Tags: rationale tech art hardcore example evidence do

Old stuff documented for UIkipedians, disambiguated for all, and atomized for superheroes and superevils.

My new year’s promise: if I find a safe way out from this RAT-trap, I’ll push all this brainwork in a blockchain to ensure persistence as well.

(TODO: move all the jokes to Profile)


Non bis in idem, which translates literally from Latin as “not twice in the same thing”, is a legal doctrine to the effect that no legal action can be instituted twice for the same cause of action. It is a legal concept originating in Roman Civil Law, but it is essentially the equivalent of the double jeopardy (autrefois acquit) doctrine found in common law jurisdictions. (Wikipedia)

Tech tools

Hashing algorithms (MD5, SHA, ecc) have been around for a while. First time I’ve seen one was some american university’s website software distribution in mid-90s.

Git uses an SHA-1 (fragile) hashing system that ensures accidental corruption only. And GitHub is cloud-only distributed, not public-trust enforced. It means that in a world of (labour) scarcity, I’m not ensured “against well-funded opponents” and BOFHs.

Best practice reference: BitCoin uses an SHA-2 system, recursively blockchained using a real-time distributed pseudo random seed; pretty hardcore stuff. And for military grade persistence is possible to oversize the financial SHA-2, using SHA-3, and a bit of poisonous noise before the hashing process. Just to name a few of the infinite mods. Sweet. So, why the judicial system doesn’t use those tools?

Well … a quick answer: law practitioners are like kids, they need pictures in comfortable PDFs. Can’t use text files and mime encoding; so they will never realize that the best way to confirm the authenticity of an High Court doc is not an USB smartcard reader on a Microsoft Windows consumer computer - 2010 access to italian High Courts - but an hash instead. And pictures are high addictive drugs: once they get used to Mac OSX, they can’t live without. Moreover after you painted a graph to make them understand; you must explain it… because they can’t understand numbers as well. Basically - without adding some math in their university courses - are the most expensive worthless professional on Earth. We shouldn’t allow them to touch a computer, a smartphone, or whatever have blinken lights on it. I’m not kidding; I tested it. My ex-girlfriend was not so idiot before I bought her a Mac.

What do you think it happens when you tell to one of those fancy lawyers going around a courthouse with moleskines, parker’s fountain pens, wearing leather/velvet gloves, walking with broomsticks in their asses in the attempt to look like the cops and the beefs inbetween the cops, that they won’t have any more that amount of disposal money because they are unable to do their job and the IT Guys must pay their legal consulences instead of the opposite? I mean, the opposite of what they have been doing in the past century: pay IT Guys to fix their computers; and before pay the interns to make photocopies; and so on up to the Assyr-Babylonian paper makers.

I can tell you what happen: in 2007 I’ve been screaming to a lawyer in a courthouse “Lawyer, watch out your computer!” … and the people around me “Are you crazy? Why did you threat him?”. That is what happen. You get lynched by all the parties around. And if you keep going yelling at them too, you have the bad attitude; they can’t understand why you are yelling. And slam you outside of their mental processes. Ignored. Lawyers will never give you enough time to explain that the formalities in their docs - ie: recurring text patterns, ex: “High Department of The Stocazzo Courts” at the beginning of every single High Stocazzo’s Document, and “Almighty Law Associates” at the end of it - make the encryption schemes weaker because parts of the encrypted docs are well known and recurring. Their formalities are weakening the real security and damaging their clients. They see the envelope of a reserved letter and feel safe; can’t realise that I see the next postcard stolen from a postman. Their fucking ego of having their fucking names embossed on every single fucking document they produce … is fucking sending innocent people to jail … there’s no way for them to listen. Moreover the industry is serving money-making alternatives (ie: “the cloud”) instead of the personal, individual, security enforcing one. At the end of the process we - IT Guys - must find a way to bypass them, or agree with the gov “Ok, bypass them: no defendant any more, just constitutionally mandatory puppets”.

Threat him? Shall Bruce Willis be cursed, up to the 13th generation to come, because of Die Hard 4 scene of the terrorists holding a gun over the hacker’s head, and him cracking the nation wide military information system in 30 seconds.

We can’t do that … it doesn’t work like that. That’s just a movie. In a real time-sensitive situation the hacker would shit his pants, fail, being shot right after because useless; and the terrorist would fail right after. It takes us years of previous knowledge, months of research&development, expensive equipment, and pretty dangerous social engineering, to capture the flag. Who’s actively working on the same kind of tech may be able to go down to weeks scale because of the previous learning, equipment and insider jobs; but still … weeks, not seconds. And in any case, according to my experience, a gun never helps: in both cases I got a gun over my head I was just dumb frozen like a duck with the hands around her neck, my eyes stuck on the barrel like one of those medical eyes tests, and instinctively trying to slowly move out of the line to see if the barrel follow or not. Brain looping “WtfWtfWtfWtfWtfWtf…”. The first time took me a few minutes just to understand that it was a bank robbery. One week after I was still thinking. And the more I was thinking, the more the clear view of me beating up the girl at the frontdesk to help the robber and send that gun away faster… was clear. Next time I do it: better my flacky than a bullet, Horney!

When I was yelling at that lawyer - the one that ignored my early instance years before the beginning of that fake trial, and ignored my telephone call a few months after the trial begun - I was referring to the fact that they can’t even write; their current understanding is very limited. Based on what their consultants said. And the consultants are biased - all in the same way - by academic and industrial training. A very specific professional insult, not a threat. I’ve never been thinking to spend my next few months sitting in a car under someonelse’s lawyer office, to get docs that I already had photocopied years before; or for whatever else purpose. It’s stupid, because I would not had any profit from it. And I hate to dig into Microsoft Windows’s internals. It took me months, maybe years, to understand why it has been cosidered a threat; it was so far from my mind that … I simply couldn’t get what the hell was going on. Same of the robbery and the gun over my head.

Following the exhaustive answer using the 3 years later replay. This time me hammering the court, the stakeholders, and whatever in the middle; not the opposite.

Art tools

In the Amazing World of Italie there are not working courts; no way to get persistence. This is what I’ve found in 2006 and I’ve personally confirmed in 2010. A certain amount of mistakes are just NATURAL; even in high profile, expensive, environments (military, judicial, etc). But the news look even worse:

  • this 2011 paper about “The doppio binario in Italian criminal law” seems to be Google Translated, ex: he writes “state of right”, the raw translation of “stato di diritto”, that in english is what you get trough the “rule of law”. Another problem is an ambigous existence of both the words “freedom” and “liberty”, but the paper uses “freedom” only. And there’s no date nor paper-ID number. But it is a good, young, perspective written in english.

The aim of my report is to explain the reasons of the deep crisis of the Italian double track system, which raises problems of compatibility with constitutional rights and with the European Convention on Human Rights provisions, especially after the European Court of Human Rights’ decisions about German preventive detention (Sicherungsverwahrung) were pronounced.

It looks like germans went down hard (ie: preventive detention) where italians went psycho. The common issue is “preventive”; because it gives a future fact for granted.

Outside these principles, the application of undetermined deprivation of freedom represents an unacceptable wound to freedom spheres and it risks to start a dangerous spiral of development of the preventive control, that deprives or reduces freedom in an abnormal dimension of “Bigbrotherisation” of criminal law and social control.

Freedom and liberties are compressed and decompressed daily in a best effort fashion by every human on Earth. The word for that is “compromises”. But the “spiral bigbrotherisation” is interesting.

Against any extension of the “doppio binario”, 41 bis and art. 146bis c.p.p., openly against the constitutional principles of fair trial

The “spiral bigbrotherisation” became lack of fair trial.

We took part to a debate between “accusatory” and “inquisitory” models, two cultures and two judicial procedures that fought each other in the 90s

The former makes you innocent and someone else must prove you’re guilty. The latter makes you guilty and you must prove you’re innocent. Smoking guns included: the “spiral bigbrotherisation” exists because of the security expenditure that in turn aims to produce evidences to have more smoking guns and less uncertanty at judicial time. But this uses of photos and videos are … insane as well. Ask your pediatrician how many times he received a dick-pic of a baby (from the baby’s parents!) to check the rush on the skin of their kids; or ask yourself what happen before and after what you see in a video. They are just two common examples of “incomplete” elements - the picture have no resolution, the video have no continuity - we think can prove something and instead don’t. And allegation of pedophilia to pediatricians are nothing! Some cops took the challenge to stick a camera on their uniforms and ended up badly… I mean… deadly, jailed, etc. It must be done, but properly ONLY. Carefull with that axe Eugene. And the same happened with the italian judicial system: an accusatory system is very fragile against preemption, and an inquisitory system is very fragile against simpler people. By having an accusatory system preempted by mass surveillance, the italian institutions clamped innocents on the sole purpose to fill in the rehab procedures.

From the complexity and fragmentation of this debate, emerged a new “Bigbrotherised” judicial process, completely deprived of its value, that abuses the accusatory model, in an authoritarian fashion, and allows an incremental annihilation of the defensive function

Probatory media (resulting from the increased availability of camera phones and public cameras) are (made up) and distributed before the judicial procedure starts, making a public fiction before the fictio iuris itself: when the person arrives in court it is already convicted or - if for some reason can’t be convicted - will suffer any kind of off-side-track retaliation (military, cops, criminals, organised mobbers, and solo psychos). Because of this some lawyers are suffering for being worthless and being target in turn, of retaliation as well. Some others - ambulance chasers - simply abdicate their defensive role to make their day. And judges themselves can’t do much because they make the paperwork only, relying on the law enforcement for any fact checking. The same law enforcement that imagined the story according to their behavioural common sense and training; or, in some cases, because of connections between police and criminality.

By introducing forced delays between facts and court trials (ex: new prevention measures cited on the “doppio binario” paper above) the law enforcement can re-dress the same person multiple times, according to whatever happen in that “probatory period”, to switch their dress between different criminal profiles; this desperate need to make someone guilty and the existance of multiple crimes and multiple approaches to define criminal the same act, produces a ‘doppler effect’ on the “redressed pupos” minds, and eventually induce to commit real crimes. Those probatory periods find legal grounds in psychological assessments contrary to the ‘empirical principle’ stated in the italian Constitution (art. 25), and find ex-post empirical evidence in the crimes eventually committed after the preventive hammering.

That’s why persistence (“Guess the right courthouse and apply for a ‘good character’ certificate”) is pretty hard to get with legacy tools. There is (was) the urgent need to adopt&adapt a new way to enforce documents integrity and persistence. The distributed filesystems, blockchains, etc, are those tools.

But the judicial system itself is 100% refractory to any kind of computer-related procedural change: the lawyers union itself in that call to arms, among the other issues, states the need to oppose to reforms of the judiciary procedures where the new procedures introduce the chance for special cases to use videoconferencing tools. And the same kind of resistance from the judicial system stakeholders (judges, prosecutors, attorneys) popped up any time a computer-aided procedure has been attempted.

Moreover, unconstitutional RATs ensure the grounds for the impossibility to rely on computer-aided fair trials: judges may end up reading false documents because the law enforcement itself served those at a later stage - after redressing - to bypass the courts and persecute the individual according to their first surveys. This is the bottom line every time a phone call is involved; or more (ex: a document is electronically produced, manipulated, served).

Hard core euristics: law systems crossroad.

The attorneys union states also:

the right to be heard within a reasonable time and the presumption of innocence risk to be deleted […] also by the break-in of the international courts, where is possible to note the friction between the continental law proper of the italian system and the common law governing the european jurisdiction.

That is partly true but it should be welcomed as a positive innovation, given that the italian previous art (“cases”) would be used for the future evolutions of the new born common law system; to grant cultural continuity. And it is partly false as well: a common belief among the english is the european law to be the continental law.

Who’s wrong? None. None is wrong.

To understand there’s the need to remember two things that took me 8 years to understand: the Magna Carta, and the artificial nature of the italian constitution and its republic. The Magna Carta was

First drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury to make peace between the unpopular King and a group of rebel barons (Wikipedia)

and stated a bunch of rights (due process, habeas corpus, etc) that the king would grant to those barons, calling them Freemen (because of their properties, their slaves, and their army). At the time the process didn’t exist and the gallows were privileges for few lucky bastards: torture was more trendy. Since the 13th century, the things evolved in a very natural way in UK (ie: never conquered, never conquerors; just messing around from time to time and re-confirming the Magna Carta just after every hard time) extending those rights to more and more people until they became universal rights. Even today some of those ancient formulas are in use in royal ceremonies and judicial proceedings: “who’s standing?”. And they jealously preserve this feeling of being individuals - Freeman - even if today most of them have no property and no army, live on rents, and probably have to go down to the blood for the military service only. In the same way of the rest of EU and north America.

The italian constitution instead was loosely derived from the Statuto Albertino - the previous royal statute - under the Allies supervision, in an emergency condition where it was impossible to think at being freemen: after a war that have been lost, after the king left the country, after almost 100 years of repression of the republic idea, and so on. Today’s italians were not born as Freemen, but as equal men with defined rights (first part of the constitution) inside only the constitutional framework. The Constitution - after the basic rights of all the citizens, not every individual - assert the existance of family (“atom of society”) and religion (“to make peace with the Pope after Rome has been annexed to the Kingdom of Italy”), then defines in detail every institution composing that framework; and the way to change it. This is artificial, very likely the german one: both countries has been rebuilt recently. But germans don’t have special police with public officer status, holding guns and manipulating the private communications: just preventive monitoring. They did it properly; maybe not perfect but fairly working for the purpose of monitoring: right or less, no people has been dressed up to fill in psyco-paths in public procedures (just incarcerated!).

The british kings had to make peace with their people granting them rights, the italie-crats had to lick the balls to the pope on french, spanish and swiss requests. That’s why the italian constitution was written by a tyrolean (Alcide De Gasperi).

This difference indeed became smaller in time, by increasing the amount of cases that finely shaped the common law, and by increasing the number of laws that heavily bloated the civil law. Often because of the sign of international treaties that were perceived internally as “international law”, “continental law”, “european law”; on both sides: foreign crap shitting on “our” law.

This difference can be seen today in the way the so called ‘rights’ are perceived, in the nature of the two passports, in the commercial law (es: “Societa’ Anonima”), and in the Anonymous movement: in UK is not possible to be anonymous, you can be a Freeman (with your name, face, heart, balls and ass) and stand in front of the courts granted to you, or be transported to Botany Bay; and this standing brings to new cases that shape the law and eventually trigger parliamentary discussions toward new acts.

In Italy there’s nothing to stand for, because the rights pre-exist the people, are recognised ex-post by the constitution (art. 2), and named one by one; the parliament give the new law to the President of the Republic for checks against the constitution, the courts signal factual abuses to the constitutional court, the constitutional court abrogates them. In all this cumbersome and expensive process, the individual doesn’t exist: there’s no Freeman, there’s an idea of citizen built by composing rights at judicial time. The rights are already there: why are you standing for, you idiot? I’m standing because those rights are not enforced; our parliaments, and law enforcement, enforced the compression of rights. Annihilation of rights for some unfortunate people.

The UK system evolved naturally to be artificial. Italian system is artificially created to be natural.

And this generates a bit of confusion. Just a little bit. But the end result is pretty similar in both countries: an excess of policies. It can work in both cases; it works if only all the citizens are perfect. Otherwise it costs too much and … well … some costs must be externalized and/or some people killed, at home or somewhere in the world. We didn’t go to Mars yet. And we don’t know how to bring down the good stuff from the moon, yet. We are good at inventing stories and killing people instead!

An example: art. 612 bis of the italian criminal code, aka “stalking law”.

There’s a tiny little truth in the complaint by the italian lawyers (against what they perceive as being “common law”): some of the european directives, european parliament rulings, and young law advisors studing abroad, introduced overlapping disciplines in the italian criminal code; fragmenting the historical debate between accusatory and inquisitory systems. And producing damages, an overall turmoil; probably deadly.

confusion of the defense of the accused, with the defense of the crime definition itself, creating inadmissible discrimination

Example: “stalking”. In the italian criminal code there was an entire chapter called “persecutory acts”, grouping a bunch of well defined crimes: one act defined, one mandatory minimum and maximum; each act a crime. Those actions pre-defined in crimes, are the atoms of the stalking beheaviour emerging from the sum of all the previous sentences in the common law systems.

The common law system let it be open to further evolutions; when a detail of a new stalking episode makes sense, there’s a new sentence, a new case study is written in the university books, and some previous cases might be reviewed. The civil law system doesn’t: it checks facts against the pre-defined crimes book.

In both systems the beheavioural training of the law enforcement plays a major role in producing false positives/negatives; that’s why the italian constitution mandates an overall bound to empirism (art. 25 - “… committed fact.”); that in turn creates some problems in punishing administrative (ex: contracts) and beheavioural (ex: “passion crimes”) descriptions of facts. Basically the constitution denies jail (torture, and death) for any “pure information crime”, unless an oath (or stronger promises) has been made before (ex: military).

Then both systems proceed to computing the right penalty.

By introducing a new article (612 bis) in the codes there’s an overlap between that single article and the entire chapter it has been inserted in; this creates problems at the moment of computing the penalty because the italian system gets the proved crime with the higher penalty (ie: the most offensive one), sum the others (proved, if any), sum the repeated ones (if any) up to 6 times, then adjusts the resulting sum to reality according to overal righterous punishment principles - the entire algoritm is complex, arguable and subjected both to changes and to the individual judge arbitration - but the overlapping article (612 bis) include all those articles in the same chapter (“persecutory crimes”), summing up multiple penalties for the same act: again a double-track (“doppio binario”) problem, this time at penalty kick time.

Because the italian civil law system is not an evolutionary system like the common law, new details and mistakes, are not immediately taken into consideration, expecially if the defenders are not taken into consideration: it produces a ton of false positives (innocents in jail) and false negatives (guilties set free). Plus, there’s no way to explain this to law practitioners. They are all malformed, in the same way, at university times: they tend to ignore reality (protocols), confusing the reality with the fictio iuris they produce in court: the process is a slow motion fiction of reality, only. A good fiction, but not reality. Moreover the static definition of the crime typical of the civil law, produces those judicial mistakes for prolonged periods of time: it can take years before the parliament goes back to the same topic, or one judge raise a constitutional exception. In the case of the new (behavioural) stalking discipline, between 2009 and 2014

  • about 30% of the people abused for investigation purposes - the “misure cautelari” (“prevention measures”) described in the “doppio binario” paper - were not even set to court after the preliminary investigation: no “fumus commissi delicti”. There was not steak, nor the smoke of it. Just the paranoia to be stalked or the open will to abuse of the law enforcement and the judicial system to torture someone. Many of my friends quit smoking week thinking that it was the cause of their paranoias; I disagree; but if that’s the case… woooooah… wooooooah… how many chicks felt stalked after a party? To tell you the truth, after the cops came to my house I got pretty paranoid and … I understand the constant feeling of being stalked. I’m stressed without a clear reason; emotionally unstable; ecc. Weed only calm me down; but sadly I’m not smoking despite the fact that I have two medics in my family - brother and father - the italian law admit weed for medical purposes, but both of them desperately need for me to be declared sick, because of two different reasons bound from the constitution down under the word “family”. So they prefer to see me suffer.
  • about 60% of the remaining cases were set to court after preliminary investigations resulted in acquittals.
  • the 10% of proved stalkers, showed the failure of the policy change, for facts that were already effectively managed by the law enforcement trough unformal warnings and formal restriction orders. The old grandma recepe is there for a reason.
  • the stalking law - that superseeded the old grandma recepe of unformal warnings and formal retriction orders - didn’t save women from getting killed (because of the restriction orders): women themselves assert no murders reduction. As I said many years ago, there’s the need of more public dorms for endangered people (male or female), not Consultative Psycho Sales. Better to live in a prison-like place than “to die or to sleep. No more.” (the dignity that Shakespeare express here is … ethernal).
  • the stalking law was restricted, by definition, to the cases of pre-existing love affairs (fuck friends, engaged, married): what about the investigative journalists? Private detectives? Hackers in march? We, hackers, knew we couldn’t make anything for it since 2009: my lawyer&girlfriend - that in 2010 sued me - explained in detail the crap behind the law; another lawyer explained to us all the fictio iuris behind this new bunch of laws (ie: purely information based, no empirism; they all give for granted that the person trust a monitor or the integrity of a paper document). In 2014 the stalking law has been modified to include any case of stalking (not the “love affairs” only), moving the “love affairs” (fuck friends, engaged, married) clausole from a condition to proof guilty, to an increase of the penalty in the case of being proven guilty. That, in turn, limit the chances of journalists, detectives, whistleblowers, solos, to investigate (ex: “why my roof is dipping? Let’s have a look at my neighbours’ habits”): a modern Newton could get arrested because the apple tree was in the neighbors’s garden, and the neighbor’s wife felt observed when she lay naked close to the swimming pool.

At that point, dirty deeds have been made to avoid a waterfall of new trials for reimbursments: the whole stalking discipline was introduced to save on judicial costs, the open fail (and its reimbursment) would invalidate this effort and openly show the failure of that policy, and the failure of the people that produced and signed it; people that have already spent the public money for their activities. Activities that the constitutional court already turned into crimes: why those politicians are not in jail? It happened for immigration&drugs (Bossi-Fini Act and Fini-Giovanardi Act laws as well; and in both cases the texts of the laws were dictated from the American Chamber of Commerce in Rome (as well as the trademarks/copyright/patents reforms passed a few years before; evidences already disappeared, can’t link anything).

confusion of the defense of the accused, with the defense of the crime definition itself

is created on purpose by MPs defending their parliamentary acts, and the way they allocated the public resources. There are plenty examples on YouTube, and some of those videos have been pushed under our - activists&hacktivists - eyes only, relying on the tracking capabilities of the tools in use by the police forces. For similar political reasons something similar could happen to Freeman standing in any common law system. And it happened already: the suicide of Aaron Swartz shows clearly the hammering process before the suicide/murder.

One case of empirical evidence: mine!

I understand perfectly lawyer’s call to arms - and Aaron Swartz’s struggle - they are right about the awful results: courts turned into hammering machines instead of houses of justice for any et all. But they keep escaping the technology paradigm change - from pen to computer - as well as the other law practitioners (public prosecutors, judges, etc). Basically they are forced into failing procedures and solution providers are underachiving, producing a continual public expenditure without evolution; no benefit.

In december 2009 I took my ex girlfriend (lawyer) at the public exam to get the lawyer license; I’ve spent 2 hours of my life that early morning, in the queue outside the building together with other 500 of them, in order to deposit in advance (for anti-cheating checks) the 30 kg of books they need to do that exam. The books they need are the law codes only (100 grams); but they spend hundreds of euros to buy the fully commented version of the codes (30 kilograms: I pushed that trolley myself that morning! 30 kg). This creates two problems: the authors of the not authorised books sell less; who can’t afford the full commented versions of the codes isn’t on par with the rich ones.

Then there’s evidence: an Amazon Kindle cost 59 euros, but they are not allowed to use it; the idea to provide pre-serviced devices at exam time instead of checking a ton of BYO books each time is very far from the institutions governing that procedure. But let’s go on with the story.

That day, the more I was looking at them, the more I was nervous: “are those youngsters our lawyers? I mean, fully conscious, 100% prepared, 2-years mandatory tracked practiced, lawyers? I must escape this place. The level of environmental idiocracy is too high”. And that was not even a courthouse; it was just an expo area where the government run those exams each year; when I saw the courthouse the year after, I got … honest intimate fear: same fancy people around a few cops and fewer handcuffed beefs. It’s just, unjust. Someone call “monkeyhouse” the prison; I call “monkeyhouse” that place, the law department at uni. At university time some of them are brought to a jailhouse for visiting purposes: don’t do that, lock them in instead. Before is too late. One time, after leaving from a party with some of them, my gf to me: “Those are my professional society, you can’t assault them like that!”. Professional society? Assault? I’ve just tried to explain to a bunch of spoiled brats - that in theory, according to their certificates, should be more skilled than me on this topic - the difference between the function of the words and the words themselves; and the more I was digging into the topic the more they were interested at my fancy quotes, instead of their function in the current discussion. This process usually leads to deeper and deeper philosophy, chronicles, ecc. You start with the trendy comedian joke of the day, and you end up with death sentences issued from mafia boys; or viceversa. But I didn’t assault anybody; the semantic value of my words probably; my body not. I just go emotional; have a look at someone in the death row once, and then you’ll be too. But again: how could they perceive the difference from my words and their semantic value if they consider an assault any deeper coscience? Who enabled them to work in a courthouse without being able to feel that the jail itself is an abuse? We, every kid, study Cesare Beccaria at high school; how do they forget it? I can forget it; they, lawyers, CAN’T!

The ones that today - five years later that morning and that party - are calling for a strike, might be some of those insignificant spolied brats I’ve seen that morning at their public exam, and I’ve “assaulted” at that party.

When I’ve been clamped down (by the cops, on demand of 2 of those lawyers!) I was on the point to prove that there has been continuity between the “6 politico” - en. “a C for all”; a motto that closed the 70s university riots by making everybody pass their exams producing fake bachelors, masters, ph.ds - and the next generation; expecially in family-driven professions. I could prove, even granting the benefit of the doubt, at least 40% of all university level italian certificates were … unconsistent; in other words: 40% of our upper class, underachieving. And I’ve already collected all the procedural changes to fix that. I started this personal research 3 years before someone tought that I could be stalking my girlfriend because of her golden pussy; at the beginning I was following the careers of some engineers but … the law practitioners were both more ridicolous and more urgent. The 2011-2015 papers describing a filthy judicial system is just a generational confirm of that urgency.

And this decadence, this intergenerational continuity - in place mostly because the lawyer profession is granted by having lawyer parents - could be broken by introducing new procedures so that the family ties would not be able to push those compulsory monkeys in front of our faces (the bloody day we need one). She, my girlfriend, couldn’t do it; she hadn’t lawyer parents. I could make it instead of her, for myself, et all: backstab the father. The one that enabled those idiots to be lawyers. That is the same father that enabled many IT guys like me, to serve the lawyers, the prosecutors and the judges, the broken IT systems that they are using. The main reason why my lawyer girlfriend and I split, she sued me, to protect herself - and her law professor: in the italian judicial system to prove corruption of the “rule of law” both the parties must be proven, or none - and my lawyer quit as well 4 years later, is that them - the lawyers - keep spitting the same old latin sentences (it. brocardi) that Julius Caesar was spitting before getting stabbed by his son: dura lex sed lex, ignorantia legit non excusat, and so on. Those two regard the limits of the law from the accused perspective; it’s their way to massacre a (still) innocent, in order to self-elect necessary part of the judicial procedure.

And if they don’t; or can’t; who is going to fix that?

It doesn’t matter what the case about: administrative, criminal, civil, whatever. What they consider to be “tools” are those old latin sentences that properly identify the concepts on top of which the legal system is built. Words, not the pens and the papers. Words only; the computer is just a washing machine, and the pen just a words painting tool. Pidgeon Lawyers; it can’t be; not the lawyers. They can’t confuse hardware and software. The 2015 version of those (new) bullocks continue, about the pens and the papers

the way fundamental technologies are in use today is an ambigous and irrealistic relationship with the judicial procedure.

The judicial procedure is what have to be changed; but they are right, the technology they are mandated to use is simply irrealistic. They identify one issue: instead of “adding value to operations” they are forced to use technology to increase the “economic efficency” of the judicial machine. Instead of producing a paperless digital version of the documents to increase efficency, they are forced to be passive spectators of “remote proceedings” trough videoconferences and the disappearing of the accused ones from the trial. And they are right, but still … words only. And in 2015, just bullshit: they probably are complaining that using an iPhone to take a picture of the university schedules was easier than opening a pdf produced by the courthouse; instead of complaining that the courthouse is using a pdf instead of an hashed plain text file. In 2010 I pushed myself into their judicial shit - HANDS-ON HACKERS! - and in 2015 I can’t accept their complaints.

The perception of “value added operations” is exactly the same existing 20 years ago, when, at the end of the 90s it has been introduced the chance to have a digital copy of the judiciary documents: the whole digitalization process was so bloated by their law procedures, that at the end of the day there was the need of 400 euros per CD/DVD of documents to cover the digitalization costs of the public administration. And you can’t imagine what’s inside those DVDs! I’m not talking about pictures of murders and other stuff that you don’t really want to see; I’m talking about the tech side of the story. Once my gf, during her apprentship period, got me one of those judicial DVDs asking how to search something inside there. Let’s not talk about the fact that they were using an 80s tech to carry that information; at the time that procedure was made, the CD/DVD media was the only one, easily accessible on the market, able to grant integrity because the media can’t be burned twice (ie: the content is an original clone of the master inside the courthouse archive). And let’s not talk that there were no anonymisation practices: me, the lawyer assistant, shouldn’t be able to read the names, the places, etc. Let’s talk about the files on the media instead: er432c2-1, fd46e2as, …, index.html. Inside a maze of nested folders. The content of the index.html: “er432c2-1, fd46e2as” (each one linked to the file). Her request: “I need the picture of the dead body”. My answer: “well, open Finder (MacOS X file manager) and look which one is the dead body one!”. Her reply: “They are a thousand pictures! It takes me 30 minutes to find that one!”. Answer: “Ok, but you need to call the coroner, not an IT Guy!”. Reply: “I called my IT boyfriend, not an IT guy!”. Answer: “Thank you Horney, I like to be your superman but … I’m not a magician and my laptop is not a time machine! Tell your senior that he can buy a pattern recognition software to scan and tag those pictures so that the task is brought down from 30 minutes to 10 minutes each time; then call the lawyers association and ask them to push on the coroners association to make them write a small tag to the pictures at production time”. Everything arguable, as usual; the point is that tagging is an activity that increase the amount of time the operators are in need of. And scanning the paper documents too. So that at the end of the story the DVD cost 400 euros, the paper version 14,62 euros. The point is not the 400 number (if the high costs are properly accounted and billed at the end); and is not the huge amount of time to search evidences to defend yourself (if the judicial system serve you the data to do it yourself and the people to assist you). The point is that all those ifs in between parenthesis are not matched.

In 2010, after 3 years of struggles to access the judicial system, I went to get my documents to understand what I was accused of. I had no money at all. Just 3 euros for the bus ticket: 1.5 to go, 1.5 to come back. I had to leave my driving license to the kind tobacco guy in order to buy 14,62 fucking euros of fucking duty stamps to know the fucking allegations I was fucked with. And go back the day after, all the way trough from my little town to Rome’s city center, to get back my driving license, spending another 3 euros. And the day after to send 2 kg of paper to my lawyer in another city: by using paper instead of digital docs, I couldn’t send those docs to my lawyer by telecommunications, saving money. And I was with that lawyer because he accepted to freely endorse my case. So the lawyers are right: that use of technology increase costs and extern those costs on the weak part of the story, instead of adding value to their job (defense). But five years (2015) later I read, again, the words “value added” instead of “cost added”, despite the 20 years already spent by (some of the) 3 millions italian IT guys telling those fucking law practitioners that they were messing up because instead of changing their procedures, they changed the computers!

Back to the story. The same day of bartendering my driving license for the duty stamps mandatory to access the allegations pending on my head … I’ve been assisted by a cute old woman that worked as paper-documents-pusher between two rooms far about 25 meters from each other. One room was the documents registry, the other room was the photocopy room. The procedure works like that: the registry’s young woman handles the master files to the cute old woman, she puts the master files on the trailer then pushes the trailer to the photocopy room, and once in the photocopy room she gives the master files to the young photocopy woman. Now, give up the detail of the two young women sitting behind the armoured glass barrier, comfortably pushing buttons on the keyboards, in an air conditioned environment, and the old woman doing the hard job all the day long pushing the kart up and down without pauses in the hot corridor; that’s already enough to invite the old cute woman to get a coffee with you, and use your smartphone to trigger a bomb that blows the entire building while you are at the bar with the old cute woman talking about her cookies recepe, to kill everything inside the courthouse except the cute old woman, and setting both of you free from that burden. And give up also the detail of me bumping all around the trailer like an idiot rabbit because I was nervous to know why the hell 4 cops broken in my place a few days before. Focus on the big picture instead. That Rome’s courthouse building is nicknamed “bunker room” on newspapers because it is the court where many of the big mafia trials occurs: the security measures inside there exceed the standards; there are no physical threats (theoretically). The two rooms (archive and photocopy) are 20 meters far from each other, the maximum utp cable lenght is about 90 meters for both civil and military standards. But in the bunker room of the capital city, in 2010, there are no cables between the registry room and the photocopy room. There is a old cute woman pushing a kart. And I swear, I thanks whoever hired that old woman in that place because I couldn’t make it without her! She has been the only one to explain what to do in there! All the others inside the offices: “are you a lawyer?”, “No”, “Are you a student?”, “No”, “Who the fuck are you then?”, “An accused one but…”, “Fuck off then! We are busy”. The lawyers talk about “disappearing of the accused one from his trial”. Here you go.

This was in 2010. In 2011 Berlusconi was thrown apart, Mario Monti popped up from nothing and nominated Prime Minister, then Letta and Renzi. In this time frame they tried to enforce new rulings to produce an administrative/civil electronic procedure that failed miserably because some law practitioners (attorneys, prosecutors, and judges) were refusing those electronic tools. The law for civil trials switched from “paper work with digital courtesy copy” to “digital work with paper courtesy copy”, result: a nuclear detonation. Some lawyers got busted because of their digital work, some others because of their paper work. Some people got busted because their lawyer’s devices couldn’t read the (security ennanched) pdf files used in court. Some courthouses issued a new internal policy to override the public one, to repel the fucking rebel lawyers: rebels to the local policy, loyal to the public policy. Lawyers more loyal to the rule of law, than public prosecutors and judges! And they ended at “tarallucci&vino”: who must pay for the courtesy paper copy? The courthouse or the prosecutor office? Probably the accused ones are still paying 14,62 of duty stamps to get their paper work. And the rich ones 400 euros for the DVD version but they don’t have a dvd player any more: they do it just for fun.

We arrived (alive, surprisingly) in 2014: I went to my embassy in Bangkok to ask for having a certified communication with the prosecutor office in charge of my case because my lawyer disappeared and I didn’t trust the one introduced by my mother; a nice guy but his last words were the same ones of the previous one: “dura lex sed lex, ignorantia legis non excusat, sorry but I don’t want to go into the direction you pushing for”. So I don’t need him; another clone is useless; just the number 4: my girlfriend, my girlfriend’s professor, my first lawyer, my second layer. I was dreaming of Piero Calamandrei, I got a clone of Ally McBeal, 3 clones of Perry Mason, and I’m pretty sure that If I ask for a military court I get a clone of JAG. There’s more courage in a brothel.

Anyway… life goes on. In dicember 2015 I acknowledge from that lawyers’s union call to arms, that the government introduced videoconferencing for special cases. That is what I asked for in the embassy one year before.

Those fucking lawyers are complaining for it and, as I said, they are right: the reason why I saved sub-penny after sub-penny for a few months, in order to be able to go to Bangkok from the small village I was, is that … I was having someone monitoring my private talks with my mother, the new lawyer, and anyone else, about those issues and everything else; real-time monitoring: the camera driver was resetting (and the light blinks) at the beginning of every call. After a year or a bit more, every time I was pushing defence elements into the conversation they (cops? militaries? some IT guy playing the cracker game?) were even actively trying to skip defensive evidences. So the LED close to my laptop’s camera was blinking everytime there was the need of more footage, but not the one that included “uncomfortable evidences” (ie: that my story come up faking other’s stories). All this during the 2014-2015 investigations of the Mafia Capitale scandal that those lawyers are using as an example of fair trial destruction: basically when the right-wing Rome’s mayor Alemanno step down in favour of the new left-wing mayor Marino, the new council figured out that some money went missing into fake charity foundations, civil associations, work cooperatives, business companies, and around the world as usual. One of the friends I’ve been talking with in Rome at that time was working for the head of Rome’s provincial police; one of the policemen arrested in that scandal, and probably the most important deep throat of the whole investigation. It’s just normal: a 12% GDP nation wide scandal in a 4.5 million people capital city, makes some of your friends working in one of those companies involved in the scandal. And I have friends here also: some of them came here years ago with all their savings to escape from that shithole we were living in, some others got money from companies and public programs to foster international relationships. One of them, a few decades ago have been involved (sentenced and cleared) into some kind of tax fraud investigation for being one of the stakeholders of a company having some criminal stakeholders as well; in november 2015 came to me upset telling me this story and I was … worried, but laughing, because I didn’t know why he was telling me. And go figure what else the others might have done in the past. So the “follow the money” investigation practices thrown that shit on us as well. Any you can imagine about: from being named “spy” from an israeli friend, to being named “spy” from my embassy’s officer, and being confused with an israeli after; threatened of death multiple times; being named “big boss”, “mafia capitale”, “schiavone” (a mafia boss shoot down a few years ago); having fake profiles in Facebook and someone talking to my friends using fake instant messaging accounts. I’ve been dressed, redressed, etc. In every other single individual’s mind. Probably according to who was making my Facebook’s profile; the one I’ve never had. Or to the ones that overridden my video profile on YouTube with fake videos (some probably made in my grandma’s house I left in 2005; but the videos might have been made around 2014, in any case after 2007… I’ve never made a video before; I’ve never had a camera before!). I don’t know exactly what you can see outside the APNIC area but the whole thing is pretty scary; it’s 5 years that I get hammered with that, since the cops stolen (but they prefer to say ‘seize’) my memories. All of them! The difference between a seize and a robbery is that the seize leaves you a receipt (that in the case of computers is a bit more complicate but … a sealing bag and the receipt on place would have been appreciated). So I spreaded those memories around the world: there are exact copies of the stolen memories on disks around the 6 continents. The copy contains - a part from my personal stuff since I was a kid - a copy of the whole italian population 2005 tax revenue (leaked in 2007 on eDonkey; integrity have to be proven but after a rapid check looked good to me), an american anarchic manual downloaded from Geocities in 1997 (I tested some of the bombing recepies but not the killing, raping, ecc, ones), pointers to some tape backups (I’ve been told having the entire italian 1999 stock market), but no porn … sorry guys … I’m not a collector. Anyway, if you find it, it’s my stuff; and don’t bring it back! Someone will kill you before! Or after! And don’t publish it! Probably those files are already hashed (ie: identified) a NSA facility somewhere in Italy, Germany … (add random countries). Dig a bunker, to keep it safe! I don’t needed it. They screwed me anyway. And I have my memories, the ones I love, in my mind.

So the layers are right: someone is abusing of his control over our private communications to make up their stories; publish them (triggering more public mobbing on the victim); and whatever. But they are also wrong.

The reason for me to go searching for my closest embassy is that my embassy, in 2014, is supposed to have extraordinary communication tools, to support their legal operations, included citizens’s judicial procedures. In the embassy, by disposing of my body, they can ID/Process/Arrest. And they carefully avoided that. The prosecutory action is one of the two top sovereignties of any order, administration, country, nation; and italian institutions are not able to execute it.

One year later (2015) those fucking lawyers talk about “value added” (ie: “cost added”) instead of asking for text files, mime encoded media content, and hashes to certify and remotely confirm the genuinity of an act: the cheapest way to implement a courthouse, a paperless judicial procedure, and a remote judicial procedure, at once. Same judicial value, less cost. And all those tools - real tools, not just words - exist since the 80s. Bitcoin and it’s blockchain, as well as Ethereum, is just a new smart repacking of the same tools.

Because of these reasons, and because from the lawyers perspective I’m enough law-ignorant to need them between me and my constitutional born ‘natural judge’ - the officer in the embassy: “it’s my job, I’m a lawyer and a public officer: why you did those things?”, “Mem, you are the embassy frontdesk officer, not my natural judge: the one I’m trying to talk with” - I end up this story of my life with another story of my life. At least, at the end, after reading a lot of crap that probably won’t make the italian judicial system any better because they don’t have IT Guys instead of lawyers in their offices, there will be a smile.

When I was ‘barely 18’ I used to make fun of Apple-powered designers working in my office because they had one button only on their mouses. A bit less then 10 years later I was using an Apple iBook because of its processor (IBM G4) and its Openly-Repackaged-Free-Software-Made operating system; and I appreciated having one button only on my mouse: I’m a console guy, the windowing environment is just a comfortable add-on and Afterstep… ehm… Mac OS X was very comfortable. Within 1 year The Newly Steve Jobbed Apple started the iTunes Music Store and removed the file sharing capabilities of iTunes; another year and the IBM cpu was gone too: I’ve found myself entangled not only back into Intel’s crap, but into Apple’s crap too. From one thing - my memories on HFS+ - to another thing - using Final Cut Pro for my video experiments - it took me about 7 years to get out from that proprietary shit again. Saving 1 euro, by 1 euro, to build a decent info system at home, completing on-going activities to carry on, family troubles, divorces, etc. I’ve spent the 2009 saving money to pack a cheap charlie server under the roof of my house to make it unaccessible to robbers (and it worked against the cops instead), consolidate all my memories (including showing my childhood toys on my laptop’s camera to dematerialise them, in order to be ready to move out from that insane place at first chance). And at the end of the 2010 memory consolidation process, guess what? Searched&seized at home: my entire memory since I was 15 years old stolen, exposed, and at risk of deletion (note: the judicial standard procedures of the time involved the deletion of the seized memories). And it took another 5 years to get rid of all those Web puppies, the Big Data puppies, the italian Chopstickers2000, and the rest of the

profiteering gluttons

Snowhite was luckier with her assignment: to take care of 7 very-small-sized bavarians it is waaaaaaay simpler than commanding 8 billion people to keep their hands off My Internet. :)

Note: I almost forgot to report the promised accuittal evidences. Eheh, sorry. Despicable me. My Minions have been terrible recently so I got A BIT stressed. Evidences are two:

  1. In the atoms world: you can start from my birth certificate, going all the way through my life and find thousands of evidences that I’ve been working for privacy in the digital era; one example: the italian privacy authority (“Garante per la protezione dei dati personali”) archive have plenty of my name in it up to 2003. Then the government changed the law (renovating the same act every 6 months to bypass the parliament) to open wild marketing calls and we couldn’t act in court any more. About the specific case all the ‘episodes’ mentioned in the court papers have a more plausible explanation; and Occam’s Razor is a primary tool. Every single time I popped up in front of my ex-gf was to confirm the ongoing intergenerational corruption story of my country: once I went to her work place to confirm that she was working in the university thanks to the public exam she&professor faked, twice to confirm that her Facebook profile was part of the Partito Democratico’s agenda, and after I figured out that someone was making up the stalking story, once to trigger the court/cops/whatever-will-be-will-be. I couldn’t afford to cite myself. And all those episodes, packed togheter, configured the crimes to the eyes of those, and only those, that want to see one. It is a bit more complicate than that - and I’ve been a bit more nasty using YouTube to PASSIVELY trigger reactions (ie: I didn’t push the videos; they were a backlog only) - but placing everything on a timeline would prove me innocent (and her guilty of abusing of her profession; the italian lawyer’s union to kick her out; and probably a courthouse to make her paying all the costs… up today).

  2. In the bits world: the italian version of the european data retention policy mandating the telco companies for 5 years of telephone backlogs to be kept was in place. And there are no telephone calls to her home; nor emails to her workplace or whatever. Pretty weird for a passion criminal. But that’s not evidence even in the fancy behaevioural world. The real point is that the stalking law of the time was mandating (in order to prove guilty) that the vitcim had to change habits, and after receiving hundreds of messages from me she changed her telephone number. She first tried to record a conversation using her mobile phone (the same I did catching her talking about her fake exam at uni) but … her friend agreed with me and she … almost strangled herself when her friend agreed, so I noticed the way she was holding her smartphone exposing the mic, and realised the trick. She was recording. After I started the wild SMSing to trigger the case in court: it was a good chance to (also) force the telecom companies to do their job (ie: filter out spam instead of producing it for business purposes). And for the people to stop bothering about (one kind of the) “Internet Stalking”. Again, things are a little bit more complicate than that but … placing them on a timeline makes sense. No need to say that I’ve never made a porn movie; not with her, nor without; but, actually, if you find one please… please… I pay you for it! I want to place it on the blockchain to be sure that my memories don’t get scrambled by mobbers :)

Since then I haven’t been able to find anyone both able to understand (because of his law education and tehcnological experience) nor anyone willing to spend enough time to check my background, the empirical elements on both the atoms and the bit contexts, and place all the elements on a timeline. That’s in theory court’s job.

When I say that I’m a white collar slayer, there’s a reason. And when I say that the cyberspace is my love … there’s another reason. And when I say that I’m an idiot, there are plenty reasons. Probably the first one is that I never made a graph/picture/draw of all this shit… in italian we have an old joke we spit in the face of anyone that look like didn’t understand what we’ve been saying: “do you need a graph of it or words are enough?”. I should have made one.


Other Freemen I don’t know. Personally I’m not standing because the law was malformed, the law enforcement not brave enough to discuss it, and the court didn’t deserve its role. I spend must of my day sitting on my ass studying some IT stuff and writing this “tools”. Coping with the compulsory immigration rules of the place I’m living in. At the beginning I was waiting - the italian judicial times: years, not days - for my lawyer to make me talk in court - because I didn’t want to reveal the trick before using a telecommunication tool - when he quit … just living, searching for another way to clean up that crap, get my reimboursement, and leave that shithole for ever. Not only the place “italian peninsula”, but also the administration that sit on top of, and massacres, that land!

So yes: I’m some sort of standing. In a modern way: sitting because I couldn’t find a court for standing; and not to the blood because I’m not a military. I searched for international courts in order to have UK-like common law procedures, using the italian previous cases to fill in those procedures: it is the trend that those lawyers are complaining of (“continentalization of the civil law system”). And I searched in vain. But I guess I can stand both in a UK court and in an italian one: being judged two times for the same fact. It would be fun to challenge both those Lords of the Law, using a time-division atomic principle.

It isn’t fun because they - law practitioners - don’t take into consideration the sub-artistic reasoning. Protocols. It’s pretty scary indeed. The lawyer profession was started at a time nobody could read and write; the very few able to do it were selling this capability in courts (lawyers), banks (accountans), and streets (ex: writing letters for the poor people): they were pen&pencils technicians. What are they today?

Example: a telephone call is built on top of two legs, caller and called, one initiates, one receives. Any caller can be barred, filtered out, both network side and called side; the stalker can be filtered out without even telling him. And without the need of data retention policies to judicially assert the facts ex-post. Easy, smooth. The internet works in a similar way up to TCP/IP (it’s just a bit more complicate to understand). But if politics don’t want for courts to go there, they won’t take this obvious empirical fact into consideration. And it is worse than that: if the offender caller set himself anonymous, they would start to mangle the issue from the legal perspective… using words… and pencils… artistic scam, AGAIN!

It’s not simply underachieving. It’s a forced whole community suicide Drinking Kool-aid. The world evolved (and demographics scaled) thanks to the uses of these technologies too; by walking backward like a sea-horse - and forcing us all to do the same - without waiting for a natural, peaceful, reduction of the human population … they drove us, at high speed, into a gallery where a drunken oil-truck driver just hit a fireworks truck. And this is jurisdiction-insensitive, it has been a global process: country more, country less. Now look at my Google+ profile and ask yourself why it is indexed in the wrong chronological order: I didn’t make it like that. Who mangled it? Then spit on your Google device. And search my name in it and ask youself why the first post coming out is a 3 years old post calling for amnesty for ex-private Chelsea Manning. Not all the soldiers are able to wave their scars from their souls; and not all of them can think to the idea that one of the military contractors’ laptop could have gone lost during the war operations (leading to the leak of ‘Collateral Murder’ videos: Manning might be innocent). To not even mention that sometimes even the ambassadors are killed: don’t shoot the fucking messenger! In other words I could be dead by now.

Politics apart: in the UK system my case would result in a new acquittal case because of the empirical evidence, in the italian one in a constitutional exception that would partly abrogate a law. My problem is that the italian judicial is deeply broken; I can’t bother the english judicial; and the international courts are malformed, not recognised, have much worse issues to fix (ie: murders, refugees, terrorists, etc), or simply don’t take into consideration italian cases because the italian system didn’t make its part at first producing an amount of human rights abuses too big to be processed.

Otherwise it would be fun. Someone says “Biting the pillow”, i prefer “Keep Standing”.

No “double track”; no “doppio binario”. Non bis in idem.