Post by account_disabled on Feb 28, 2024 4:51:23 GMT
Interview with Massimo Melica A few days ago the Ministry of Justice published iGloss@ , a glossary of cybercrime, that is, a list of terms with which those who surf the net have learned, more or less, to deal with. From spamming to cyberstalking, from trolls to candy girls, the glossary aims to catalog both risky behaviors and actual crimes that are committed online. This initiative, beyond the criticisms that can be made, offers the opportunity to reflect on the quantity of risks associated with the use of the internet and social networks. I spoke about it with Massimo Melica , lawyer of the Melica, Scadelin & Partners firm , expert in law applied to new communication technologies. Good morning Massimo, first of all, what do you think of the glossary of deviant behaviors drawn up by the Ministry of Justice? We must welcome any initiative aimed at promoting responsible and conscious use of the technological tool by users: both young people and adults. The Ministry's glossary is a good starting point, however I hope for continuous upgrades as I already note some gaps such as the lack of entries, for example: defacement or sex roulette .
Furthermore, constant updating would follow the continuous Paraguay Phone Number evolution of anetic actions which unfortunately find easy diffusion on the web. What are the most frequent crimes that we risk committing or commit without realizing it on social networks? In my professional experience there is not a single electronic service that has not been used to commit crimes: chat, publishing, discussion groups, social networks, sharing channels, e-mail, role-playing games etc. have all been fertile territory for users who , in contempt of the most basic civil conduct, have carried out illicit acts. The problem, as always, is not the technological factor but the human factor which, often under the illusion of being hidden by anonymity, sees the psychological element of the crime diminish by committing actions that in a different context one would never have carried out. Hence the most widespread crimes are those connected to the image of the victim: insults, threats, defamation, i.e. those crimes which the mediation of the computer does not allow the criminal agent to perceive the illicit action.
Speaking of defamation, if you are the victim, when is it appropriate to ignore it and when is it appropriate to take legal action? If we believe we have been defamed, it is always a good idea to turn to the authorities to defend our rights and not have facts or data attributed to us that could damage our reputation, honorability or, worse, have repercussions on our personal sphere. Let it be clear that in certain contexts such as social networks , in which heated confrontation often becomes highly confidential and harsh, a strong exception to one's opinion cannot be considered offensive or defamatory. It is therefore necessary to evaluate on a case-by-case basis the presence or absence of particular legal requirements such as to constitute the crime. Furthermore, a problem of no small importance, in the world of the Internet the acquisition of digital evidence, to be produced both with the complaint and in a trial phase, is not simple and it is often necessary to turn to specialists. It is not enough to print what we see on the monitor, especially in cases where the volatility of the digital data can be challenged in court, to form evidence. What are the main risks for companies on social media? Companies often face harsh judgments from consumers, it is always necessary to evaluate whether these judgments are sincere, documented or whether they tend to damage the web reputation of the company or a product for speculative purposes.
Furthermore, constant updating would follow the continuous Paraguay Phone Number evolution of anetic actions which unfortunately find easy diffusion on the web. What are the most frequent crimes that we risk committing or commit without realizing it on social networks? In my professional experience there is not a single electronic service that has not been used to commit crimes: chat, publishing, discussion groups, social networks, sharing channels, e-mail, role-playing games etc. have all been fertile territory for users who , in contempt of the most basic civil conduct, have carried out illicit acts. The problem, as always, is not the technological factor but the human factor which, often under the illusion of being hidden by anonymity, sees the psychological element of the crime diminish by committing actions that in a different context one would never have carried out. Hence the most widespread crimes are those connected to the image of the victim: insults, threats, defamation, i.e. those crimes which the mediation of the computer does not allow the criminal agent to perceive the illicit action.
Speaking of defamation, if you are the victim, when is it appropriate to ignore it and when is it appropriate to take legal action? If we believe we have been defamed, it is always a good idea to turn to the authorities to defend our rights and not have facts or data attributed to us that could damage our reputation, honorability or, worse, have repercussions on our personal sphere. Let it be clear that in certain contexts such as social networks , in which heated confrontation often becomes highly confidential and harsh, a strong exception to one's opinion cannot be considered offensive or defamatory. It is therefore necessary to evaluate on a case-by-case basis the presence or absence of particular legal requirements such as to constitute the crime. Furthermore, a problem of no small importance, in the world of the Internet the acquisition of digital evidence, to be produced both with the complaint and in a trial phase, is not simple and it is often necessary to turn to specialists. It is not enough to print what we see on the monitor, especially in cases where the volatility of the digital data can be challenged in court, to form evidence. What are the main risks for companies on social media? Companies often face harsh judgments from consumers, it is always necessary to evaluate whether these judgments are sincere, documented or whether they tend to damage the web reputation of the company or a product for speculative purposes.