O Comissário Europeu da Justiça e Segurança quer impedir que os motores de busca da Internet possam procurar palavras como bomba, genocídio ou terrorismo. Manuel Lopes da Rocha, especialista em Direito da Internet, diz que esta é uma medida grave e limitadora.

( 21:47 / 10 de Setembro 07 )

Na luta contra o terrorismo, a Europa pode avançar com uma medida para bloquear a busca de determinadas palavras na Internet. A hipótese foi esta segunda-feira avançada pelo Comissário da Justiça e Segurança.

A ideia inicial era impedir que as pessoas acedessem a sites que ensinam por exemplo a fazer bombas, mas Franco Frattini vai mais longe.

A proposta vai ser formalizada já em Novembro aos 27 países e aparece incluída numa série de iniciativas para combater o terrorismo.

O comissário quer saber se existe tecnologia capaz de impedir a tecnologia de palavras consideradas perigosas como bomba, morte, terrorismo ou genocídio.

Fratinni considera que a Internet não pode ser um meio de difusão de conceitos associados a este flagelo. Por isso insiste na necessidade de criar filtros na rede.

A Internet assumiu uma enorme importância para os grupos militantes, porque facilita a partilha de conhecimento e a distribuição de propaganda a uma vasta audiência e por outro lado intensifica as ligações entre membros de células terroristas.

Questionado pela Reuters sobre se será correcto impedir as pesquisas associadas ao tema terrorismo, o responsável italiano diz que ensinar a fazer explosivos nada tem a ver com a liberdade de expressão ou informação das pessoas.

Para o comissário europeu, a protecção dos direitos dos cidadãos e do direito à vida deve ser prioritária. Frattini defende por isso que as instruções úteis aos terroristas têm que ser bloqueadas.

Ouvido pela TSF, o advogado Manuel Lopes da Rocha, especialista em direito da Internet, diz que a ser aprovada esta é uma medida limitadora e grave.

O advogado defende ainda que o terrorismo se combate com outras medidas e não tentando controlar a Interne

não dá para reconhecer o Nome ?

Bill Gates is an improbable humanitarian. He built a reputation as a nightmare boss at Microsoft, a totalitarian who screeched at employees he thought were stupid. He bludgeoned competitors with his illegal monopoly. And he’s a nerd’s nerd — someone who seems perennially uncomfortable around people and only at ease dealing with the intricacies of software code.

And that is precisely why he’s now saving the world.

As you probably know, Gates is aggressively tackling third world diseases. He has targeted not only high-profile scourges like AIDS but also maladies like malaria, diarrhea, and parasitic infections. These latter illnesses are the really important ones to attack, because they kill millions a year and are entirely preventable. For decades, they flew under the radar of philanthropists in the West. So why did Gates become the first major humanitarian to take action?

The answer lies in the psychology of numeracy — how we understand numbers.

I’ve been reading the fascinating work of Paul Slovic, a psychologist who runs the social-science think tank Decision Research. He studies a troubling paradox in human empathy: We’ll usually race to help a single stranger in dire straits, while ignoring huge numbers of people in precisely the same plight. We’ll donate thousands of dollars to bring a single African war orphan to the US for lifesaving surgery, but we don’t offer much money or political pressure to stop widespread genocides in Rwanda or Darfur.

You could argue that we’re simply callous, or hypocrites. But Slovic doesn’t think so. The problem isn’t a moral failing: It’s a cognitive one. We’re very good at processing the plight of tiny groups of people but horrible at conceptualizing the suffering of large ones.

In one recent experiment, Slovic presented subjects with a picture of “Rokia,” a starving child in Mali, and asked them how much they’d be willing to give to help feed her. Then he showed a different group photos of two Malinese children — “Rokia and Moussa.” The group presented with two kids gave 15 percent less than those shown just one child. In a related experiment, people were asked to donate money to help a dying child. When a second set of subjects was asked to donate to a group of eight children dying of the same cause, the average donation was 50 percent lower.

Slovic suspects this stuff is hardwired. Psychologists have long observed that our ability to discriminate among quantities is finely tuned when dealing with small amounts but quickly degrades as the numbers get larger. Our ears work that way, too. When a very quiet sound becomes slightly louder, we detect the difference right away. But once a noise is really loud, it has to increase dramatically for it to seem “louder.” The same holds true for our judgments of weight and, of course, less tangible quantities like money. We’ll break the bank to save Baby Jessica, but when half of Africa is dying, we’re buying iPhones.

Which brings me back to Gates. The guy is practically a social cripple, and at times he has seemed to lack human empathy. But he’s also a geek, and geeks are incredibly good at thinking concretely about giant numbers. Their imagination can scale up and down the powers of 10 — mega, giga, tera, peta — because their jobs demand it.

So maybe that’s why he is able to truly understand mass disease in Africa. We look at the huge numbers and go numb. Gates looks at them and runs the moral algorithm: Preventable death = bad; preventable death x 1 million people = 1 million times as bad.

We tend to think that the way to address disease and death is to have more empathy. But maybe that’s precisely wrong. Perhaps we should avoid leaders who “feel your pain,” because their feelings will crap out at, you know, eight people.

What we need are more Bill Gateses — people with Aspergian focus, with a direct sensual ability to understand what a million means. They’ve got to be able to envision every angel on the head of a pin. Because when it comes to stopping the mass tragedies of today’s world, we’re going to need every one of them.

Email clive@clivethompson.net

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/15-09/st_thompson