15 ms·

> There is [...] a prohibition of state authorities to keep vulnerabilities a secret. This is another great thing. It is simply unethical to hoard vulnerabilit

> There is [...] a prohibition of state authorities to keep vulnerabilities a secret. This is another great thing. It is simply unethical to hoard vulnerabilities, as this will eventually backfire[0] > On top that all future security legislation will be subject to an evaluation by a panel of independent experts who have to look into issues with any potential restrictions on freedom. I really hope this will be people from the CCC. [0]: https://www.theregister.com/2020/10/28/nsa_backdoor_wyden/ https://www.theregister.com/2020/10/28/nsa_backdoor_wyden/

frankfrankfrank 5y ago
I'm genuinely a bit confused and suspicious. The german state is known for it's contradictions regarding security and privacy, e.g., mapping sites cannot record "street level" images in public view, but the government will decree what is and is not allowed speech and has been caught compromising systems to monitor that. Now the government that is obsessed with making sure everyone thinks only approved things is going to codify a right to encryption and prohibit state authorities (Is there a 5+1 eyes workaround prohibition) from building in or maintaining vulnerabilities? Maybe this really is just a bone for the peasants that will fool them into feeling like they have rights, while the Ol' 5+1 Eye Switcheroo is used to keep vulnerabilities and compromise encryption anyways.
- JCWasmx86 5y ago
  > but the government will decree what is and is not allowed speech Do you mean "free speech"? Here in germany have free speech, except for denying the holocaust (And this makes really sense, as this is simply wrong)
  - MrYellowP 5y ago
    There is no "free speech, but". It's a binary. You either have free speech, or you don't. Limited free speech is, by definition, not free. It's limited.
  - rightiousrob 5y ago
    How does it makes sense to put any truth into stone by law?
    - _jal 5y ago
      Read some history of how that came to be. You might still disagree when you're done, but I suspect you'll at least be able to answer your own question.
      - rightiousrob 5y ago
        I know the history very well, but the law telling me what's true and what not, that rubs me the wrong way.
        formerly_proven 5y ago
        Maybe go read the law then.
        rightiousrob 5y ago
        Which basically says that openly challenging: - the exact number of 6M victims. - the singularity of this event. - that this event is incomparable to any other historical event Is a crime. Given that the number of victims is an estimate and might even be higher and also there were events in history like china's cultural revolution, Stalin's great cleansing and the killing fields in Cambodia (to name a few) that law does not sound to be that reasonable as it might sound initially
        _jal 5y ago
        > Given that the number of victims is an estimate I'm very used to engineers' quibbles, very focused views ending up being very narrow views, clever/stupid explanations of why various laws can't be enforced, and so on. But this has the be the biggest instance of missing the point, intentionally or not, I've seen in quite some time.
  - formerly_proven 5y ago
    In practice it's pretty hard to get convicted for that, because the law does not outlaw merely denying the holocaust.
    - rightiousrob 5y ago
      But it does doing so publicly. There was a recent trail where an 80 year old woman got sentenced for publicly expressing her believes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursula_Haverbeck https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursula_Haverbeck
      - martin8412 5y ago
        Did you read the article? She's been a vocal Holocaust denier since the end of the war. She's not a random person doubting the Holocaust and stupidly saying it in public. She was the wife of one of the higher ups in the Nazi party.
      - okl 5y ago
        > Another article by Haverbeck-Wetzel in the Voice of Conscience (November/December 2005) posited a thesis that Adolf Hitler was "just not to be understood from the believed Holocaust or his alleged war obsession, but only by a divine mission in the world-historical context." > In the Hamburg court, she insisted the status of Auschwitz as a place of death is "not historically proven" and is "only a belief". I think she deserved her 10 months in prison.
  - tut-urut-utut 5y ago
    Free speech in Germany exists only in theory. Just try opposing official government measures in public and you quickly get cancelled.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - ben_w 5y ago
      > cancelled What do you mean by this word? I’ve seen it used as a political meme, but the usage always makes it seem like the supposed victim has some kind of entitlement to be a widely admired public figure regardless of what they say or do, without regard to the fleeting nature of fame and the fickleness of public admiration.
      - vanviegen 5y ago
        Thank you. That gives clear and concise words to my qualms about 'cancel culture'.
        mk81 5y ago
        Are you fucking 8 years old. Why do you think you have a right to never be disagreed with?
        ben_w 5y ago
        Given @vanviegen thanked me and put the phrase in quotations, I think their problem is with the quotation rather than referent. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/np3tP49caG4uFLRbS/the-quotation-is-not-the-referent https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/np3tP49caG4uFLRbS/the-quotat...
        mk81 5y ago
        Not really sure who I was intending to respond to, but I don't think it was you. Sorry.
  - aaaaaaaaaaab 5y ago
    >except for Ok, so you don't have free speech.
    - ywain 5y ago
      What country does? Even the US has laws against libel, hate speech, etc.
      - d110af5ccf 5y ago
        I believe libel in the US involves demonstrating actual harm. The only thing I'm aware of here that I would consider a true infringement of freedom of speech is our obscenity laws. SCOTUS has (sadly) upheld at least some of them.
      - hash872 5y ago
        The US does not have laws against 'hate speech', this is completely incorrect. Libel is a civil matter, and the US is commonly described as having the highest bar to proving libel in the developed world
        ywain 5y ago
        Yeah, I was mistaken about hate speech laws, sorry about that. My point though was that all countries do restrict speech in _some_ manner (for perfectly valid reasons), and I don't understand this fascination with "free speech" as some sacred concept that must be either whole or completely useless.
      - finite_jest 5y ago
        From Wikipedia: "The United States does not have hate speech laws, since the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that laws criminalizing hate speech violate the guarantee to freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution." [1] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hate_speech&oldid=1057298826#Hate_speech_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hate_speech&oldid...
  - oytis 5y ago
    My impression is that most restrictions to the freedom of speech in Germany are rather in civil law than in criminal law. It is very easy to get (successfully) sued for saying things that is. It is nearly impossible to speak about sexual harassment - because the perpetrator can sue you for intruding his private life. More generally it is basically impossible to say anything negative about someone if you can't prove it true - it is considered slander. By contrast in the U.S. as far as I know it's up to whoever accuses you of slander to prove that what you say is untrue. That creates a whole large area where you can speak freely about someone while not being able to accuse them legally before the court - in Germany that would either fall into "slander" bucket (if what you say has public significance but you can't prove it) or "private life" bucket (if what you say has allegedly no public significance even if you can prove it true).
    - bentley 5y ago
      Most Americans would be surprised that the German interpretation of “the untouchable dignity of man” prohibits even insults (“Beleidigung”). There was a case in 2018 of an American who got in a tussle with German airport police, called them Nazis, and was subsequently charged with defamation.[1] Clearly she wasn’t literally describing them as students of the philosophy of Adolf Hitler, but rather calling them authoritarians in a demeaning and insulting way. In the U.S. one might expect her to be charged perhaps with disorderly conduct or something similar, but punishing her for her words would require that there be some actual injury done to the officers’ reputation. Obviously ridiculous statements that no reasonable person would believe don’t fall under defamation in the U.S. A famous example was in the 1980s when Jerry Falwell unsuccessfully sued Hustler for publishing a fake interview with him claiming he drunkenly lost his virginity to his mother in an outhouse. Certain depictions of violence are also considered to inherently violate human dignity as a whole (“Gewaltdarstellung”). That seems to be why there’s traditionally been so much video game censorship in Germany, like green blood or replacing all characters with robots[2]. [1] https://www.presseportal.de/blaulicht/pm/74262/3844730 https://www.presseportal.de/blaulicht/pm/74262/3844730 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHIpHOVB9ew https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHIpHOVB9ew
      - ben_w 5y ago
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    "Here in germany have free speech, except for denying the holocaust" Well, technically, there are also a lot of other things you cannot say (like with most states). Insults, false accusations, hate speech, riot speeches etc. But interestingly we still also have a blasphemy law, even though it is very soft now, from what it used to be.
    - mk81 5y ago
      >But interestingly we still also have a blasphemy law, even though it is very soft now, from what it used to be. At this point, the only way this will ever be enforced is when someone blasphemes the Quran.
  - int_19h 5y ago
    Germany also bans "extreme" political parties. And no, that doesn't just mean the Nazis - the Communist party was also banned under the same law, for example. In general, it seems to cover any party with a platform that is in conflict with liberal democracy (even if, say, it's a platform of radical direct democracy, although I don't think this was ever tested in practice)?
- monopoledance 5y ago
  > The german state is known for it's contradictions regarding security and privacy 16 years of CDU. It's not been contradiction, but good intentions with reliably poor execution by the coalition partner SPD, and the usual CDU SNAFU. Otherwise we pride ourselves with pretty incompetent intelligence agencies, so please keep your NWO conspiracy narratives to yourself.
  - MrYellowP 5y ago
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. > so please keep your NWO conspiracy narratives to yourself. I welcome them, so please don't selfishly tell people to censor themselves just because you don't like it. Thanks.
  - _def 5y ago
    > Otherwise we pride ourselves with pretty incompetent intelligence agencies, so please keep your NWO conspiracy narratives to yourself. I think that is why the person you replied to mentioned that they work together with other intelligence, which is not so much a conspiracy narrative if you've followed this stuff post Snowden.
  - andrepd 5y ago
    Amazing. 16 years of CDU but the fault is SPD's... Also nobody was talking about NWO conspiracies until you brought it up. Projection? :)
    - monopoledance 5y ago
      Yes, the CDU did CDU things. The SPD also did CDU things. I didn't expect the CDU to do anything, but stagnant and corrupt policies. The SPD, however, was merely enabling the CDU for the sake of government "participation". No one but the SPD is at fault for not pushing for their own promises.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Barrin92 5y ago
  >mapping sites cannot record "street level" images in public view, but the government will decree what is and is not allowed speech This isn't a contradiction unless you view everything through an American cultural lens. There is no conception of absolute freedom of speech in Germany. The public sphere in Germany is not the Wild West, never has been, never will be and has always been subject to considerations about what is in the public interest. In public you're not just an individual, you're a "Staatsbürger", a citizen of the state, and you have not only privileges but obligations to maintain public life. Right to your data, your own body, your private communication, your own image, and so forth is part of the private sphere and personal, and as such enjoys much more protection.
  - mk81 5y ago
    You lose. Better luck next time.
    - pjc50 5y ago
      The historical reason for the restrictions is obvious: https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-confusing-rules-on-swastikas-and-nazi-symbols/a-45063547 https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-confusing-rules-on-swastikas-...
  - tut-urut-utut 5y ago
    [flagged]
    - phkahler 5y ago
      Remember that other part about... what did PP say? A member / part of the state? That's not about privacy.
      - snovv_crash 5y ago
        Exactly. They can't mandate a vaccine if you just sit at home your whole life. But if you enter the public sphere there are certain rules you need to follow, and the state can mandate those.
- cyberpunk 5y ago
  I mean, not forgetting that possession of nmap is technically a crime in Germany.. Which also makes any cybersec company operating in Germany also illegal. Although, no one has been prosecuted for this, it makes getting insurance impossible… https://iclg.com/practice-areas/cybersecurity-laws-and-regulations/germany https://iclg.com/practice-areas/cybersecurity-laws-and-regul...
  - formerly_proven 5y ago
    It's a dumb law but not how it works.
    - cyberpunk 5y ago
      How does it work then? I was stonewalled by various banks investors and insurers over this in berlin…
      - mandelbrotwurst 5y ago
        How did that happen, did they ask you for a complete list of all software that you run?
      - orangeoxidation 5y ago
        That shouldn't have happened. The law is super problematic and they can, for example (try to) hit you for finding (or even stumbling over) and responsibly disclosing security vulns, if you were not hired to do so. But the part about hacker-tools applys only for tools that cannot be used legally (basically none) or are explicitly and knowingly made or acquired to be used illegally (as in you explicitly stated you are downloading this tool in order to get into a computer you do not have permission to get into). They have to prove you are not intending to use it legally (like checking your own network or one you were hired to check).
  - Sukera 5y ago
    Which part of that long list of things specifically rules out possession of nmap, a tool used by sysadmins all over the world to help ensure that their own systems are more secure, by ensuring that only specific ports are open for communication? Mapping a network is not an activity exclusive to criminals.
- Zak 5y ago
  Mapping sites can and do record street level images in Germany. They are required to blur certain personally-identifiable details recorded in those images. https://goo.gl/maps/D81WK7JT9muHXwHa8 https://goo.gl/maps/D81WK7JT9muHXwHa8
  - sneak 5y ago
    They also have to blur entire buildings on request, even if they don't have personally identifying details. ...even if those same buildings can be seen by anyone standing in the street. It's privacy theater. (Or maybe theatre, because Europe.)
    - oneplane 5y ago
      No, the public space privacy doctrine thing with one of those amendments simply doesn't apply here. That doesn't make it theatre, just not the same as what you might be used to yourself. Common law doesn't apply here.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- mainframed 5y ago
  Google street view is not illegal. People just have the right to request that Google blurs their house. And because so many people requested it in Germany, Google said it's too much effort and disabled it completely. They still drive through Germany and collect images to improve their navigation services. Also, I don't understand the discussion: Why is limiting free speech contradicting privacy efforts? Allowing people to prevent that their house being displayed on the internet is completely independent of stopping people writing racist slurs on the internet. In Germany it's not about some extremist scalar ideology of freedom or control. You have basic rights and in daily life the rights of people collide. In the case of Google Street view, there is the right of Google to choose their work (Art. 12 GG) vs. the right for privacy (derived from Art. 2 Abs. 1 GG) of people. Courts then have to follow a defined procedure to weigh those rights against each other. Apparently, it was ruled that the additional effort of blurring does not hinder Google's right to follow its occupation. In the case of NetzDG (the law which enforces big social platform to delete criminal posts, such as racial slurs, which you probably refer to), you have the right of free speech of the poster (Art. 5 GG) and the right of human dignity of the guy who receives human dignity. Additionally, Art. 5 GG defines boundaries for free speech: "These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons and in the right to personal honour. (Art. 5 Abs. 2 GG)." I learned how the constitution works in detail in uni, and I think it's beautiful. To me, this is a recipe to have a healthy democratic society. And a democratic society has to be able to defend itself against anti-democratic, racists. Otherwise, it'll just collapse sooner or later.
  - nielsole 5y ago
    > Apparently, it was ruled that the additional effort of blurring does not hinder Google's right to follow its occupation. As I recall there was no legal obligation from Google to blur houses. They did so to calm this hot-button political topic. At least back then there was the Panoramafreiheit which basically allowed you to take pictures in any public area without aids(e.g. a ladder or stick). For this reason they had to lower the height of the cameras for Germany to fall under this clause I think. I also think the legal situation changes quite a bit since this was last broadly discussed.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  "mapping sites cannot record "street level" images in public view" Only in America mass surveillance is a form of "freedom"
oytis 5y ago
> prohibition of state authorities to keep vulnerabilities a secret It doesn't mean companies whose software the government buys can't do it, right?

frankfrankfrank 5y ago

I'm genuinely a bit confused and suspicious. The german state is known for it's contradictions regarding security and privacy, e.g., mapping sites cannot record "street level" images in public view, but the government will decree what is and is not allowed speech and has been caught compromising systems to monitor that. Now the government that is obsessed with making sure everyone thinks only approved things is going to codify a right to encryption and prohibit state authorities (Is there a 5+1 eyes workaround prohibition) from building in or maintaining vulnerabilities? Maybe this really is just a bone for the peasants that will fool them into feeling like they have rights, while the Ol' 5+1 Eye Switcheroo is used to keep vulnerabilities and compromise encryption anyways.

JCWasmx86 5y ago
> but the government will decree what is and is not allowed speech Do you mean "free speech"? Here in germany have free speech, except for denying the holocaust (And this makes really sense, as this is simply wrong)
- MrYellowP 5y ago
  There is no "free speech, but". It's a binary. You either have free speech, or you don't. Limited free speech is, by definition, not free. It's limited.
- rightiousrob 5y ago
  How does it makes sense to put any truth into stone by law?
  - _jal 5y ago
    Read some history of how that came to be. You might still disagree when you're done, but I suspect you'll at least be able to answer your own question.
    - rightiousrob 5y ago
      I know the history very well, but the law telling me what's true and what not, that rubs me the wrong way.
      - formerly_proven 5y ago
        Maybe go read the law then.
        rightiousrob 5y ago
        Which basically says that openly challenging: - the exact number of 6M victims. - the singularity of this event. - that this event is incomparable to any other historical event Is a crime. Given that the number of victims is an estimate and might even be higher and also there were events in history like china's cultural revolution, Stalin's great cleansing and the killing fields in Cambodia (to name a few) that law does not sound to be that reasonable as it might sound initially
        _jal 5y ago
        > Given that the number of victims is an estimate I'm very used to engineers' quibbles, very focused views ending up being very narrow views, clever/stupid explanations of why various laws can't be enforced, and so on. But this has the be the biggest instance of missing the point, intentionally or not, I've seen in quite some time.
- formerly_proven 5y ago
  In practice it's pretty hard to get convicted for that, because the law does not outlaw merely denying the holocaust.
  - rightiousrob 5y ago
    But it does doing so publicly. There was a recent trail where an 80 year old woman got sentenced for publicly expressing her believes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursula_Haverbeck https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursula_Haverbeck
    - martin8412 5y ago
      Did you read the article? She's been a vocal Holocaust denier since the end of the war. She's not a random person doubting the Holocaust and stupidly saying it in public. She was the wife of one of the higher ups in the Nazi party.
    - okl 5y ago
      > Another article by Haverbeck-Wetzel in the Voice of Conscience (November/December 2005) posited a thesis that Adolf Hitler was "just not to be understood from the believed Holocaust or his alleged war obsession, but only by a divine mission in the world-historical context." > In the Hamburg court, she insisted the status of Auschwitz as a place of death is "not historically proven" and is "only a belief". I think she deserved her 10 months in prison.
- tut-urut-utut 5y ago
  Free speech in Germany exists only in theory. Just try opposing official government measures in public and you quickly get cancelled.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - ben_w 5y ago
    > cancelled What do you mean by this word? I’ve seen it used as a political meme, but the usage always makes it seem like the supposed victim has some kind of entitlement to be a widely admired public figure regardless of what they say or do, without regard to the fleeting nature of fame and the fickleness of public admiration.
    - vanviegen 5y ago
      Thank you. That gives clear and concise words to my qualms about 'cancel culture'.
      - mk81 5y ago
        Are you fucking 8 years old. Why do you think you have a right to never be disagreed with?
        ben_w 5y ago
        Given @vanviegen thanked me and put the phrase in quotations, I think their problem is with the quotation rather than referent. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/np3tP49caG4uFLRbS/the-quotation-is-not-the-referent https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/np3tP49caG4uFLRbS/the-quotat...
        mk81 5y ago
        Not really sure who I was intending to respond to, but I don't think it was you. Sorry.
- aaaaaaaaaaab 5y ago
  >except for Ok, so you don't have free speech.
  - ywain 5y ago
    What country does? Even the US has laws against libel, hate speech, etc.
    - d110af5ccf 5y ago
      I believe libel in the US involves demonstrating actual harm. The only thing I'm aware of here that I would consider a true infringement of freedom of speech is our obscenity laws. SCOTUS has (sadly) upheld at least some of them.
    - hash872 5y ago
      The US does not have laws against 'hate speech', this is completely incorrect. Libel is a civil matter, and the US is commonly described as having the highest bar to proving libel in the developed world
      - ywain 5y ago
        Yeah, I was mistaken about hate speech laws, sorry about that. My point though was that all countries do restrict speech in _some_ manner (for perfectly valid reasons), and I don't understand this fascination with "free speech" as some sacred concept that must be either whole or completely useless.
    - finite_jest 5y ago
      From Wikipedia: "The United States does not have hate speech laws, since the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that laws criminalizing hate speech violate the guarantee to freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution." [1] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hate_speech&oldid=1057298826#Hate_speech_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hate_speech&oldid...
- oytis 5y ago
  My impression is that most restrictions to the freedom of speech in Germany are rather in civil law than in criminal law. It is very easy to get (successfully) sued for saying things that is. It is nearly impossible to speak about sexual harassment - because the perpetrator can sue you for intruding his private life. More generally it is basically impossible to say anything negative about someone if you can't prove it true - it is considered slander. By contrast in the U.S. as far as I know it's up to whoever accuses you of slander to prove that what you say is untrue. That creates a whole large area where you can speak freely about someone while not being able to accuse them legally before the court - in Germany that would either fall into "slander" bucket (if what you say has public significance but you can't prove it) or "private life" bucket (if what you say has allegedly no public significance even if you can prove it true).
  - bentley 5y ago
    Most Americans would be surprised that the German interpretation of “the untouchable dignity of man” prohibits even insults (“Beleidigung”). There was a case in 2018 of an American who got in a tussle with German airport police, called them Nazis, and was subsequently charged with defamation.[1] Clearly she wasn’t literally describing them as students of the philosophy of Adolf Hitler, but rather calling them authoritarians in a demeaning and insulting way. In the U.S. one might expect her to be charged perhaps with disorderly conduct or something similar, but punishing her for her words would require that there be some actual injury done to the officers’ reputation. Obviously ridiculous statements that no reasonable person would believe don’t fall under defamation in the U.S. A famous example was in the 1980s when Jerry Falwell unsuccessfully sued Hustler for publishing a fake interview with him claiming he drunkenly lost his virginity to his mother in an outhouse. Certain depictions of violence are also considered to inherently violate human dignity as a whole (“Gewaltdarstellung”). That seems to be why there’s traditionally been so much video game censorship in Germany, like green blood or replacing all characters with robots[2]. [1] https://www.presseportal.de/blaulicht/pm/74262/3844730 https://www.presseportal.de/blaulicht/pm/74262/3844730 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHIpHOVB9ew https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHIpHOVB9ew
    - ben_w 5y ago
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  "Here in germany have free speech, except for denying the holocaust" Well, technically, there are also a lot of other things you cannot say (like with most states). Insults, false accusations, hate speech, riot speeches etc. But interestingly we still also have a blasphemy law, even though it is very soft now, from what it used to be.
  - mk81 5y ago
    >But interestingly we still also have a blasphemy law, even though it is very soft now, from what it used to be. At this point, the only way this will ever be enforced is when someone blasphemes the Quran.
- int_19h 5y ago
  Germany also bans "extreme" political parties. And no, that doesn't just mean the Nazis - the Communist party was also banned under the same law, for example. In general, it seems to cover any party with a platform that is in conflict with liberal democracy (even if, say, it's a platform of radical direct democracy, although I don't think this was ever tested in practice)?
monopoledance 5y ago
> The german state is known for it's contradictions regarding security and privacy 16 years of CDU. It's not been contradiction, but good intentions with reliably poor execution by the coalition partner SPD, and the usual CDU SNAFU. Otherwise we pride ourselves with pretty incompetent intelligence agencies, so please keep your NWO conspiracy narratives to yourself.
- MrYellowP 5y ago
  The road to hell is paved with good intentions. > so please keep your NWO conspiracy narratives to yourself. I welcome them, so please don't selfishly tell people to censor themselves just because you don't like it. Thanks.
- _def 5y ago
  > Otherwise we pride ourselves with pretty incompetent intelligence agencies, so please keep your NWO conspiracy narratives to yourself. I think that is why the person you replied to mentioned that they work together with other intelligence, which is not so much a conspiracy narrative if you've followed this stuff post Snowden.
- andrepd 5y ago
  Amazing. 16 years of CDU but the fault is SPD's... Also nobody was talking about NWO conspiracies until you brought it up. Projection? :)
  - monopoledance 5y ago
    Yes, the CDU did CDU things. The SPD also did CDU things. I didn't expect the CDU to do anything, but stagnant and corrupt policies. The SPD, however, was merely enabling the CDU for the sake of government "participation". No one but the SPD is at fault for not pushing for their own promises.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Barrin92 5y ago
>mapping sites cannot record "street level" images in public view, but the government will decree what is and is not allowed speech This isn't a contradiction unless you view everything through an American cultural lens. There is no conception of absolute freedom of speech in Germany. The public sphere in Germany is not the Wild West, never has been, never will be and has always been subject to considerations about what is in the public interest. In public you're not just an individual, you're a "Staatsbürger", a citizen of the state, and you have not only privileges but obligations to maintain public life. Right to your data, your own body, your private communication, your own image, and so forth is part of the private sphere and personal, and as such enjoys much more protection.
- mk81 5y ago
  You lose. Better luck next time.
  - pjc50 5y ago
    The historical reason for the restrictions is obvious: https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-confusing-rules-on-swastikas-and-nazi-symbols/a-45063547 https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-confusing-rules-on-swastikas-...
- tut-urut-utut 5y ago
  [flagged]
  - phkahler 5y ago
    Remember that other part about... what did PP say? A member / part of the state? That's not about privacy.
    - snovv_crash 5y ago
      Exactly. They can't mandate a vaccine if you just sit at home your whole life. But if you enter the public sphere there are certain rules you need to follow, and the state can mandate those.
cyberpunk 5y ago
I mean, not forgetting that possession of nmap is technically a crime in Germany.. Which also makes any cybersec company operating in Germany also illegal. Although, no one has been prosecuted for this, it makes getting insurance impossible… https://iclg.com/practice-areas/cybersecurity-laws-and-regulations/germany https://iclg.com/practice-areas/cybersecurity-laws-and-regul...
- formerly_proven 5y ago
  It's a dumb law but not how it works.
  - cyberpunk 5y ago
    How does it work then? I was stonewalled by various banks investors and insurers over this in berlin…
    - mandelbrotwurst 5y ago
      How did that happen, did they ask you for a complete list of all software that you run?
    - orangeoxidation 5y ago
      That shouldn't have happened. The law is super problematic and they can, for example (try to) hit you for finding (or even stumbling over) and responsibly disclosing security vulns, if you were not hired to do so. But the part about hacker-tools applys only for tools that cannot be used legally (basically none) or are explicitly and knowingly made or acquired to be used illegally (as in you explicitly stated you are downloading this tool in order to get into a computer you do not have permission to get into). They have to prove you are not intending to use it legally (like checking your own network or one you were hired to check).
- Sukera 5y ago
  Which part of that long list of things specifically rules out possession of nmap, a tool used by sysadmins all over the world to help ensure that their own systems are more secure, by ensuring that only specific ports are open for communication? Mapping a network is not an activity exclusive to criminals.
Zak 5y ago
Mapping sites can and do record street level images in Germany. They are required to blur certain personally-identifiable details recorded in those images. https://goo.gl/maps/D81WK7JT9muHXwHa8 https://goo.gl/maps/D81WK7JT9muHXwHa8
- sneak 5y ago
  They also have to blur entire buildings on request, even if they don't have personally identifying details. ...even if those same buildings can be seen by anyone standing in the street. It's privacy theater. (Or maybe theatre, because Europe.)
  - oneplane 5y ago
    No, the public space privacy doctrine thing with one of those amendments simply doesn't apply here. That doesn't make it theatre, just not the same as what you might be used to yourself. Common law doesn't apply here.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
mainframed 5y ago
Google street view is not illegal. People just have the right to request that Google blurs their house. And because so many people requested it in Germany, Google said it's too much effort and disabled it completely. They still drive through Germany and collect images to improve their navigation services. Also, I don't understand the discussion: Why is limiting free speech contradicting privacy efforts? Allowing people to prevent that their house being displayed on the internet is completely independent of stopping people writing racist slurs on the internet. In Germany it's not about some extremist scalar ideology of freedom or control. You have basic rights and in daily life the rights of people collide. In the case of Google Street view, there is the right of Google to choose their work (Art. 12 GG) vs. the right for privacy (derived from Art. 2 Abs. 1 GG) of people. Courts then have to follow a defined procedure to weigh those rights against each other. Apparently, it was ruled that the additional effort of blurring does not hinder Google's right to follow its occupation. In the case of NetzDG (the law which enforces big social platform to delete criminal posts, such as racial slurs, which you probably refer to), you have the right of free speech of the poster (Art. 5 GG) and the right of human dignity of the guy who receives human dignity. Additionally, Art. 5 GG defines boundaries for free speech: "These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons and in the right to personal honour. (Art. 5 Abs. 2 GG)." I learned how the constitution works in detail in uni, and I think it's beautiful. To me, this is a recipe to have a healthy democratic society. And a democratic society has to be able to defend itself against anti-democratic, racists. Otherwise, it'll just collapse sooner or later.
- nielsole 5y ago
  > Apparently, it was ruled that the additional effort of blurring does not hinder Google's right to follow its occupation. As I recall there was no legal obligation from Google to blur houses. They did so to calm this hot-button political topic. At least back then there was the Panoramafreiheit which basically allowed you to take pictures in any public area without aids(e.g. a ladder or stick). For this reason they had to lower the height of the cameras for Germany to fall under this clause I think. I also think the legal situation changes quite a bit since this was last broadly discussed.
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"mapping sites cannot record "street level" images in public view" Only in America mass surveillance is a form of "freedom"

oytis 5y ago

> prohibition of state authorities to keep vulnerabilities a secret It doesn't mean companies whose software the government buys can't do it, right?