3 ms·

There is also a huge discrepancy between the proposal from January and the proposal that is being voted on: https://www.internet-strafrecht.com/wp-content/plugi

by kbwt 8y ago

There is also a huge discrepancy between the proposal from January and the proposal that is being voted on: https://www.internet-strafrecht.com/wp-content/plugins/download-attachments/includes/download.php?id=2691 https://www.internet-strafrecht.com/wp-content/plugins/downl... A few highlights: - Instead of "providing an internet-based service", the crime is now "facilitating access to an internet-based service". - It is no longer a requirement that access to the service be restricted. - The law now applies to all crimes, rather than just the specific crimes that were listed before.

gmueckl 8y ago
Thanks for pointing this out! Wow... this is something else. I'm confused by the fact that the document you linked to is labeled "recommendation". The recommended changes are indeed much, much broader than the original draft and have me worried. However, I must admit that I do not know if these recommendations are changes that will be applied unconditionally or not. I am not familiar enough with the procedures within the Bundesrat.
yorwba 8y ago
On the other hand, the amended draft adds a fourth paragraph that explicitly excludes cases where commiting crimes is of only secondary importance (I guess the Zwiebelfreunde lobbied for this addition to protect TOR) and also actions of authorized personnel (to keep police honeypots legal, I presume). So the law is broader in some ways, but more specific in others.
craftyguy 8y ago
> the crime is now "facilitating access to an internet-based service". Does that include cafes that provide internet access to customers?
- cabalamat 8y ago
  Or, for that matter, manufacturing computers with ethernet or wifi connections?
rurban 8y ago
But was still restricted to only "Betreiben von internetbasierten Handelsplattformen für illegale Waren und Dienstleistungen". => Operating Internet-based trading platforms for illegal goods and services. i.e. a illegal darknet platform, not a tor exit node itself, if it's not created to help for illegal purposes. They mention the darknet and tor, but this doesn't made it the sole target of this law. Otherwise they would outlaw bitcoin scramblers also, which is mostly used for illegal, not privacy purposes. What is bonkers is now the recommendation of the lead legal council and some committee on internal affairs to broaden the wording to "facilitating access" which could be interpretated as anything, and thus will not pass any critical review by law. Those guys just need to be fired.

by kbwt 8y ago

gmueckl 8y ago

Thanks for pointing this out! Wow... this is something else. I'm confused by the fact that the document you linked to is labeled "recommendation". The recommended changes are indeed much, much broader than the original draft and have me worried. However, I must admit that I do not know if these recommendations are changes that will be applied unconditionally or not. I am not familiar enough with the procedures within the Bundesrat.

yorwba 8y ago

On the other hand, the amended draft adds a fourth paragraph that explicitly excludes cases where commiting crimes is of only secondary importance (I guess the Zwiebelfreunde lobbied for this addition to protect TOR) and also actions of authorized personnel (to keep police honeypots legal, I presume). So the law is broader in some ways, but more specific in others.

craftyguy 8y ago

> the crime is now "facilitating access to an internet-based service". Does that include cafes that provide internet access to customers?

cabalamat 8y ago
Or, for that matter, manufacturing computers with ethernet or wifi connections?

rurban 8y ago

But was still restricted to only "Betreiben von internetbasierten Handelsplattformen für illegale Waren und Dienstleistungen". => Operating Internet-based trading platforms for illegal goods and services. i.e. a illegal darknet platform, not a tor exit node itself, if it's not created to help for illegal purposes. They mention the darknet and tor, but this doesn't made it the sole target of this law. Otherwise they would outlaw bitcoin scramblers also, which is mostly used for illegal, not privacy purposes. What is bonkers is now the recommendation of the lead legal council and some committee on internal affairs to broaden the wording to "facilitating access" which could be interpretated as anything, and thus will not pass any critical review by law. Those guys just need to be fired.