3 ms·
For example the case of the social scientist Andrej Holm (https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrej_Holm&oldid=150411384#Ermittlungsverfahren_wegen_Verd
by wolfgke 11y ago
For example the case of the social scientist Andrej Holm
(https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrej_Holm&oldid=150411384#Ermittlungsverfahren_wegen_Verdachts_der_Mitgliedschaft_in_einer_terroristischen_Vereinigung https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrej_Holm&oldid... - in German) who researched in the internet using some keywords ("Gentrification" and "Prekarisierung" (casualization)) that were also used by the terror group mg (militante gruppe ("militant group")) and thus got into the crossfire of the surveillance state.
- fauigerzigerk 11y agoSo someone was wrongly accused of a crime because the methods of catching criminals (that is the surveillance state) turned out to be flawed. I still don't see how that changes the definition of what "criminals" are.
- wolfgke 11y agoIf there weren't the surveillance state, he'd never be put into pretrial imprisonment (for which strong prior evidence that he is indeed a criminal is necessary). So thanks to the surveillance state he was handled as a criminal.
- fauigerzigerk 11y agoYes he was accused and then acquitted. That doesn't change the definition of "criminals". The surveillance state may change the likelihood of a miscarriage of justice. But in my view, the much more important problem is that the surveillance state makes people afraid of getting wrongly accused of a crime. They stop doing perfectly legal things because they might be difficult to explain. I have observed that in my own behavior and I know others who have become very defensive in their use of the internet.