4 ms·

At first glance it looks great but at second it seems kinda sketchy. I see no info on which organization is running it and why should they be trusted. And even

by Hitton 6y ago

At first glance it looks great but at second it seems kinda sketchy. I see no info on which organization is running it and why should they be trusted. And even though it boasts about "no censorship", they write the "service provided ... from Germany" - Germany isn't known for being bastion of free speech[1][2]. [1]: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/04/germany-to-prosecute-comic-for-mocking-erdogan.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/04/germany-to-prosecute... [2]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/germany-springs-to-action-over-hate-speech-against-migrants/2016/01/06/6031218e-b315-11e5-8abc-d09392edc612_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/germany-springs-...

s_dev 6y ago
>Germany isn't known for being bastion of free speech[1][2]. Germany isn't known for free speech but does have some of the strictest privacy laws in the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundesdatenschutzgesetz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundesdatenschutzgesetz
- qwertox 6y ago
  But it only attempts to protect you from companies. If the government believes a domain to be an illegal resource, it has all the necessary legal tools available to force them to censor it. Edit: Also, since it is hosted in Germany, or at least offered as a German product, it should be required to contain an Imprint (Impressum), which this site doesn't have. I agree with this being a pretty sketchy service.
  - leifg 6y ago
    Oh really? Which laws/legal tools/precedences are you referring to?
    - stonesweep 6y ago
      Took me all of 2 minutes to Google. https://dejure.org/gesetze/TMG/5.html https://dejure.org/gesetze/TMG/5.html https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://dejure.org/gesetze/TMG/5.html https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...
      - leifg 6y ago
        Where does it say anything in there about censoring a domain?
        stonesweep 6y ago
        I was replying to the (Edit) by GP (to me) about the Impressum, it appears you were addressing the censorship preceding sentence. I read your reply as a challenge to the second (Edit) statement due to it's passive-aggressive nature and non-specific target subject. You simply said "show me some laws", so I did and here we are.
        leifg 6y ago
        Fair enough, didn't connect the edit to your comment.
    - qwertox 6y ago
      § 100a StPO (Telekommunikationsüberwachung), probably § 100b StPO (Online-Durchsuchung) as well. An interesting thing is that lately authorities not only request logging of IP addresses, but also the port which initiated the connection. For some time I thought that this was ridiculous, but then it turns out that if you use a VPN or a DS-Lite-Gateway, the port will allow you to be identified. Edit: I'm using this edit as a reply to the follow-up question, since I can't reply to it directly. While you are right that a specific domain can't be censored, the provider can be instructed to log requests for that domain name and provide the timestamp/IP/port to the authorities, as well as answer to the client with modified data.
      - leifg 6y ago
        again, where does it say anything about censorship in any of these laws?
dewey 6y ago
Also the only information you can find out about them is some NOC listed on https://dns.watch/why https://dns.watch/why: https://stat.ripe.net/AS61957#tabId=at-a-glance https://stat.ripe.net/AS61957#tabId=at-a-glance which just seems to be some dutch hoster.
skrause 6y ago
It's funny that your first example for Germany's lack free speech is a case that was dropped after public outcry which and ultimately lead to the abolishment of an outdated 19th century penal code: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%B6hmermann_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%B6hmermann_affair
- Hitton 6y ago
  I think that need of public outcry to stop such ludicrous infringement of freedom of expression is enough to show where Germany stands.
  - carstenhag 6y ago
    Wow, not sure where to begin. Of course it was legal. Of course it is protected by "freedom of speech" or in this case more likely by "freedom of art". But then Erdogan's lawyers found out there's an old German law about insulting other countries' state heads. To make it clear: Insulting is not freedom of speach in Germany. So it does make sense that it had to be checked whether it was an insult of a state head or not. It ended with removing that law because it's stupid.
carstenhag 6y ago
Free speech does not mean tolerating insults, inciting for violence, inciting for terrorism and other very bad things. Germany does have good freedom of speech laws, but you can't do anything you want.

by Hitton 6y ago

s_dev 6y ago

>Germany isn't known for being bastion of free speech[1][2]. Germany isn't known for free speech but does have some of the strictest privacy laws in the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundesdatenschutzgesetz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundesdatenschutzgesetz

qwertox 6y ago
But it only attempts to protect you from companies. If the government believes a domain to be an illegal resource, it has all the necessary legal tools available to force them to censor it. Edit: Also, since it is hosted in Germany, or at least offered as a German product, it should be required to contain an Imprint (Impressum), which this site doesn't have. I agree with this being a pretty sketchy service.
- leifg 6y ago
  Oh really? Which laws/legal tools/precedences are you referring to?
  - stonesweep 6y ago
    Took me all of 2 minutes to Google. https://dejure.org/gesetze/TMG/5.html https://dejure.org/gesetze/TMG/5.html https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://dejure.org/gesetze/TMG/5.html https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...
    - leifg 6y ago
      Where does it say anything in there about censoring a domain?
      - stonesweep 6y ago
        I was replying to the (Edit) by GP (to me) about the Impressum, it appears you were addressing the censorship preceding sentence. I read your reply as a challenge to the second (Edit) statement due to it's passive-aggressive nature and non-specific target subject. You simply said "show me some laws", so I did and here we are.
        leifg 6y ago
        Fair enough, didn't connect the edit to your comment.
  - qwertox 6y ago
    § 100a StPO (Telekommunikationsüberwachung), probably § 100b StPO (Online-Durchsuchung) as well. An interesting thing is that lately authorities not only request logging of IP addresses, but also the port which initiated the connection. For some time I thought that this was ridiculous, but then it turns out that if you use a VPN or a DS-Lite-Gateway, the port will allow you to be identified. Edit: I'm using this edit as a reply to the follow-up question, since I can't reply to it directly. While you are right that a specific domain can't be censored, the provider can be instructed to log requests for that domain name and provide the timestamp/IP/port to the authorities, as well as answer to the client with modified data.
    - leifg 6y ago
      again, where does it say anything about censorship in any of these laws?

dewey 6y ago

Also the only information you can find out about them is some NOC listed on https://dns.watch/why https://dns.watch/why: https://stat.ripe.net/AS61957#tabId=at-a-glance https://stat.ripe.net/AS61957#tabId=at-a-glance which just seems to be some dutch hoster.

skrause 6y ago

It's funny that your first example for Germany's lack free speech is a case that was dropped after public outcry which and ultimately lead to the abolishment of an outdated 19th century penal code: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%B6hmermann_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%B6hmermann_affair

Hitton 6y ago
I think that need of public outcry to stop such ludicrous infringement of freedom of expression is enough to show where Germany stands.
- carstenhag 6y ago
  Wow, not sure where to begin. Of course it was legal. Of course it is protected by "freedom of speech" or in this case more likely by "freedom of art". But then Erdogan's lawyers found out there's an old German law about insulting other countries' state heads. To make it clear: Insulting is not freedom of speach in Germany. So it does make sense that it had to be checked whether it was an insult of a state head or not. It ended with removing that law because it's stupid.

carstenhag 6y ago

Free speech does not mean tolerating insults, inciting for violence, inciting for terrorism and other very bad things. Germany does have good freedom of speech laws, but you can't do anything you want.