Talk:DDL intercettazioni

Offtopic
Um, doesn't a strike on Wikipedia violate the impartiality and neutrality Wikipedia is supposed to represent? You can't be neutral yet support a position over another. I'm not Italian, but if they ever try that crap on the English version, there will be problems... Wikipedia has been so "neutral point of view" almost to the point of being annoying, to strike because they don't like a law is ludicrous. So we're only neutral so long as we can get our way? That is total BS. Oaktree b (talk) 01:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I read the statement on the Italian Wikipedia. Two things: one, isn't this site hosted in the US anyway, what's the problem? Two, put the reply on the talk page, you don't have to delete the main page to post the response... Oaktree b (talk) 01:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a forum. This is the talk page of an article, isn't it? --Pequod76 (talk-ita.esp.eng) 01:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the received wisdom is that certain members of the community would be liable. Moreover while the servers are mainly in the US, that doesn't magically mean the Foundation can ignore all foreign law, for a whole bunch of reasons.  Rich Farmbrough, 11:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC).


 * The Italian Wikipedia Community believe that, if the bill is passed, they will not be able to maintain neutrality, and the whole (Italian) project would cease to be viable. The action they have taken in this regard is significant enough for us to report (neutrally) on it. Rich Farmbrough, 10:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC).

Iter
Formerly (June 11, 2009) approved by the Italian Chamber of Deputies ( here you find it in a webpage of the other chamber ), then modified (June 10, 2010) by the Italian Senate, the proposed bill is now discussed by the Deputies (October 6, 2011).

Please, note this. Thanks. --Pequod76 (talk-ita.esp.eng) 01:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Style of wikilinks
Yesterday I changed all the links to the italian wikipedia from url links to wikilinks (to avoid the little arrow icon), but now I see they've been reverted back to the url link format: why? I think they look worse in this way. Compare this (wikilink) with this (url link), the former is much prettier in my opinion, it makes no sense to use url links for pages within wikipedia... Unless there's a reason behind this, but I can't honestly see that. Nineko (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is because they are being treated as sources or external links, not as part of the encyclopaedia. Rich Farmbrough, 19:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC).


 * Where is this guideline/policy stated? It seems weird, does it apply to Wikisource as well? Nemo 20:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably WP:SELF. Yes, specifically WP:WAWI - it even applies to links to English Wikipedia as a source. Rich Farmbrough, 00:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC).


 * Arguably they should be in the refs section anyway. Rich Farmbrough, 00:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC).


 * I see and I understand now, thanks for explaining, and sorry if I brought this up. I admit I don't know much when it comes to the manuals of style, I just didn't like the little arrows. Nineko (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Current status and final disposition
The article does not state the current status of the proposed legislation. Why? Wikfr (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Dunno. Anyway, the bill is to be considered defunct - also because now there are more pressing issues to be addressed. It will officially decay by the end of this Legislature (mid-April 2013). --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 12:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Update
The article is very vague as to what happened to this bill. Did it die in committee? Was it defeated? Could it still be voted on? Due to this, I have tagged it as update p  b  p  15:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Due to the comments just above, I would assume it died in committee or was just never actually brought to the floor. The issue is finding a reference that says as such. Silver  seren C 04:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Max Planck Institute?
<> Are we sure? 138.246.2.9 (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is quoted as "in 2006", but the report is much older:
 * Ende der 1990er Jahre war laut einer Studie des Freiburger Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Strafrecht Italien mit 76 Anordnungen zur Überwachung der Telekommunikation pro 100.000 Einwohner im internationalen Vergleich weit voraus. Von etwa 15.000 angeordneten Überwachungen im Jahr 1992 und 44.000 im Jahr 1996(„Rechtswirklichkeit und Effizienz der Überwachung der Telekommunikation nach den §§ 100a, 100b StPO und anderer verdeckter Ermittlungsmaßnahmen“ (PDF; 3,7 MB) Albrecht, Hans-Jörg; Dorsch, Claudia; Krüpe, Christiane. Max-Planck-Institut in Freiburg, 2003 http://edoc.mpg.de/123749) steigerten sich die Telefonüberwachungen auf 124.326 im Jahr 2008.(Italian bill to limit wiretaps draws fire BBC 11 June 2010)
 * Maybe Italy is still number 1 in Europe for phonetapping, but maybe not: Things have changed considerably and worsened everywhere since the nineties! --Atlasowa (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)