3 ms·

I’m a bit confused, is the German government formally opposing client-side scanning requirements or not? The article is about civil society groups voicing their

by _23sd 4y ago

I’m a bit confused, is the German government formally opposing client-side scanning requirements or not? The article is about civil society groups voicing their concerns at a parliamentary hearing and notes that the parliament doesn’t have a say in EU legislation. But it specifically says the government wants client-side scanning removed without any specifics on that part.

luckylion 4y ago
Yeah, reads like clickbait that is intentionally confusing "Germany, the country" with "Germany, as represented by these six people who were heard by a parliamentary committee yesterday".
- rat9988 4y ago
  That's the same no? They are their representatives. They act with the german power. It's like saying this is trump and not usa, while his ratification is equal to the us power. It doesn't matter for the other side. (I took trump as an example as I often see him used as an example in such cases)
  - slackdog 4y ago
    They're not the same. There is a big difference between heads of state and and elected representatives, and an even bigger difference between heads of state and the rando activists/etc that elected representatives might invite to share their point of view. Heads of state, like the POTUS, are meant to officially embody the state itself. So if Trump while President says a thing, it is reasonably conventional to describe that as "America said..." But that isn't what happened here. In this case you don't have a head of state saying anything about the subject. The article is about various people (including "IT experts, civil libertarians, law enforcement officials and even child protectors" who aren't even elected representatives at all) giving their opinions to German Parliament. This is not a "Germany says.." situation.
    - shjake 4y ago
      The government of Germany does officially support it. So I guess if they are serious about it we’re sort of safe for the next few years.
  - luckylion 4y ago
    No, these are just experts explaining their opinions to a small group of MPs, but they're (a small) part of the legislative, not the executive (which does the negotiations on the EU level), and parliament usually votes along the government. So whatever 10/736 members think isn't "what Germany will do". It might be, but it probably won't.
timgo 4y ago
Yes, the German government is strictly against chat client side scanning. This is part of the coalition agreement. https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/innenpolitik/chatkontrolle-innenministerium-101.html https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/innenpolitik/chatkontrolle-...
- EntrePrescott 4y ago
  Though it's not the whole government who's against but really the two smaller parties in the coalition: the FDP (liberal party, 11.5%) foremost, and to some extent currently also the green party (14.8%)… … whereas the largest party in the government coalition, the SPD (25.7%) of chancelor Scholz is not only largely in favor of such client-side scanning (of course there are also exceptions within the party), but also the party that holds the relevant ministry (interior) and thus the participation in the EU-side negociations. The current coalition contract kinda forces the SPD to oppose such client side scanning at the EU level - and we'll see to what extent they keep their word or try to play foul against the contract, but there is no doubt imho that if the next government was again a "grand coalition" of SPD and CDU without the liberals to block such stuff, then such client side scanning would be waved through by the same SPD that currently is contractually bound to oppose it. The danger of such attacks against our liberties is still very much there, and it takes a constant watchful fight for our liberties to prevent the authoriarian statists from getting through with such stuff. They never stop trying to push through ever more of their liberticide ideas.
  - unity1001 4y ago
    > The current coalition contract kinda forces the SPD to oppose such client side scanning at the EU level - and we'll see to what extent they keep their word or try to play foul against the contract You cant 'play foul' against coalition protocols. The moment you do, the government falls.
    - EntrePrescott 4y ago
      You can (if you're the bigger coalition partner with a big power imbalance), and in fact it's not that rare at all and it's exactly what the CDU did quite blatantly last time they were in coalition with the FDP at the federal level under Merkel. Of course, the smaller coalition party could theoretically react to such an infringement against the coalition contract by ending the coalition… … but that would usually hurt them enormously more than their infringing bigger coalition partner, especially if the infringement of their partner against the coalition contract is about something that the majority of voters doesn't care enough about, if it's something that the bigger coalition partner can publicly spin as TINA(*)-necessary due to changed conditions or anything they can sell as a "crisis" or if the polls are currently less favorable for the smaller party than at the last elections. Ending a coalition is something that would typically come at an extremely high price for the smaller party who'd do it. Which is why it happens much more rarely than unilateral infringements against coalition contracts by the bigger coalition partner. (*): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_is_no_alternative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_is_no_alternative

by _23sd 4y ago

luckylion 4y ago

Yeah, reads like clickbait that is intentionally confusing "Germany, the country" with "Germany, as represented by these six people who were heard by a parliamentary committee yesterday".

rat9988 4y ago
That's the same no? They are their representatives. They act with the german power. It's like saying this is trump and not usa, while his ratification is equal to the us power. It doesn't matter for the other side. (I took trump as an example as I often see him used as an example in such cases)
- slackdog 4y ago
  They're not the same. There is a big difference between heads of state and and elected representatives, and an even bigger difference between heads of state and the rando activists/etc that elected representatives might invite to share their point of view. Heads of state, like the POTUS, are meant to officially embody the state itself. So if Trump while President says a thing, it is reasonably conventional to describe that as "America said..." But that isn't what happened here. In this case you don't have a head of state saying anything about the subject. The article is about various people (including "IT experts, civil libertarians, law enforcement officials and even child protectors" who aren't even elected representatives at all) giving their opinions to German Parliament. This is not a "Germany says.." situation.
  - shjake 4y ago
    The government of Germany does officially support it. So I guess if they are serious about it we’re sort of safe for the next few years.
- luckylion 4y ago
  No, these are just experts explaining their opinions to a small group of MPs, but they're (a small) part of the legislative, not the executive (which does the negotiations on the EU level), and parliament usually votes along the government. So whatever 10/736 members think isn't "what Germany will do". It might be, but it probably won't.

timgo 4y ago

Yes, the German government is strictly against chat client side scanning. This is part of the coalition agreement. https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/innenpolitik/chatkontrolle-innenministerium-101.html https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/innenpolitik/chatkontrolle-...

EntrePrescott 4y ago
Though it's not the whole government who's against but really the two smaller parties in the coalition: the FDP (liberal party, 11.5%) foremost, and to some extent currently also the green party (14.8%)… … whereas the largest party in the government coalition, the SPD (25.7%) of chancelor Scholz is not only largely in favor of such client-side scanning (of course there are also exceptions within the party), but also the party that holds the relevant ministry (interior) and thus the participation in the EU-side negociations. The current coalition contract kinda forces the SPD to oppose such client side scanning at the EU level - and we'll see to what extent they keep their word or try to play foul against the contract, but there is no doubt imho that if the next government was again a "grand coalition" of SPD and CDU without the liberals to block such stuff, then such client side scanning would be waved through by the same SPD that currently is contractually bound to oppose it. The danger of such attacks against our liberties is still very much there, and it takes a constant watchful fight for our liberties to prevent the authoriarian statists from getting through with such stuff. They never stop trying to push through ever more of their liberticide ideas.
- unity1001 4y ago
  > The current coalition contract kinda forces the SPD to oppose such client side scanning at the EU level - and we'll see to what extent they keep their word or try to play foul against the contract You cant 'play foul' against coalition protocols. The moment you do, the government falls.
  - EntrePrescott 4y ago
    You can (if you're the bigger coalition partner with a big power imbalance), and in fact it's not that rare at all and it's exactly what the CDU did quite blatantly last time they were in coalition with the FDP at the federal level under Merkel. Of course, the smaller coalition party could theoretically react to such an infringement against the coalition contract by ending the coalition… … but that would usually hurt them enormously more than their infringing bigger coalition partner, especially if the infringement of their partner against the coalition contract is about something that the majority of voters doesn't care enough about, if it's something that the bigger coalition partner can publicly spin as TINA(*)-necessary due to changed conditions or anything they can sell as a "crisis" or if the polls are currently less favorable for the smaller party than at the last elections. Ending a coalition is something that would typically come at an extremely high price for the smaller party who'd do it. Which is why it happens much more rarely than unilateral infringements against coalition contracts by the bigger coalition partner. (*): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_is_no_alternative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_is_no_alternative