6 ms·

I have the political and business acumen of a wooden plank, so forgive the elementary question, but what would the German government or businesses have to benef

I have the political and business acumen of a wooden plank, so forgive the elementary question, but what would the German government or businesses have to benefit from the massive limitations? The way I read it, it seems Germany wants to restrict one's right to privacy... and that's it. Why?

glasz 10y ago
there's more than 30000 - THIRTY THOUSAND - lobbyists in brussels. add lobbyists in berlin. the oh-so-great industries in europe/germany cannot have legislation limiting their businesses. creating real privacy-focussed product is just too hard for a country where great inventions and innovation once came from. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/08/lobbyists-european-parliament-brussels-corporate https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/08/lobbyists-euro...
edLui 10y ago
There are lots of unintended consequences that are not intuitively apparent. Here is a list of some in the news - http://snuc-list.blogspot.in/ http://snuc-list.blogspot.in/ Until the tech sector deals with them as issues, as in, treats them the same way they treat software bugs its really upto the govts of the world to step in and over regulate. Zuckerberg, Dorsey et al have slowly started recognizing publicly they have to do more. And while they work out the fixes, their platforms can't be allowed to wreck social havoc, of which there is a mounting body of evidence.
gkafkg8y8 10y ago
From what I've heard, Germany has some very strong privacy laws. It keeps them from being able to use products that many others around the world can use. And I'm not talking about social media- it affects basic things like timekeeping software. And German workers expect that level of privacy; they don't think it's excessive. While I'm all for privacy, when much of the rest of the world isn't like that, it makes it significantly harder to do business with other countries. But, I actually think it wouldn't be a terrible thing if strict laws on privacy were enacted worldwide, as long as they had more benefit to people than annoyance and didn't significantly restrict personal freedom. There is too much data right now. On the other hand, I'm tired of signing HIPAA forms, and the bureaucracy around it. I just wish that the legal system was more common sense. Maybe an amendment to the U.S. Constitution something to the effect of "Information about a citizen shall not be collected and stored against the will of the citizen." Then get rid of HIPAA, etc. and just let the citizen take businesses to court if they find that the business was responsible for out-of-control personal data collection. But, I'm sure there are valid reasons to get specific.
- wallace_f 10y ago
  > "A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both." I know a lot of us want to be rich, but this quote by Eisenhower seems worth remembering:
  - gkafkg8y8 10y ago
    There has been an unspoken freedom of privacy for thousands of years. We could go in our caves or homes and protect them via a fist, rock, spear, or gun such that we could live alone outside of prying eyes. Now when we go online or go shop in a store, we are partially losing the ability to live privately. Eventually, our government could put cameras everywhere in our home to ensure that we behave, and some could abuse that. To prevent that, we need to solidify that freedom of privacy, rather than continue to consider it a privilege. I also think that we should allow the government some amount of freedom to protect us. However, there needs to be a line drawn that shouldn't be crossed whether it's Target, the F.B.I., or an individual, and I think we should all be aware of data collection.
    - wallace_f 10y ago
      >we need to solidify that freedom of privacy, rather than continue to consider it a privilege. When I posted that, I actually saw it the other way around: privacy as a principle, and riches as privilege. >I also think that we should allow the government some amount of freedom to protect us I agree. I'm lean a little bit libertarian, but even a staunch libertarian holds this belief. Actually that's kind of the point, that government's main purpose is to protect the people and enforce the rule of law. There's some argument right now that government in America is not upholding that obligation (for example, laws are applied unequally depending on race and income, police overstepping their authority and police brutality, etc.).
    - benevol 10y ago
      > Eventually, our government could put cameras everywhere in our home I actually don't think that the government will have to do this, because as consumers we do it already for them: Have a notebook in your house? Nice, your camera may already be watching you and the mic listening to you. Have a mobile phone? Nice, you are now under surveillance 24 hours a day. The 2 cameras can see, the mic (and now apparently even the speaker) can listen, your location is 100% tracked, the gyro can let hackers know via your current vibration profile if you're in a bus, train or car, etc. All this could be partially prevented by hardware switches for each sensor. Are we consumers out on the street fighting against this and/or voting with our $$$ to prevent the loss of privacy?
heisenbit 10y ago
I suspect it is limiting some "Big Data" and outsourcing use cases and lobbyists have been busy. Also there was a big blowup on so called "selectors" which were filter parameters given by the NSA to the German secret service. These selectors siphoned off private data to a foreign (US) goverment and when the story leaked people were interested to know what was handed out. The NSA of course is interested in keeping those secret. The new law would make this easier.
whythrowaway 10y ago
Merkel's government is terrified of the worldwide right wing nationalist movement and wants to limit free speech and right to assemble as much as possible in an attempt to silence likely AfD supporters. Germany like much of Europe already has thoughtcrime laws, this is but a more effective way to enforce them.
- DasIch 10y ago
  Germany has no thoughtcrime laws. No laws that would have an affect on free speech or assembly have been passed recently or are under discussion formally or informally. Indeed precisely because opposition exists, this would be an incredibly stupid move likely to cause backlash.
  - whythrowaway 10y ago
    Ursula Haverbeck.
    - DasIch 10y ago
      Ursula Haverbeck is a nazi who denies the Holocaust and publicly lies about it. She was found guilty of incitement to hatred. That is not a violation of freedom of speech. Lies are not covered by freedom of speech in Germany, they're not covered by freedom of speech in other countries either, even the US. In fact in most countries certain types of lies are illegal and fall under laws against fraud, libel or any number of things. Germany simply also covers incitement of hatred. Additionally the first article of the German constitution and one of its fundamental principles is that human dignity shall be inviolable and that the state has a duty to respect and protect it. In my opinion ensuring the dignity of the vicitims of the holocaust is protected requires making sure that the state fights those that would deny the holocaust.
      - whythrowaway 10y ago
        She presented numerous historical documents as evidence that the holocaust as we know it did not happen, and that the United States viewed the German people as a threat far prior to WWII and planned to exterminate them, for example via the "Hooton Plan" to use mass immigration of non-Europeans to breed native Germans out of existence. Does this sound familiar? For saying this, an elderly woman in her late 80s has been repeatedly imprisoned. Sounds like thoughtcrime to me.

glasz 10y ago

there's more than 30000 - THIRTY THOUSAND - lobbyists in brussels. add lobbyists in berlin. the oh-so-great industries in europe/germany cannot have legislation limiting their businesses. creating real privacy-focussed product is just too hard for a country where great inventions and innovation once came from. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/08/lobbyists-european-parliament-brussels-corporate https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/08/lobbyists-euro...

edLui 10y ago

There are lots of unintended consequences that are not intuitively apparent. Here is a list of some in the news - http://snuc-list.blogspot.in/ http://snuc-list.blogspot.in/ Until the tech sector deals with them as issues, as in, treats them the same way they treat software bugs its really upto the govts of the world to step in and over regulate. Zuckerberg, Dorsey et al have slowly started recognizing publicly they have to do more. And while they work out the fixes, their platforms can't be allowed to wreck social havoc, of which there is a mounting body of evidence.

gkafkg8y8 10y ago

From what I've heard, Germany has some very strong privacy laws. It keeps them from being able to use products that many others around the world can use. And I'm not talking about social media- it affects basic things like timekeeping software. And German workers expect that level of privacy; they don't think it's excessive. While I'm all for privacy, when much of the rest of the world isn't like that, it makes it significantly harder to do business with other countries. But, I actually think it wouldn't be a terrible thing if strict laws on privacy were enacted worldwide, as long as they had more benefit to people than annoyance and didn't significantly restrict personal freedom. There is too much data right now. On the other hand, I'm tired of signing HIPAA forms, and the bureaucracy around it. I just wish that the legal system was more common sense. Maybe an amendment to the U.S. Constitution something to the effect of "Information about a citizen shall not be collected and stored against the will of the citizen." Then get rid of HIPAA, etc. and just let the citizen take businesses to court if they find that the business was responsible for out-of-control personal data collection. But, I'm sure there are valid reasons to get specific.

wallace_f 10y ago
> "A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both." I know a lot of us want to be rich, but this quote by Eisenhower seems worth remembering:
- gkafkg8y8 10y ago
  There has been an unspoken freedom of privacy for thousands of years. We could go in our caves or homes and protect them via a fist, rock, spear, or gun such that we could live alone outside of prying eyes. Now when we go online or go shop in a store, we are partially losing the ability to live privately. Eventually, our government could put cameras everywhere in our home to ensure that we behave, and some could abuse that. To prevent that, we need to solidify that freedom of privacy, rather than continue to consider it a privilege. I also think that we should allow the government some amount of freedom to protect us. However, there needs to be a line drawn that shouldn't be crossed whether it's Target, the F.B.I., or an individual, and I think we should all be aware of data collection.
  - wallace_f 10y ago
    >we need to solidify that freedom of privacy, rather than continue to consider it a privilege. When I posted that, I actually saw it the other way around: privacy as a principle, and riches as privilege. >I also think that we should allow the government some amount of freedom to protect us I agree. I'm lean a little bit libertarian, but even a staunch libertarian holds this belief. Actually that's kind of the point, that government's main purpose is to protect the people and enforce the rule of law. There's some argument right now that government in America is not upholding that obligation (for example, laws are applied unequally depending on race and income, police overstepping their authority and police brutality, etc.).
  - benevol 10y ago
    > Eventually, our government could put cameras everywhere in our home I actually don't think that the government will have to do this, because as consumers we do it already for them: Have a notebook in your house? Nice, your camera may already be watching you and the mic listening to you. Have a mobile phone? Nice, you are now under surveillance 24 hours a day. The 2 cameras can see, the mic (and now apparently even the speaker) can listen, your location is 100% tracked, the gyro can let hackers know via your current vibration profile if you're in a bus, train or car, etc. All this could be partially prevented by hardware switches for each sensor. Are we consumers out on the street fighting against this and/or voting with our $$$ to prevent the loss of privacy?

heisenbit 10y ago

I suspect it is limiting some "Big Data" and outsourcing use cases and lobbyists have been busy. Also there was a big blowup on so called "selectors" which were filter parameters given by the NSA to the German secret service. These selectors siphoned off private data to a foreign (US) goverment and when the story leaked people were interested to know what was handed out. The NSA of course is interested in keeping those secret. The new law would make this easier.

whythrowaway 10y ago

Merkel's government is terrified of the worldwide right wing nationalist movement and wants to limit free speech and right to assemble as much as possible in an attempt to silence likely AfD supporters. Germany like much of Europe already has thoughtcrime laws, this is but a more effective way to enforce them.

DasIch 10y ago
Germany has no thoughtcrime laws. No laws that would have an affect on free speech or assembly have been passed recently or are under discussion formally or informally. Indeed precisely because opposition exists, this would be an incredibly stupid move likely to cause backlash.
- whythrowaway 10y ago
  Ursula Haverbeck.
  - DasIch 10y ago
    Ursula Haverbeck is a nazi who denies the Holocaust and publicly lies about it. She was found guilty of incitement to hatred. That is not a violation of freedom of speech. Lies are not covered by freedom of speech in Germany, they're not covered by freedom of speech in other countries either, even the US. In fact in most countries certain types of lies are illegal and fall under laws against fraud, libel or any number of things. Germany simply also covers incitement of hatred. Additionally the first article of the German constitution and one of its fundamental principles is that human dignity shall be inviolable and that the state has a duty to respect and protect it. In my opinion ensuring the dignity of the vicitims of the holocaust is protected requires making sure that the state fights those that would deny the holocaust.
    - whythrowaway 10y ago
      She presented numerous historical documents as evidence that the holocaust as we know it did not happen, and that the United States viewed the German people as a threat far prior to WWII and planned to exterminate them, for example via the "Hooton Plan" to use mass immigration of non-Europeans to breed native Germans out of existence. Does this sound familiar? For saying this, an elderly woman in her late 80s has been repeatedly imprisoned. Sounds like thoughtcrime to me.