If the journalist who defames risks up to 4 and a half years in prison, even for the one who becomes aware of news "of illicit origin" and divulges it, the years of imprisonment can reach 3 or 4. This is the line that emerges from the amendments presented to the bill on cybersecurity now being examined by the Justice and Constitutional Affairs Commissions of the Chamber. Among the 180 proposed amendments filed, the most severe undoubtedly appear to be those of Azione MP Enrico Costa and Italia Viva MP Maria Elena Boschi. Proposals in which the echo of recent news events is more evident and for which part of the majority expresses agreement.
"Right to report does not mean immunity" explains Costa who would like prison from 6 months to 3 years for anyone who discloses information knowing its illicit origin. But the deputy has also developed an 'anti-Striano' rule. The reference is to the ongoing investigation by the Perugia Prosecutor's Office and the Anti-Mafia into the access to databases by the Gdf officer Pasquale Striano with news that then ended up in some newspapers. This is a restriction on access to these computer archives which will only be allowed to selected technicians through a complex mechanism which is also based on facial recognition or fingerprints. And every single access must be noted in a register, complete with an attached reason and a brief description of the operations carried out. This register is kept by the "database owner" who must periodically update and safeguard it, making it available for inspections or checks, together with the list of 'authorized subjects'. Furthermore, ministerial inspections of the databases and the transfer of the jurisdiction are also requested.
But Costa, also known for being the 'father' of the so-called 'gag law', which effectively prevents the publication of the precautionary custody order until the preliminary hearing, also requests, with the amendments, a limitation on the use of Trojan, an invasive computer capture system, often used by law enforcement agencies to intercept.
The Action deputy would like it to be authorized only by a collegiate judge and not for crimes against the Public Administration, to which it had been extended by the so-called Corruption Sweeper law wanted by the then Keeper of the Seals Alfonso Bonafede. And, still on the wiretapping front, Costa, by suppressing an article of the bill, would like to avoid that even for cybersecurity crimes only "sufficient evidence of a crime" would be enough to intercept, as in the case of mafia and terrorism crimes. Even cyber crimes, in his opinion, should be included among those for which there are more stringent requirements to start the ratings. The amendment presented by the member of IV Boschi on criminal proceedings is more 'severe'. You propose prison terms of 1 to 3 years for anyone who illegally accesses criminal trial documents. And you would like to introduce new articles to the penal code to also punish those who hold and reveal documents acquired illicitly. Anyone who holds "documents that contain data relating to conversations and telephone, computer or telematic communications, illegally formed or acquired, or documents drawn up through the illicit collection of information, is punished with imprisonment from 6 months to 4 years".
The same penalty is foreseen for those who reveal, in whole or in part, these acts through "any means of information". If the act is committed by a public official or by a person in charge of a public service, prison can reach up to 5 years "Whoever publishes information that they know has been stolen through criminal acts" must be punished, observes Costa, "because this is not the right to report".