in which it is legally referred to as a as Facebook in Italy) to pre-screen all information uploaded on the various pages. Not being able to, bec ause it would be impossible, it can’t even remove the contents without the request is from persons "qualified", the authority guarantor of privacy, or the nra for the copyright (leaving for the moment the question of the violations of the standards of the community on the site that are managed internally through users ‘ reports). Instead, the court of Naples says, in substance, that he had to delete it immediately.
Clear according to which criterion?
The problem, raised for instance by the lawyer, Fulvio Sarzana, is that you do not understand how a court may speak of cases "posters" of wrongdoing: in what sense? And according to what criteria? “Can open up a highway of signals,” says Sarzana, worried by the fact that the rejection is final. A hypothesis that Facebook Italy would have all the reasons to avoid, since it undermines the fundamental principle that it has no obligation to monitor in advance what is published: the word track is a moment, it becomes supervise and censor. the How do you intend to answer Facebook to the court that the says would have to give listen now to the woman? Looks like an act of accusation, if not moral.
new privacy
There is, however, another point of view, that of those who – like the lawyer, Andrea Lisi (also he deals with law and with Sarzana has fuelled a thread on the social), considers quite normal that the right of the interested person you see violating a given the sensitive the body (the body is the first fact-sensitive, many of the forgotten) both can be activated directly by the interested party vis-à-vis the service provider. This in the light of the new law on the privacy of european regulation of 679 which will regime between the two years and also interpreting widely the paragraph of article 17 of the law 70, which says:
The provider is civilly responsible for the content of such services if required by the judicial or administrative authority having supervisory functions, he has not acted promptly to prevent access to said content, or if, having had knowledge of the illegitimate or prejudicial feature of the content of a service to which it ensures access, it has not taken steps to inform the competent authority.
Therefore, you need to understand: this decision of the court of Naples is a step back or one forward? And how it can change the relationship between those who want to remove content deemed sensitive and who believes that it is not up to the single individual to decide, but to a third party? It is right that the Big F has to be triggered in these cases it may be an interesting discourse, even if not free from the scenarios complicated, for example, rivers of the requested ex-post, with the purposes of the most varied and in contrast with the protocol of the long-established for the right to oblivion. Some of the institutions and the powers of this country continue to have an emotional attitude with respect to cases such as this, and it doesn’t help much.
Update (h 18.55)
Facebook Italy has meanwhile responded to the rejection of the claim in court. A few words of a spokesperson for the social network, which reaffirm the commitment to anti-bullying and focuses on one aspect that is saved by the court, the guarantees of the prior surveillance:
We are deeply saddened by the tragic death of Mr. na Canton and reaffirm our commitment to work with local authorities, experts and NGOS in order to avoid a similar case to happen again. We do not tolerate content that shows nudity, or take deliberately targeted people in order to denigrate or put them in embarrassment. Contents as they are removed from our platform as soon as they are discovered. We welcome this decision because it clarifies that the hosting providers are not held to the proactive monitoring of the content.
No comments:
Post a Comment