Bruno Tinti
He is a Pavlovian reflex: it opens an investigation into some politician and part of the campaign antintercettazioni.
What should be abolished or at least be allowed only for crimes of terrorism and the Mafia, only granted by a panel of three (at the moment but you never know, maybe five or maybe seven would be better) judges will evaluate the application of impartiality PM, which is not persecution, and who absolutely do not end up in the newspapers, even when they have become public knowledge and it is legitimate.
The news these days is that the line hard, very hard indeed, is supported only by the President of the Council, which in effect of these things they will be, and his allies (and opposition) some distinction on the offenses for which wiretaps may be made the offer. Again, no one asks what the real reasons why politicians are foaming at the mouth when it comes to interceptions. Nobody argued that wiretapping is not used to detect crime. And it's obvious: this is the only possible means of investigation when there is a convergence of interests between the city (which corrupts) and political (which is corrupt), so that confidence in repentance or the other is like believe in Santa Claus. During the summer, told the story of excessive cost and the excessive number of interceptions. But the information was false: 300 million (about 7 billion budget for Justice) included the amounts paid to experts and consultants of the PM, in the tasks of the Judiciary, transcripts of interrogations and so on. Anyway, if the intercepts are paid too much, it is the fault of the legislature that would not allow telephone companies only reimburse the cost incurred. As for the number, it was necessary to inform the Minister of Justice that the people intercepted are few hundreds and not thousands. At the end stood on the line of privacy violated: it is not right, to find some more offense, be violating privacy Italian citizens. And this at the moment is the prevailing view.
This too is false. The privacy of Italian citizens do not run any risk. First of all, for most of the crimes the intercepts are not possible or are not useful, and he who steals from the supermarket, who beats his wife, who leaves the car parked with a fake coupon is not trapped. And then the interest to disclose interceptions involving the ordinary citizen is equal to zero. Does not waste space and paper to tell the facts of an ordinary person. The 'privacy violated' is one of a few thousand politicians. So let us ask ourselves: to know that some politicians support some banks, which some admin public favors some entrepreneurs, some public official who owes his appointment to the friendship of some minister is not necessary in a democratic state? And, sure, know today, when the fact is clear from the very words of the protagonists, and not in 10 years, when there is the sentence prescribed by the Court of Cassation and the culprit (prescribed) may deliver newspapers to his arrogant declaration of innocence 'finally' found. But also ask yourself: if they were facts that do not constitute an offense but which is the measure of ethical and political stature of those who belong to the ruling class, it would be good to know? I was the Public Prosecutor, if they had intercepted my phone calls with some mobster who invited me on a regular basis in its hunting grounds and that I was staying in his house, you would not have wanted to know? You would not have wanted to know what kind it was that the magistrate had the power to initiate a process to you? And it is likewise necessary that people know what kind of people they govern?
And finally. If the answer to these questions is: no, it is necessary, indeed it is not right, do you really think that the protection of the alleged privacy is worth the certainty of impunity for crimes committed habitually by a political class that ethics and law are abstractions just annoying?
Ricci Law Report 
