Radio Shack Sata Data Cable

Guido Scorza L'Espresso "This is the gag: do you like?" My

The law article by article, explained and commented upon by a lawyer. To understand what to expect

The so-called draft law on wiretaps, or rather, anti-wiretapping since the stated objective is to limit as much as possible the use of this investigative tool and the publication of the content acquired through the interception is, essentially, in a series of amendments to existing codes criminal and criminal procedure, which are added certain new provisions that are intended to punish behavior contrary to the new system usability and advertising of interception by the same leaders of the courts, judges, journalists and publishers.

Apart from any consideration on the desirability and necessity of regulatory measures recently approved by the Senate, it is important to note that the overall analysis of the provisions contained in the draft law does not allow share the idea that the purpose for which the same would actually represented by the need to ensure more privacy for citizens.

It is, moreover, an objective not very credible in a country that they must leave their identity card and the track of their own paths to go online every time you access the Internet via a public wifi location, in a country where, now, cities are filled with surveillance devices that make Orwellian memory and reality of a country in which the Minister proposes to make an X-ray every citizen honest to go up on a train so the illusory hope of preventing terrorist acts.

E 'curious - to read between the lines of the anti-wiretapping bill - the vision of privacy that the government is: an absolute and inviolable right when it comes to limiting the interception of a few thousand people (the numbers generally used to oversize the phenomenon are those of the users placed under control but every person has intercepted numerous utilities to be verified) and the right call to give way to other needs of security and prevention of crimes, if it is the privacy of millions of citizens.

Article 1. 1. Article 36, paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, after the letter h) The following is added: "h-bis) where he has publicly issued statements concerning the proceedings entrusted to him."

The provision seeks to impose a duty to the court to abstain or declare their inability to take charge of proceedings entrusted to him, if during the same has issued public statements on the same.

independence, the freedom of opinion and the necessary impartiality of any judge to the procedure that has to deal with are essential safeguards which are rooted directly in the principle of "fair process "constitutionally guaranteed to every citizen.

E ', therefore, right and desirable - so you do not have perhaps not even require that a provision of law expressly provides otherwise - that the court should refrain from being in public their ideas, beliefs or guidelines in relation to any proceedings entrusted to him.

The forecast, however, is worded in such broad and general enough to let believe that the magistrate claiming to be assignee of a particular procedure or Rather, it makes a statement on any facts relating to such proceedings, even if already known and did not involve any revelation from your location, to be forced to refrain from continuing to hear the proceedings.

The danger of the proposed intervention is linked to the high likelihood that the statements made by a magistrate in relation to proceedings in his care could be exploited by suspects and defendants to de-legitimize their "natural judge" .
2. Article 53 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be amended as follows:

a) in paragraph 2, in the first period, after the words "letters a), b), d), e)" shall be inserted the following: And h-bis), and if it is entered in the register under Article 335 for the crime under Article 379-bis of the Penal Code, in connection with the badge, heard in this case, the head of jurisdiction Article 11, in order to assess the actual existence of objective reasons for, replace "

b) paragraph 2 is added at the end the following sentence:" The Attorney General shall act in the same way if the Head of the assignee and the magistrate are investigated for the crime under Article 379-bis of the Penal Code, which have issued public statements on the proceedings. "

c) after paragraph 2 is inserted the following:

"2-bis. For each entry in the register of judges under Article 335 for the crime under Article 379-bis of the Criminal Code, the Prosecutor shall immediately inform the head office at which The magistrate serving under investigation or the attorney general investigated the hypothesis that showing the head of the assignee and the magistrate. "

Article. 53 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on which the provision operates, provides a set of assumptions under which, the head of the court from which celebrates a particular procedure must be taken to replace the prosecutor in accordance with the principle of autonomy PM.
The provision contained in the DDL
widen the range of those situations.

Under the new standard, in fact, the bureau chief will have to replace the PM also whenever he has made statements about the process entrusted to him or, rather, his name is over on the register of crime reports for - just in case - a breach of confidentiality relating to the proceedings.

easy to imagine how such exploitation and the standard to lend and how easy it can be, through it, get the removal of a token "uncomfortable" by the prosecution bench.

curious that, in relation to such cases, the very philosophy of "guaranteed" that has so far inspired legislative action and policy of the majority, gives way to a standard that justifies the removal of a PM from her bench just because someone has a tip to another PM, accusing him of violating a secrecy.