This is a depressing reminder that institutional trust is fragile, even in privacy-forward institutions. The irony of a privacy watchdog potentially being compromised speaks to a more profound problem: we're placing too much trust in centralized authorities to protect our data.
This is partly why I am developing end-to-end encrypted solutions that are designed so that even we, as operators, cannot access the data. When mathematical principles replace institutional trust, individuals become less vulnerable to human corruption. Zero-knowledge systems aren't just theoretical elegance; they're practical insurance against exactly this scenario.
This feels like a false flag being pressured by corporate interests.
Government agency focused on citizen privacy suddenly hit by a corruption probe with no accusations or specifics.
What would corruption even mean in this case? They're being bribed to…point out Grok's deepfake porn? Warning about the dangers of AI? Fine companies for harming or misleading users?
As much as Americans like to think everything is about America, I doubt this is somehow connected. These goverment-appointed officials, like the Secretary General of the Privacy Watchdog, tend to be incompetent and corrupt buffoons.
Just two months ago, the previous Secretary General was forced to resign[1] after he tried to spy on his own employees in a botched attempt to find a whistle-blower that had exposed his corruption. He couldn't get away with it only because the head of IT (who he ordered to carry out the actual spying) happened to be the son-in-law of the President of the Republic, which is practically the last remaining institution with some integrity in the political landscape.
To understand the magnitude of the incompetence of that fool, just know that he had asked IT to retrieve employees access logs and all emails for the past 25 years (hundreds of TB of data) and put them on a DVD so he could check them out [2].
From what I gather, corruption in this case means that civil servants of the Garante per la Protezione dei Dati Personali got business class travel when they should have flown economy class because the trip was under five hours (the established cut-off for upgrading to business class), and that they stayed in hotels that were better than the ones authorized for civil servants. There's also something about the head of the Garante changing the terms of his lease in Rome on an apartment that is directly adjacent to an AirB&B owned by his daughter, but my financial Italian's not up to understanding the full details. I think this is less the "point out Grok's deepfake" kind of corruption and more the "some civil servants think they're entitled to live better on the taxpayer's dime than other civil servants do."
Agcom isn't the privacy watchdog, albeit their responsibilities overlap in some areas.
Also, our actual privacy watchdog (garante per la privacy) has been under the lenses for corruption for quite some time.
One of it's most important managers was on one side expected to fight for Italians privacy, on the other hand his own law consulting firm was defending US big tech interests.
He was caught bragging for being one of the first people in the world to receive the latest meta ray bans before they even got released, a very controversial device for privacy (and yes, he also defends Meta).
AGCOM (Autorità per le Garanzie nelle COMunicazioni - authority for integrity in communications) is what supports the anti-piracy efforts that are fighting Cloudflare (as well as ensuring competition in telecom markets etc etc).
GPDP (Garante per la Protezione dei Dati Personali - guarantor for the protection of personal data) is the data privacy regulator, tasked with ensuring that people's right to privacy is respected in a world of databases.
The privacy watchdog is not AGCOM
This is a depressing reminder that institutional trust is fragile, even in privacy-forward institutions. The irony of a privacy watchdog potentially being compromised speaks to a more profound problem: we're placing too much trust in centralized authorities to protect our data.
This is partly why I am developing end-to-end encrypted solutions that are designed so that even we, as operators, cannot access the data. When mathematical principles replace institutional trust, individuals become less vulnerable to human corruption. Zero-knowledge systems aren't just theoretical elegance; they're practical insurance against exactly this scenario.
This feels like a false flag being pressured by corporate interests.
Government agency focused on citizen privacy suddenly hit by a corruption probe with no accusations or specifics.
What would corruption even mean in this case? They're being bribed to…point out Grok's deepfake porn? Warning about the dangers of AI? Fine companies for harming or misleading users?
If so, let's get some more of that corruption!
As much as Americans like to think everything is about America, I doubt this is somehow connected. These goverment-appointed officials, like the Secretary General of the Privacy Watchdog, tend to be incompetent and corrupt buffoons.
Just two months ago, the previous Secretary General was forced to resign[1] after he tried to spy on his own employees in a botched attempt to find a whistle-blower that had exposed his corruption. He couldn't get away with it only because the head of IT (who he ordered to carry out the actual spying) happened to be the son-in-law of the President of the Republic, which is practically the last remaining institution with some integrity in the political landscape.
To understand the magnitude of the incompetence of that fool, just know that he had asked IT to retrieve employees access logs and all emails for the past 25 years (hundreds of TB of data) and put them on a DVD so he could check them out [2].
[1]: https://www.ansa.it/sito/notizie/politica/2025/11/20/scosson...
[2]: https://www.key4biz.it/garante-privacy-capo-it-a-segretario-...
From what I gather, corruption in this case means that civil servants of the Garante per la Protezione dei Dati Personali got business class travel when they should have flown economy class because the trip was under five hours (the established cut-off for upgrading to business class), and that they stayed in hotels that were better than the ones authorized for civil servants. There's also something about the head of the Garante changing the terms of his lease in Rome on an apartment that is directly adjacent to an AirB&B owned by his daughter, but my financial Italian's not up to understanding the full details. I think this is less the "point out Grok's deepfake" kind of corruption and more the "some civil servants think they're entitled to live better on the taxpayer's dime than other civil servants do."
Sounds like Baltimore
The article is quite misleading.
Agcom isn't the privacy watchdog, albeit their responsibilities overlap in some areas.
Also, our actual privacy watchdog (garante per la privacy) has been under the lenses for corruption for quite some time.
One of it's most important managers was on one side expected to fight for Italians privacy, on the other hand his own law consulting firm was defending US big tech interests.
He was caught bragging for being one of the first people in the world to receive the latest meta ray bans before they even got released, a very controversial device for privacy (and yes, he also defends Meta).
> Government agency focused on citizen privacy suddenly hit by a corruption probe with no accusations or specifics.
I think you underestimate the amount of bureaucracy and corruption in Italian institutions.
This is hard paywalled for me. Is a bypass link available?
this is the same thing as "AGCOM" right? hmm
Related:
Cloudflare CEO on the Italy fines
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46555760
Different things.
AGCOM (Autorità per le Garanzie nelle COMunicazioni - authority for integrity in communications) is what supports the anti-piracy efforts that are fighting Cloudflare (as well as ensuring competition in telecom markets etc etc).
GPDP (Garante per la Protezione dei Dati Personali - guarantor for the protection of personal data) is the data privacy regulator, tasked with ensuring that people's right to privacy is respected in a world of databases.
Don't think so, this the "Garante della Privacy", two different institutions.
Different — but driven by the same mindset, the same nonsense, and a system run by recycled old-guard politicians.
[dead]
No these are two different Italian agencies.