10 ms·

I skimmed through that law draft. Translation: They want you to face jail, if you provide an "internet based service", which "accessibility is restricted due to

• akerro 8y ago
  >"internet based service", which "accessibility is restricted due to specific, technical precautionary measures", and which "purpose is to allow or encourage specific illegal actions". That's technically what youtube and liveleak do in Germany.
  • anoncoward111 8y ago
    I want to see everybody at DW go to prison for hosting comments on news articles which could be considered inflammatory. Elites need equal prosecution under law!
  • koboll 8y ago
    Can't you just argue that you set up your Tor node with an intent to facilitate legal actions, and don't condone or encourage people to misuse it?
    • mreome 8y ago
      But you would be facing a government arguing that Tor doesn't have any legitimate legal uses... after being put through the process of being raided, having all your equipment confiscated, and being arrested.
      • kbwt 8y ago
        In the currently proposed revision, the law applies to anyone facilitating access to an internet-based service "unless the criminal use of the service is of insignificant importance". See the changes relative to the original draft here: https://www.internet-strafrecht.com/wp-content/plugins/download-attachments/includes/download.php?id=2691 https://www.internet-strafrecht.com/wp-content/plugins/downl...
        • koboll 8y ago
          Does that mean YouTube would be liable for hosting the NZ shooter's terrorist-act livestream? Seems pretty significant.
  • batmenace 8y ago
    how is it the purpose of youtube to encourage or allow illegal action
    • akerro 8y ago
      They somehow feel responsible for hosting russia today channels and anti-vax videos.
• close04 8y ago
  From the wording I can't really tell but would this target more operating a Tor website vs. a Tor node? What about VPN providers? From what I understand the law would target the sites by taking away the operator's defense that they were just providing a platform. But it could be interpreted also as targeting node operator. This could cover even encrypted messaging services like WhatsApp or Telegram and would certainly conflict with the pretty privacy laws Germany has. If this is the case then by the wording clearer we'd know what exactly is being targeted. The current principle behind the proposed text would make even a taxi driver responsible for assisting a criminal by transporting them anonymously.
  • blastbeat 8y ago
    That's the problem. The draft is vaguely formulated. They seem to concentrate and take down Tor websites and "darknet admins", but the difference is nowhere mentioned, let alone acknowledged in the draft.
    • close04 8y ago
      I always want to imagine these drafts as a request for information (although they mostly aren't). I doubt too much technical know-how was involved when drafting this and I hope before going to the next step they actually call on someone who can accurately depict exactly what each concept is and how to clearly differentiate them.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• Nextgrid 8y ago
  To me this seems to target specific illegal sites (which makes sense) rather than operating a service which may be used for illegal stuff while not being explicitly designed for it (so Tor should be fine given it has possibility for legitimate usage, and so do Tor hidden services as long as they're not used for anything illegal).
  • tastroder 8y ago
    Agreed, while both the proposal and the article contain lots of the usual dark net FUD, the proposed law seems pretty constrained on the platforms themselves. I honestly fail to see the larger point of that legislation, if a platform is as clearly targeted towards the crimes specified in the proposal it should already be covered by a plethora of German and EU wide law.
    • TomMarius 8y ago
      > I honestly fail to see the larger point of that legislation, if a platform is as clearly targeted towards the crimes specified in the proposal it should already be covered by a plethora of German and EU wide law. Based on my understanding of Czech law (which is alike German law, but not that much), the point lies in process issues. Having specific laws allows the government (meaning the executive branch) to form law enforcement units, establish government offices dedicated to the issue etc.
    • maze-le 8y ago
      Thats just the point, these services are already outlawed. There are numerous laws that regulate the sale of drugs, weapons etc., which makes these onion-services already illegal. The wording of this proposal is made deliberately weak so that even Exit nodes will be covered, if it gets through the Bundestag. Alas a small word on the legislative procedure. This is "only" a draft of a proposal of the Bundesrat (what in most states is called the Senate). The 'Bundesrat' has no legislative authority, so in essence this is a paper that 'calls the Bundestag (House of representatives)' to initiate a legislative procedure -- on itself it is pretty meaningless but has the chance to become a problem.
• josteink 8y ago
  > They want you to face jail, if you provide an "internet based service", which "accessibility is restricted due to specific, technical precautionary measures", and which "purpose is to allow or encourage specific illegal actions". So they are making it illegal trying to hide your illegal activity? How very useful. Not redundant at all.
  • saiya-jin 8y ago
    Hold your horses a bit, cowboy. You realize this tool was created by NSA and helped countless dissidents, journalists etc in highly oppressive regimes to express their voices. Something a German citizen should still be concerned about when trying to learn from history... Yes there is illicit usage of this in crime world (even though some small portion can be morally justifiable, most is not), but there should be at least a discussion about pros and cons if we want to call ourselves a just and fair society (which I realize is not what everybody craves for, but I hope vast majority does).
    • swixmix 8y ago
      Not created by NSA from what I read. A US Gov't agency, yes, but not that one.
      • faissaloo 8y ago
        It was created by the Navy
    • decasteve 8y ago
      It was actually created at the NRL.
  • tinco 8y ago
    No, they are making it illegal to aid other people's illegal activities through web services. I think it's more of a clarification of what constitutes aiding criminal activities in the internet services context.
  • pbhjpbhj 8y ago
• ataturk 8y ago
  Are they the former East Germans or what? I would think the German people would be highly skeptical of heavy handed government, but then again, they are so law and order there, so who knows?
• jolmg 8y ago
  > "purpose is to allow or encourage specific illegal actions" And who's to determine what the purpose was? The creator of a new technology has no way to force a particular use for their creation. One can invent the cooking knife to help with all sorts of cutting tasks in cooking, and now they'll be held responsible if people decide to use those knives for murder? That's silly.
  • duxup 8y ago
    Yeah that seems to be the key phrase and very very vague. Terrorists for a while used email accounts where they'd write drafts, share username and password and read those drafts. Obviously email isn't "for" terrorism but they used it .... but exactly where that line is is confusing. If I provide a privacy focused service, it stands to reason criminals would like that ... I don't like it, but that's just me saying that, but is that "purpose"?
  • dragonwriter 8y ago
    > And who's to determine what the purpose was? While that's perhaps an interesting question in the general case, for Tor, we know the purpose was to protect US covert intelligence communications overseas, which is very much about enabling illegal (by local law) activity. And actually, purpose requirements in law are not uncommon and, in systems with meaningful proof requirements that benefit they accused, since they provide additional facts which must be established by evidence before punishment can be imposed.
    • jolmg 8y ago
      > we know the purpose was to protect US covert intelligence communications overseas, which is very much about enabling illegal (by local law) activity. Says who? According to the torproject.org homepage[1], the purpose is: > [to help] you defend against traffic analysis, a form of network surveillance that threatens personal freedom and privacy, confidential business activities and relationships, and state security. That includes stuff like preventing your ISP from knowing private personal details like how one was fired, or is secretly gay, or likes to write or draw porn, etc. Also, if you own a big business and you just bought a supplier to eliminate the costs of a middle-man, you might also want to keep that confidential from your competitors for whatever business strategy you have. [1] https://www.torproject.org/ https://www.torproject.org/
• xv1010 8y ago
  The CDU won't stop until they are at 10%, just like the SPD. It is tragic, because people who are more libertarian now vote for an alternative that isn't necessarily better. But as long as (forced subscription) state television propaganda works, I guess everything is perfect.
  • Tepix 8y ago
    I'm not so sure this will get them to 10%. The majority of the voters cares very little about this freedom being taken away from them. They hear about darknets only on TV when they are mentioned in context of cybercrimes.
• realradicalwash 8y ago
  tbh, having read the draft, I am still not clear whether running a node/the browser is to be made illegal. that's what the Zeit article says, too: the worst interpretation is, yes it will be made illegal. another, more benevolent reading is that there should be harder punishments for providing a concrete platform for illegal activities. so how can you make a draft that is so vague? make no mistake, this is not incompetency. as per Zeit, and I agree, this is intentional to scare those who run the browser/a node. also, consider Günter Krings' proposal to make the entire 'dark web' illegal. his reasoning: that an open democracy has no need for such a structure. so, because germany is an 'open democracy', he thinks germany can abolish the open internet altogether? eidt: word.
  • mr_toad 8y ago
    > that an open democracy has no need for such a structure Because democracies can never become totalitarian states. Kring doesn’t seem to have a firm grasp of the lessons of history.
• binarray2000 8y ago
  Well, it is not only the "Christian" "Democratic" Union that is attacking on freedom in Germany, "Social" "Democrats" are in a Grand coalition with them (for the uninformed: "Grand coalition" is a term used in Germany to describe a coalition of two major parties). I assume the "Greens" and the "Liberals" are opposing the law, but do it out of pure opportunism. Because, as the past teaches us, if they'd be in a coalition with one of the major parties, they would be for such a law.
  • chopin 8y ago
    Just look at the diverse police laws (Polizeiaufgabengesetz) in states where the Greens are part of the administration. It's really appalling and many members of the Green party in the Bundestag I deem absolute hypocrites. The Liberals at least opposed data retention (Vorratsdatenspeicherung) when in coalition with the CDU. They are appalling in other ways.
• gmueckl 8y ago
  There is a huge discrepancy between the described motivation and the actual proposed section 126a. The proposal from January that I have here[1] only applies to a couple of explicitly enumerated potential crimes like propagation of child pornography and money forgery. Plus, the prosecution would need to prove that you created the service with the purpose of furthering these crimes. Also, the service must have some kind of access control. I do not see how a Tor exit node would fall under these criteria. A site hiding behind an onion URL would be a completely different matter. [1] https://www.bundesrat.de/SharedDocs/drucksachen/2019/0001-0100/33-19.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1 https://www.bundesrat.de/SharedDocs/drucksachen/2019/0001-01...
  • yorwba 8y ago
    The motivation section of the proposal you linked to contains the very illuminating sentence Der Entwurf zielt darauf, das Betreiben von auf die Förderung illegaler Zwecke ausgerichteten Plattformen unabhängig von dem Nachweis der Beteiligung an einzelnen konkreten Handelsgeschäften unter Strafe zu stellen. My translation: The draft aims to penalize the operation of platforms directed at supporting illegal activities, independent of proof of participation in individual specific trades. I.e. the law is drafted to close a loophole where you can open a black market site, lovingly curate illegal goods into categories and offer your escrow services to potential customers, but you can only be prosecuted once the police can find someone who actually used your service. Instead, they'd prefer to be able to shut it down beforehand. All in all, I'm not too worried that the law will be passed in a form that outlaws operating Tor nodes.
    • eleitl 8y ago
      > he law is drafted to close a loophole where you can open a black market site The point is that the law says any Tor onion service market is illegal, by definition. And it's obviously only a first step before outlawing anonymization for the general public, including a ban on encryption.
      • gmueckl 8y ago
        No, not any service. Read the actual proposed section 126a. The service must be related to one of the listed criminal activities to be illegal. In essence, this law is aimed at dark net sites like Silk Road.
• ekianjo 8y ago
  > They want you to face jail, if you provide an "internet based service", which "accessibility is restricted due to specific, technical precautionary measures", and which "purpose is to allow or encourage specific illegal actions". So does this mean that they will forbid email encryption as well? - internet based service / check - accessibility restricted by technical measures / check - purpose is to allow just about anything, including illegal actions / check Sounds like a well drafted law.
  • benj111 8y ago
    And internet banking?
  • eleitl 8y ago
    > Sounds like a well drafted law. It is, if you consider selective enforcement.
    • CNJ7654 8y ago
      The good 'ol "hope really hard that the government doesn't enforce this on me" strategy :)
    • EpicEng 8y ago
      The problem with selective enforcement is that we have no idea under which circumstances future authorities will select to enforce.
    • paulddraper 8y ago
      > if you consider selective enforcement. That's the exact opposite of a well drafted law. Good laws are clear, straightforward, and apply to citizens in equal measure. If you can't know if you are following the law or not, you might as well not have law and instead rely completely on arbitrary judgements.
• amarant 8y ago
  I think (hope) that the "purpose is to allow it encourage specific illegal actions" part is key here.. That makes it at least I bit less grim I'd say
• kbwt 8y ago
  That is not the version of the law that is being voted on. The amended version is much broader, doing away with the restricted access condition, and now applies to all crimes rather than a specific list. But the worst part, the text has been changed from "provide" to "facilitate access to", meaning this could also apply to ISPs and free software contributors. Diff from the initial proposal: https://www.internet-strafrecht.com/wp-content/plugins/download-attachments/includes/download.php?id=2691 https://www.internet-strafrecht.com/wp-content/plugins/downl...
• uremog 8y ago
  > purpose is to allow or encourage specific illegal actions You know how kids used to pass paper notes in class? Well, yesterday I learned that kids still do this. Except now they do it through the comments and review section on Google Docs. Shared Google Docs that they are supposedly taking notes on for class, or collaborating on an assignment. And if a teacher or parent comes by, they hit "resolve all", and everything disappears. Purpose is mutable.