Germany planning to ‘massively′ limit privacy rights(dw.com)
dw.com
Germany planning to ‘massively′ limit privacy rights
http://www.dw.com/en/germany-planning-to-massively-limit-privacy-rights/a-36529692
81 comments
I have the political and business acumen of a wooden plank, so forgive the elementary question, but what would the German government or businesses have to benefit from the massive limitations? The way I read it, it seems Germany wants to restrict one's right to privacy... and that's it. Why?
From what I've heard, Germany has some very strong privacy laws. It keeps them from being able to use products that many others around the world can use. And I'm not talking about social media- it affects basic things like timekeeping software. And German workers expect that level of privacy; they don't think it's excessive.
While I'm all for privacy, when much of the rest of the world isn't like that, it makes it significantly harder to do business with other countries.
But, I actually think it wouldn't be a terrible thing if strict laws on privacy were enacted worldwide, as long as they had more benefit to people than annoyance and didn't significantly restrict personal freedom. There is too much data right now.
On the other hand, I'm tired of signing HIPAA forms, and the bureaucracy around it. I just wish that the legal system was more common sense. Maybe an amendment to the U.S. Constitution something to the effect of "Information about a citizen shall not be collected and stored against the will of the citizen." Then get rid of HIPAA, etc. and just let the citizen take businesses to court if they find that the business was responsible for out-of-control personal data collection. But, I'm sure there are valid reasons to get specific.
While I'm all for privacy, when much of the rest of the world isn't like that, it makes it significantly harder to do business with other countries.
But, I actually think it wouldn't be a terrible thing if strict laws on privacy were enacted worldwide, as long as they had more benefit to people than annoyance and didn't significantly restrict personal freedom. There is too much data right now.
On the other hand, I'm tired of signing HIPAA forms, and the bureaucracy around it. I just wish that the legal system was more common sense. Maybe an amendment to the U.S. Constitution something to the effect of "Information about a citizen shall not be collected and stored against the will of the citizen." Then get rid of HIPAA, etc. and just let the citizen take businesses to court if they find that the business was responsible for out-of-control personal data collection. But, I'm sure there are valid reasons to get specific.
> From what I've heard, Germany has some very strong privacy laws. It keeps them from being able to use products that many others around the world can use.
> And I'm not talking about social media- it affects basic things like timekeeping software. And German workers expect that level of privacy; they don't think it's excessive.
Time tracking (Stechuhren) is commonplace, so I rather doubt this.
So I would really like to know what services are actually inhibited by these "very strong" privacy laws. The only related example that comes to mind would be Google Street View. Mind you, it wasn't forbidden or anything, Google just didn't feel like providing the necessary opt-out possibilities to residents.
> While I'm all for privacy, when much of the rest of the world isn't like that, it makes it significantly harder to do business with other countries.
And again I ask you to provide actual examples here.
Your post sounds heavily influenced by the public out speak of lobbyists in Germany who mainly work on behalf of data dealers and related companies. Actual industry isn't affected at all.
> And I'm not talking about social media- it affects basic things like timekeeping software. And German workers expect that level of privacy; they don't think it's excessive.
Time tracking (Stechuhren) is commonplace, so I rather doubt this.
So I would really like to know what services are actually inhibited by these "very strong" privacy laws. The only related example that comes to mind would be Google Street View. Mind you, it wasn't forbidden or anything, Google just didn't feel like providing the necessary opt-out possibilities to residents.
> While I'm all for privacy, when much of the rest of the world isn't like that, it makes it significantly harder to do business with other countries.
And again I ask you to provide actual examples here.
Your post sounds heavily influenced by the public out speak of lobbyists in Germany who mainly work on behalf of data dealers and related companies. Actual industry isn't affected at all.
> Time tracking (Stechuhren) is commonplace, so I rather doubt this.
When trying to rollout a SAAS app in Germany that ties individuals to the time to track workflow and time they spent on individual tasks, it was pushed back on because it was "illegal". It was only used for auditing purposes; if there were a problem, auditing data would indicate who was involved so that we could have a talk with them to ensure the process could be changed if needed to avoid the problem in the future. But, the Germans said that tracking time like this could be used to track employees in a way or for a purpose that would break privacy laws/regulations.
More information about German privacy laws here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundesdatenschutzgesetz
Also, the HR software that we are using for time and attendance was not registered in Germany and had to go through several months of certification due to the laws there. I don't know how much of that is specifically due to privacy laws/regulations, though.
When trying to rollout a SAAS app in Germany that ties individuals to the time to track workflow and time they spent on individual tasks, it was pushed back on because it was "illegal". It was only used for auditing purposes; if there were a problem, auditing data would indicate who was involved so that we could have a talk with them to ensure the process could be changed if needed to avoid the problem in the future. But, the Germans said that tracking time like this could be used to track employees in a way or for a purpose that would break privacy laws/regulations.
More information about German privacy laws here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundesdatenschutzgesetz
Also, the HR software that we are using for time and attendance was not registered in Germany and had to go through several months of certification due to the laws there. I don't know how much of that is specifically due to privacy laws/regulations, though.
> When trying to rollout a SAAS app in Germany that ties individuals to the time to track workflow and time they spent on individual tasks, it was pushed back on because it was "illegal".
I doubt that this was the real reason, project and time management software with the same functionality is widespread. There is likely more to this. (I'm not saying you're not truthful, just that I don't think this was really the reason why it was pushed back by those that did).
It could be, for example, that the application due to it's SaaS nature did not fully comply with some regulations regarding safe harbour. These might have required the SaaS to be hosted in specific countries. Or management decided otherwise, or any other reason.
I doubt that this was the real reason, project and time management software with the same functionality is widespread. There is likely more to this. (I'm not saying you're not truthful, just that I don't think this was really the reason why it was pushed back by those that did).
It could be, for example, that the application due to it's SaaS nature did not fully comply with some regulations regarding safe harbour. These might have required the SaaS to be hosted in specific countries. Or management decided otherwise, or any other reason.
> When trying to rollout a SAAS app in Germany that ties individuals to the time to track workflow and time they spent on individual tasks, it was pushed back on because it was "illegal".
Probably rightfully so.
Probably rightfully so.
> I just wish that the legal system was more common sense.
I doubt that it's possible. Law is a bit complicated for a reason: it tries to be as specific, and as general, as possible. It abhors ambiguity, or unintended consequences.
Example:
> "Information about a citizen shall not be collected and stored against the will of the citizen."
Sounds great – and it's pretty much the law in Germany. But – as a business – how do you prove the citizen has agreed to you storing their information? Yeah: a form, or a EU cookie banner -> and we're back at square one.
I doubt that it's possible. Law is a bit complicated for a reason: it tries to be as specific, and as general, as possible. It abhors ambiguity, or unintended consequences.
Example:
> "Information about a citizen shall not be collected and stored against the will of the citizen."
Sounds great – and it's pretty much the law in Germany. But – as a business – how do you prove the citizen has agreed to you storing their information? Yeah: a form, or a EU cookie banner -> and we're back at square one.
> and we're back at square one.
I was going to mention this but add the HIPAA includes other worth while regulations around reporting of breach in security etc.
I'm not 100% sure but I think the repeated signing of HIPPA is less the law and more the Doctor's office covering themselves legally. That is to say legally I think once is enough, but it's easier to just have the front office staff always ask instead of track who has signed one.
I was going to mention this but add the HIPAA includes other worth while regulations around reporting of breach in security etc.
I'm not 100% sure but I think the repeated signing of HIPPA is less the law and more the Doctor's office covering themselves legally. That is to say legally I think once is enough, but it's easier to just have the front office staff always ask instead of track who has signed one.
> … how do you prove the citizen has agreed to you storing their information?
By having participated in an actual business transaction, which usually leaves an (electronic) paper trail.
Take note that simply visiting a website can not be interpreted as a business transaction. If anything this is accounted for as browsing the displays of a street vendor.
By having participated in an actual business transaction, which usually leaves an (electronic) paper trail.
Take note that simply visiting a website can not be interpreted as a business transaction. If anything this is accounted for as browsing the displays of a street vendor.
>> "Don't collect information without letting people control it."
That would be great for data clearing houses. Google would jump at that law. Such an approach places responsibility with the data subject. The individual becomes the defacto privacy officer. I rather see laws that places default limits on collection and use. I shouldn't have to supervise how Google collects and uses data about me. I'd rather them not be allowed to collect it without my permission... which I have no plan to give.
That would be great for data clearing houses. Google would jump at that law. Such an approach places responsibility with the data subject. The individual becomes the defacto privacy officer. I rather see laws that places default limits on collection and use. I shouldn't have to supervise how Google collects and uses data about me. I'd rather them not be allowed to collect it without my permission... which I have no plan to give.
> "A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both."
I know a lot of us want to be rich, but this quote by Eisenhower seems worth remembering:
I know a lot of us want to be rich, but this quote by Eisenhower seems worth remembering:
There has been an unspoken freedom of privacy for thousands of years. We could go in our caves or homes and protect them via a fist, rock, spear, or gun such that we could live alone outside of prying eyes.
Now when we go online or go shop in a store, we are partially losing the ability to live privately. Eventually, our government could put cameras everywhere in our home to ensure that we behave, and some could abuse that. To prevent that, we need to solidify that freedom of privacy, rather than continue to consider it a privilege.
I also think that we should allow the government some amount of freedom to protect us. However, there needs to be a line drawn that shouldn't be crossed whether it's Target, the F.B.I., or an individual, and I think we should all be aware of data collection.
Now when we go online or go shop in a store, we are partially losing the ability to live privately. Eventually, our government could put cameras everywhere in our home to ensure that we behave, and some could abuse that. To prevent that, we need to solidify that freedom of privacy, rather than continue to consider it a privilege.
I also think that we should allow the government some amount of freedom to protect us. However, there needs to be a line drawn that shouldn't be crossed whether it's Target, the F.B.I., or an individual, and I think we should all be aware of data collection.
> Eventually, our government could put cameras everywhere in our home
I actually don't think that the government will have to do this, because as consumers we do it already for them:
Have a notebook in your house? Nice, your camera may already be watching you and the mic listening to you.
Have a mobile phone? Nice, you are now under surveillance 24 hours a day. The 2 cameras can see, the mic (and now apparently even the speaker) can listen, your location is 100% tracked, the gyro can let hackers know via your current vibration profile if you're in a bus, train or car, etc.
All this could be partially prevented by hardware switches for each sensor. Are we consumers out on the street fighting against this and/or voting with our $$$ to prevent the loss of privacy?
I actually don't think that the government will have to do this, because as consumers we do it already for them:
Have a notebook in your house? Nice, your camera may already be watching you and the mic listening to you.
Have a mobile phone? Nice, you are now under surveillance 24 hours a day. The 2 cameras can see, the mic (and now apparently even the speaker) can listen, your location is 100% tracked, the gyro can let hackers know via your current vibration profile if you're in a bus, train or car, etc.
All this could be partially prevented by hardware switches for each sensor. Are we consumers out on the street fighting against this and/or voting with our $$$ to prevent the loss of privacy?
>All this could be partially prevented by hardware switches for each sensor.
Do you know of anyone besides Bunnie Huang who is working on a project like this or something similar? Bunnie's concept is kind of similar with a hardware intercept on the device.
Do you know of anyone besides Bunnie Huang who is working on a project like this or something similar? Bunnie's concept is kind of similar with a hardware intercept on the device.
> Bunnie Huang who is working on a project like this
I don't know of this or any other such projects. Any such project needs to be on HN on a regular basis.
I don't know of this or any other such projects. Any such project needs to be on HN on a regular basis.
> All this could be partially prevented by hardware switches for each sensor.
A few easy hacks for best-effort protection without destroying your hardware are a piece of tape over the camera and setting your sound input to something quiet, like Soundflower in macOS or one of these for Windows or Linux: http://alternativeto.net/software/soundflower/
A few easy hacks for best-effort protection without destroying your hardware are a piece of tape over the camera and setting your sound input to something quiet, like Soundflower in macOS or one of these for Windows or Linux: http://alternativeto.net/software/soundflower/
>we need to solidify that freedom of privacy, rather than continue to consider it a privilege.
When I posted that, I actually saw it the other way around: privacy as a principle, and riches as privilege.
>I also think that we should allow the government some amount of freedom to protect us
I agree. I'm lean a little bit libertarian, but even a staunch libertarian holds this belief. Actually that's kind of the point, that government's main purpose is to protect the people and enforce the rule of law. There's some argument right now that government in America is not upholding that obligation (for example, laws are applied unequally depending on race and income, police overstepping their authority and police brutality, etc.).
When I posted that, I actually saw it the other way around: privacy as a principle, and riches as privilege.
>I also think that we should allow the government some amount of freedom to protect us
I agree. I'm lean a little bit libertarian, but even a staunch libertarian holds this belief. Actually that's kind of the point, that government's main purpose is to protect the people and enforce the rule of law. There's some argument right now that government in America is not upholding that obligation (for example, laws are applied unequally depending on race and income, police overstepping their authority and police brutality, etc.).
One of the most interesting German privacy protections that I've come across is the decentralisation of residential registration records.
By law, every citizen is required to register where they live at the Stadtamt (town hall records office).
Each Bundesland (state) holds its own records. If someone moves between states, the records must be securely and electronically transferred. They cannot be held in two states simultaneously.
A friend of mine works on that system.
By law, every citizen is required to register where they live at the Stadtamt (town hall records office).
Each Bundesland (state) holds its own records. If someone moves between states, the records must be securely and electronically transferred. They cannot be held in two states simultaneously.
A friend of mine works on that system.
there's more than 30000 - THIRTY THOUSAND - lobbyists in brussels. add lobbyists in berlin.
the oh-so-great industries in europe/germany cannot have legislation limiting their businesses. creating real privacy-focussed product is just too hard for a country where great inventions and innovation once came from.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/08/lobbyists-euro...
the oh-so-great industries in europe/germany cannot have legislation limiting their businesses. creating real privacy-focussed product is just too hard for a country where great inventions and innovation once came from.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/08/lobbyists-euro...
There are lots of unintended consequences that are not intuitively apparent. Here is a list of some in the news - http://snuc-list.blogspot.in/
Until the tech sector deals with them as issues, as in, treats them the same way they treat software bugs its really upto the govts of the world to step in and over regulate.
Zuckerberg, Dorsey et al have slowly started recognizing publicly they have to do more. And while they work out the fixes, their platforms can't be allowed to wreck social havoc, of which there is a mounting body of evidence.
Until the tech sector deals with them as issues, as in, treats them the same way they treat software bugs its really upto the govts of the world to step in and over regulate.
Zuckerberg, Dorsey et al have slowly started recognizing publicly they have to do more. And while they work out the fixes, their platforms can't be allowed to wreck social havoc, of which there is a mounting body of evidence.
I suspect it is limiting some "Big Data" and outsourcing use cases and lobbyists have been busy.
Also there was a big blowup on so called "selectors" which were filter parameters given by the NSA to the German secret service. These selectors siphoned off private data to a foreign (US) goverment and when the story leaked people were interested to know what was handed out. The NSA of course is interested in keeping those secret. The new law would make this easier.
Also there was a big blowup on so called "selectors" which were filter parameters given by the NSA to the German secret service. These selectors siphoned off private data to a foreign (US) goverment and when the story leaked people were interested to know what was handed out. The NSA of course is interested in keeping those secret. The new law would make this easier.
Merkel's government is terrified of the worldwide right wing nationalist movement and wants to limit free speech and right to assemble as much as possible in an attempt to silence likely AfD supporters. Germany like much of Europe already has thoughtcrime laws, this is but a more effective way to enforce them.
Germany has no thoughtcrime laws. No laws that would have an affect on free speech or assembly have been passed recently or are under discussion formally or informally.
Indeed precisely because opposition exists, this would be an incredibly stupid move likely to cause backlash.
Indeed precisely because opposition exists, this would be an incredibly stupid move likely to cause backlash.
> No laws that would have an affect on free speech or assembly have been passed recently or are under discussion formally or informally.
Masking on a demonstration has recently been turned from an Ordnungswidrigkeit ("contravention" according to Wikipedia) to a felony in multiple states. The aim behind this is to be able to prove via video who is responsible in case violence erupts - yet the biggest perpetrators and provocateurs, the police, don't have individual name/number tags, and more often than not they wear masks.
Oh, and it's illegal to bring any kind of arms to demonstrations, most often it's even forbidden to bring glass beer bottles (and violating this can be prosecuted as a felony).
Sometimes I feel that our governments have intentionally disarmed us - mostly after a couple nasty amok runs at schools, but I believe this is rather an excuse. The real issue at hand is that in case the AfD with their fascist world view ever comes to power (hell, they already got 25% in Saxony), the population won't have anything to fight them with.
Masking on a demonstration has recently been turned from an Ordnungswidrigkeit ("contravention" according to Wikipedia) to a felony in multiple states. The aim behind this is to be able to prove via video who is responsible in case violence erupts - yet the biggest perpetrators and provocateurs, the police, don't have individual name/number tags, and more often than not they wear masks.
Oh, and it's illegal to bring any kind of arms to demonstrations, most often it's even forbidden to bring glass beer bottles (and violating this can be prosecuted as a felony).
Sometimes I feel that our governments have intentionally disarmed us - mostly after a couple nasty amok runs at schools, but I believe this is rather an excuse. The real issue at hand is that in case the AfD with their fascist world view ever comes to power (hell, they already got 25% in Saxony), the population won't have anything to fight them with.
>Masking on a demonstration has recently been turned from an Ordnungswidrigkeit ("contravention" according to Wikipedia) to a felony in multiple states.
I'm pretty sure you are wrong. §17a VersG has been in place since 1985. The maximum sentence is 1 year thus it is a misdemeanour, not a felony.
> Oh, and it's illegal to bring any kind of arms to demonstrations
Doesn't seem unreasonable considering how violent they can sometimes get.
>Sometimes I feel that our governments have intentionally disarmed us
Ignoring the fact that the law is 30 years old: Disarming by not allowing to hide your face?
I'm pretty sure you are wrong. §17a VersG has been in place since 1985. The maximum sentence is 1 year thus it is a misdemeanour, not a felony.
> Oh, and it's illegal to bring any kind of arms to demonstrations
Doesn't seem unreasonable considering how violent they can sometimes get.
>Sometimes I feel that our governments have intentionally disarmed us
Ignoring the fact that the law is 30 years old: Disarming by not allowing to hide your face?
> I'm pretty sure you are wrong. §17a VersG has been in place since 1985. The maximum sentence is 1 year thus it is a misdemeanour, not a felony.
I'm referring especially to this change in Bavaria: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/versammlungsrecht-vermummu...
> Doesn't seem unreasonable considering how violent they can sometimes get.
So why are fascists allowed basically everything, the cops beat peaceful hippies up and meanwhile the ordinary left-wing activist mustn't even wear tooth protection (classified as "Schutzbewaffnung")? Seeing that multiple people got teeth knocked out during clashes with the police at the recent "Merkel muss weg" fascist march, it's ridiculous that the citizens are commanded to be defensiveless sheeps while the cops abuse them as training ground.
> Ignoring the fact that the law is 30 years old: Disarming by not allowing to hide your face?
They disarmed the citizens in multiple ways. When combining all that happened (beginning with the Radikalenerlass decades ago), there forms a clear picture: the government has a deep-rooted fear of left-wing people, while secretly funding/supporting right-wing terrorists that have killed over 200 people in the last decades.
I'm referring especially to this change in Bavaria: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/versammlungsrecht-vermummu...
> Doesn't seem unreasonable considering how violent they can sometimes get.
So why are fascists allowed basically everything, the cops beat peaceful hippies up and meanwhile the ordinary left-wing activist mustn't even wear tooth protection (classified as "Schutzbewaffnung")? Seeing that multiple people got teeth knocked out during clashes with the police at the recent "Merkel muss weg" fascist march, it's ridiculous that the citizens are commanded to be defensiveless sheeps while the cops abuse them as training ground.
> Ignoring the fact that the law is 30 years old: Disarming by not allowing to hide your face?
They disarmed the citizens in multiple ways. When combining all that happened (beginning with the Radikalenerlass decades ago), there forms a clear picture: the government has a deep-rooted fear of left-wing people, while secretly funding/supporting right-wing terrorists that have killed over 200 people in the last decades.
The police in Germany falls under the authority of the states and not the federal government. Some of them, like Berlin, do require individual number tags.
Additionally you have a constitutional right to fight a government that violates the constitution by any means once legal avenues are exhausted.
Additionally you have a constitutional right to fight a government that violates the constitution by any means once legal avenues are exhausted.
And once you file a complaint against the cops for violence, you end up targeted. Either for harrassment (as happened to me) or for frivolous counter-suits ("Widerstand",happened to a couple of friends).
Filing complaints against police is pretty much pointless, as evidenced by the numbers (of 2138 cases, only 33 ended up in court, see https://correctiv.org/blog/2016/02/12/polizeigewalt-zahlen-f...) or by the sheer time scale. The poor old man who had his eyes shot out by a water cannon at S21 had to wait SIX YEARS for an offer of compensation (http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/umstrittene-polizeiaktion...).
And even if a state like Berlin requires numbered cops, if there are supporting units from other states these do NOT have to carry numbers. Witnessed this first hand when beaten up in Berlin by cops from Dresden.
Filing complaints against police is pretty much pointless, as evidenced by the numbers (of 2138 cases, only 33 ended up in court, see https://correctiv.org/blog/2016/02/12/polizeigewalt-zahlen-f...) or by the sheer time scale. The poor old man who had his eyes shot out by a water cannon at S21 had to wait SIX YEARS for an offer of compensation (http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/umstrittene-polizeiaktion...).
And even if a state like Berlin requires numbered cops, if there are supporting units from other states these do NOT have to carry numbers. Witnessed this first hand when beaten up in Berlin by cops from Dresden.
> Germany has no thoughtcrime laws.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/19/head-of-german...
https://boingboing.net/2016/04/23/german-political-leader-ar...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/germany-springs-...
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7371/facebook-freedom-of-...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/19/head-of-german...
https://boingboing.net/2016/04/23/german-political-leader-ar...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/germany-springs-...
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7371/facebook-freedom-of-...
I think this is confusing to outsiders, because English media reports these as hate speech, whereas hate speech actually refers to something else in Germany. In Germany these incidents are Volksverhetzung (~demagoguery). The bar for "achieving" it is set quite high:
> Wer in einer Weise, die geeignet ist, den öffentlichen Frieden zu stören,
Who does one of the following in a way apt to disturb/destroy public peace/harmony
> (1) gegen eine nationale, rassische, religiöse oder durch ihre ethnische Herkunft bestimmte Gruppe, gegen Teile der Bevölkerung oder gegen einen Einzelnen wegen seiner Zugehörigkeit zu einer vorbezeichneten Gruppe oder zu einem Teil der Bevölkerung zum Hass aufstachelt, zu Gewalt- oder Willkürmaßnahmen auffordert oder
agitate against national/racial/religious or ethnic group, or against parts of the public or against private persons due to their belonging to a recognized group / part of the public, in order to incite hate or violence.
> (2) die Menschenwürde anderer dadurch angreift, dass er eine vorbezeichnete Gruppe, Teile der Bevölkerung oder einen Einzelnen wegen seiner Zugehörigkeit zu einer vorbezeichneten Gruppe oder zu einem Teil der Bevölkerung beschimpft, böswillig verächtlich macht oder verleumdet,
attacking the human dignity of <the same blob of text as above> or defames or libels.
In other words, to be sentenced for Volksverhetzung the court actually has to prove that you intentionally wanted to incite violence/hate against a defined group of people / person, while intentionally also fulfilling the first condition.
A bit like murder in Germany it is a crime of disposition (killing w/o disposition is Totschlag - or one of the more specific "XY with deadly outcome" crimes - not Mord), unlike murder it is not punishable in absence of disposition.
> Wer in einer Weise, die geeignet ist, den öffentlichen Frieden zu stören,
Who does one of the following in a way apt to disturb/destroy public peace/harmony
> (1) gegen eine nationale, rassische, religiöse oder durch ihre ethnische Herkunft bestimmte Gruppe, gegen Teile der Bevölkerung oder gegen einen Einzelnen wegen seiner Zugehörigkeit zu einer vorbezeichneten Gruppe oder zu einem Teil der Bevölkerung zum Hass aufstachelt, zu Gewalt- oder Willkürmaßnahmen auffordert oder
agitate against national/racial/religious or ethnic group, or against parts of the public or against private persons due to their belonging to a recognized group / part of the public, in order to incite hate or violence.
> (2) die Menschenwürde anderer dadurch angreift, dass er eine vorbezeichnete Gruppe, Teile der Bevölkerung oder einen Einzelnen wegen seiner Zugehörigkeit zu einer vorbezeichneten Gruppe oder zu einem Teil der Bevölkerung beschimpft, böswillig verächtlich macht oder verleumdet,
attacking the human dignity of <the same blob of text as above> or defames or libels.
In other words, to be sentenced for Volksverhetzung the court actually has to prove that you intentionally wanted to incite violence/hate against a defined group of people / person, while intentionally also fulfilling the first condition.
A bit like murder in Germany it is a crime of disposition (killing w/o disposition is Totschlag - or one of the more specific "XY with deadly outcome" crimes - not Mord), unlike murder it is not punishable in absence of disposition.
Actually it has. What is "hate speech" otherwise. And Nazi symbols are also illegal.
Hate speech is not illegal. Incitement of hatred is. This requires disturbing the public peace by inciting hatred, calling for violence or attacking human dignity (a human right in Germany).
There is also no law against nazi symbols specifically. Symbols of unconstitutional organizations are illegal, this is one of the aspects of being a militant democracy. The goal here is to prevent a failure of the democracy in the way it did with Hitler. Nazi symbols are illegal because of that but they're not the only ones. Communist, socialist and jihadist organizations are affected by this as well.
There is also no law against nazi symbols specifically. Symbols of unconstitutional organizations are illegal, this is one of the aspects of being a militant democracy. The goal here is to prevent a failure of the democracy in the way it did with Hitler. Nazi symbols are illegal because of that but they're not the only ones. Communist, socialist and jihadist organizations are affected by this as well.
Ursula Haverbeck.
Ursula Haverbeck is a nazi who denies the Holocaust and publicly lies about it. She was found guilty of incitement to hatred.
That is not a violation of freedom of speech. Lies are not covered by freedom of speech in Germany, they're not covered by freedom of speech in other countries either, even the US. In fact in most countries certain types of lies are illegal and fall under laws against fraud, libel or any number of things. Germany simply also covers incitement of hatred.
Additionally the first article of the German constitution and one of its fundamental principles is that human dignity shall be inviolable and that the state has a duty to respect and protect it. In my opinion ensuring the dignity of the vicitims of the holocaust is protected requires making sure that the state fights those that would deny the holocaust.
That is not a violation of freedom of speech. Lies are not covered by freedom of speech in Germany, they're not covered by freedom of speech in other countries either, even the US. In fact in most countries certain types of lies are illegal and fall under laws against fraud, libel or any number of things. Germany simply also covers incitement of hatred.
Additionally the first article of the German constitution and one of its fundamental principles is that human dignity shall be inviolable and that the state has a duty to respect and protect it. In my opinion ensuring the dignity of the vicitims of the holocaust is protected requires making sure that the state fights those that would deny the holocaust.
She presented numerous historical documents as evidence that the holocaust as we know it did not happen, and that the United States viewed the German people as a threat far prior to WWII and planned to exterminate them, for example via the "Hooton Plan" to use mass immigration of non-Europeans to breed native Germans out of existence. Does this sound familiar?
For saying this, an elderly woman in her late 80s has been repeatedly imprisoned. Sounds like thoughtcrime to me.
For saying this, an elderly woman in her late 80s has been repeatedly imprisoned. Sounds like thoughtcrime to me.
I just read one of her blog posts[1], not knowing who she is. Unless you want to claim that Google translate deliberately mistranslates her words, she's incredibly fucking racist. I'm not a fan of Islam (and criticise it myself), but saying that all Arabic and Turkish children should be sent back to their home countries to protect German children is undeniably hate speech.
[1]: http://ursula-haverbeck.info/richter-staatsanwalt-und-polizi...
[1]: http://ursula-haverbeck.info/richter-staatsanwalt-und-polizi...
Oh, yes this does sound familiar, it sounds like you're a holocaust denier and a nazi as well, I should have guessed.
Right, the US planned to exterminate Germans via immigrants. And by the US, you mean one loony guy named Hooton. And by planned, you mean he mentioned it as a possible idea.
Which will result in people digging deeper underground and in more tools being developed to allow that.
I think this will also results in safe-heavens developing here and there around the world, just as the Dutch republic was for printing/publishing in the XVII/XVIIIth century. And immensely profited, on all levels, from it.
I don't really see how they could achieve such a bad result given that German Law is subject to the Privacy Protection Directive and to the newly adopted Privacy Protection Regulation. And both are strongly in favor of the users, including their right to access, modify or suppress any information about them.
Does anyone have any insight into what the motivation is for politicians to push this? Why are they so passionate about limiting people's privacy?
Surely you don't believe that this is about "fighting terrorism", right?
Surely you don't believe that this is about "fighting terrorism", right?
From the adoption of printing by Europeans in the 15th century we began to be concerned primarily with access to printed material.
The right to read, and the right to publish were the central subject of our struggle for freedom of thought for most of the last half millennium.
The basic concern was for the right to read in private and to think and speak and act on the basis of a free and uncensored will.
The primary antagonist for freedom of thought in the beginning of our struggle was the Universal Catholic Church.
An institution directed at the control of thought in the European world, based around weekly surveillance of the conduct and thoughts of every human being. Based around the censorship of all reading material and in the end based upon the ability to predict and to punish unorthodox thought.
The tools available for thought control in early modern Europe were poor. Even by 20th’s century standards but they worked. And for hundreds of years, the struggle primarily centered around that increasingly important first mass manufactured article in Western culture: "the book" Whether you could print them, posses them, trafficking them read them, teach from them without the permission or control of an entity empowered to punish thought.
By the end of the 17th century censorship of written material in Europe had begun to break down first in the Netherlands then in the UK then afterwards in waves throughout the European world.
And the book became an article of subversive commerce and began eating away at the control of thought.
By the end of the 19th century, that struggle for the freedom of reading had begun to attack the substance of Christianity itself and European world trembled on the brink of the first great revolution of the mind it spoke of "liberté égalité fraternité" but actually it meant freedom to think differently.
The "Ancien Régime" begun to struggle against thinking and we moved into the next phase of the struggle for freedom of thought which presumed the possibility of unorthodox thinking and revolutionary acting.
And for 200 years we struggled with the consequences of those changes.
That was then and this is now. [...]
Everything we want everything we hope everything we’d like everything we wish we new about is in the search box and they own it.
We are reported everywhere all the time
In the 20th century you had to build Lubianca you had to torture people you had to threaten people you had to press people to inform on their friends I don’t need to talk about that in Berlin
https://benjamin.sonntag.fr/Moglen-at-Re-Publica-Freedom-of-...
The right to read, and the right to publish were the central subject of our struggle for freedom of thought for most of the last half millennium.
The basic concern was for the right to read in private and to think and speak and act on the basis of a free and uncensored will.
The primary antagonist for freedom of thought in the beginning of our struggle was the Universal Catholic Church.
An institution directed at the control of thought in the European world, based around weekly surveillance of the conduct and thoughts of every human being. Based around the censorship of all reading material and in the end based upon the ability to predict and to punish unorthodox thought.
The tools available for thought control in early modern Europe were poor. Even by 20th’s century standards but they worked. And for hundreds of years, the struggle primarily centered around that increasingly important first mass manufactured article in Western culture: "the book" Whether you could print them, posses them, trafficking them read them, teach from them without the permission or control of an entity empowered to punish thought.
By the end of the 17th century censorship of written material in Europe had begun to break down first in the Netherlands then in the UK then afterwards in waves throughout the European world.
And the book became an article of subversive commerce and began eating away at the control of thought.
By the end of the 19th century, that struggle for the freedom of reading had begun to attack the substance of Christianity itself and European world trembled on the brink of the first great revolution of the mind it spoke of "liberté égalité fraternité" but actually it meant freedom to think differently.
The "Ancien Régime" begun to struggle against thinking and we moved into the next phase of the struggle for freedom of thought which presumed the possibility of unorthodox thinking and revolutionary acting.
And for 200 years we struggled with the consequences of those changes.
That was then and this is now. [...]
Everything we want everything we hope everything we’d like everything we wish we new about is in the search box and they own it.
We are reported everywhere all the time
In the 20th century you had to build Lubianca you had to torture people you had to threaten people you had to press people to inform on their friends I don’t need to talk about that in Berlin
https://benjamin.sonntag.fr/Moglen-at-Re-Publica-Freedom-of-...
Dear Downvoter,
I'm not sure whether it requires more concentration, but it may very well be that like you know, some people read well and it's nothing for them to read a book a day. And other people this is a big deal. I mean it's a struggle, and what's likely is going on is that most people never learn to read very well. And so, the amount of concentration they have to put into the mechanics is what's defeats them with the amount of material that has to be read.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13041287
I'm not sure whether it requires more concentration, but it may very well be that like you know, some people read well and it's nothing for them to read a book a day. And other people this is a big deal. I mean it's a struggle, and what's likely is going on is that most people never learn to read very well. And so, the amount of concentration they have to put into the mechanics is what's defeats them with the amount of material that has to be read.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13041287
Does anyone know how the legal mechanics would work?
Can they pass the draft law that overturns the earlier laws?
I assume that the state legislature will have a say. Is there any indication they're amenable to it?
How does the American style thing where they reintroduce unpopular bills with subtle modifications continually until the public loses focus work in Deustchland?
Can they pass the draft law that overturns the earlier laws?
I assume that the state legislature will have a say. Is there any indication they're amenable to it?
How does the American style thing where they reintroduce unpopular bills with subtle modifications continually until the public loses focus work in Deustchland?
They actually have to pass a new law before 2018. There's a EU directive, and the way these work is that they require the member states to pass laws implementing them, while leaving a bit of wiggle room allowing the national parliaments to fill in the details.
This specifically is still far from being a done deal. Note that it's only the secretary of the interior proposing it. That position is traditionally filled with a hard-line law-and-order politician (and even if it's a tree-hugging hippie, he somehow turns into such). There are plenty of people even on the cabinet level with different views – usually the justice minister pushes back from a civil-liberties focused position, and the social democrats whose votes are needed in parliament may also consider this one of the rare opportunities to publicly oppose Merkel's party.
After that there's the constitutional court, and then the European Union institutions also get to have their say again, and they also tend to favor civil liberties.
I'd also caution to not take the headline at face value – the public hasn't seen this draft and only gets the version filtered through interest groups. One example: dropping the right to be informed about collected data is limited to cases where this would "seriously endanger a company's business purposes". That seems to me as if it's meant to apply to specific, known situations – who knows, maybe someone asked Amazon for a printout of their data to get around the Glacier Storage retrieval fees. These exceptions would probably be nailed down to apply to the few situations where it may be sensible.
This specifically is still far from being a done deal. Note that it's only the secretary of the interior proposing it. That position is traditionally filled with a hard-line law-and-order politician (and even if it's a tree-hugging hippie, he somehow turns into such). There are plenty of people even on the cabinet level with different views – usually the justice minister pushes back from a civil-liberties focused position, and the social democrats whose votes are needed in parliament may also consider this one of the rare opportunities to publicly oppose Merkel's party.
After that there's the constitutional court, and then the European Union institutions also get to have their say again, and they also tend to favor civil liberties.
I'd also caution to not take the headline at face value – the public hasn't seen this draft and only gets the version filtered through interest groups. One example: dropping the right to be informed about collected data is limited to cases where this would "seriously endanger a company's business purposes". That seems to me as if it's meant to apply to specific, known situations – who knows, maybe someone asked Amazon for a printout of their data to get around the Glacier Storage retrieval fees. These exceptions would probably be nailed down to apply to the few situations where it may be sensible.
>They actually have to pass a new law before 2018. There's a EU directive, and the way these work is that they require the member states to pass laws implementing them ...
Assuming you're referring to the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation), it is in fact a regulation as opposed to a directive. The difference being that directives have to be implemented at the member state level, but regulations do not. Regulations are effective union-wide once they come into force.
Assuming you're referring to the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation), it is in fact a regulation as opposed to a directive. The difference being that directives have to be implemented at the member state level, but regulations do not. Regulations are effective union-wide once they come into force.
I thought so as well – considering they have largely changed to using Regulations. But, to quote the article:
> The law - which aims to implement European Union data protection directives, set to come into force in 2018 - was roundly condemned [...]
> The law - which aims to implement European Union data protection directives, set to come into force in 2018 - was roundly condemned [...]
I thought it was something lost in translation, or just a mistake. But it turns out there actually is an accompanying directive "for the police and criminal justice sector" (Directive (EU) 2016/680).
Not quite. There's a new regulation which does much of what the old directive did, but there's also a new accompanying directive for some parts.
it works exactly like that. law by brute force. that's basically how we've got data retention laws and how the BND "reform" happened.
the government proposes laws, the bundestag approves of it and the bundespresident signs it. the bundestag is, at times, critical of things but i would have to look up an example. the bundespräsident has forever been a sheep. can't remember anybody doing anything out of order. they get "thrown out" as soon as they even only say sth critical of the political mainstream - see mr. wulf.
anything can happen anytime if they get their ppl in line. opposition is hilarious and bold and simple at most. some say it doesn't even exist. i mean, we have a government constructed of a coalition of opposing forces, the CDU and the SPD, and they're marching the same march. depressing.
anybody telling you some other text book alternative theory is just delusional. there's nothing really better at least with regards to privacy or data protection. it's a laughabke myth spread by the german industry trying to draw profits from snowden. again, depressing.
edit: i forgot one entity viewed by many as one last bastion against unjust laws: our highest court, the bundesverfassungsgericht, the constitutional court. it's regarded very highly so let me demonstrate how those judges work. case in point, data retention law (vorratsdatenspeicherung)
the government proposes laws, the bundestag approves of it and the bundespresident signs it. the bundestag is, at times, critical of things but i would have to look up an example. the bundespräsident has forever been a sheep. can't remember anybody doing anything out of order. they get "thrown out" as soon as they even only say sth critical of the political mainstream - see mr. wulf.
anything can happen anytime if they get their ppl in line. opposition is hilarious and bold and simple at most. some say it doesn't even exist. i mean, we have a government constructed of a coalition of opposing forces, the CDU and the SPD, and they're marching the same march. depressing.
anybody telling you some other text book alternative theory is just delusional. there's nothing really better at least with regards to privacy or data protection. it's a laughabke myth spread by the german industry trying to draw profits from snowden. again, depressing.
edit: i forgot one entity viewed by many as one last bastion against unjust laws: our highest court, the bundesverfassungsgericht, the constitutional court. it's regarded very highly so let me demonstrate how those judges work. case in point, data retention law (vorratsdatenspeicherung)
court: "you'd like to save data for 12 months? that's too much."
gov: "ok, 6 months."
court: "that's better. agreed."
bundespräsident: signs lawIt's rare but presidents to occasionally not sign laws or defer it to the constitutional court. Horst Köhler famously did this with the law that was supposed to allow the Luftwaffe to shoot down civilian airplanes in case of a 9/11 scenario. The court of course ruled against the law.
> can't remember anybody doing anything out of order. they get "thrown out" as soon as they even only say sth critical of the political mainstream - see mr. wulf.
Wulff resigned because he fucked up big time (even if not in a way relevant for criminal law). Of course many others also fucked up big time during the Wulff affair.
Btw. when did he say "something critical of the political mainstream" that makes you think he has been forced out of office?
Wulff resigned because he fucked up big time (even if not in a way relevant for criminal law). Of course many others also fucked up big time during the Wulff affair.
Btw. when did he say "something critical of the political mainstream" that makes you think he has been forced out of office?
>>> ...to checking that the technical prerequisites are in place to ensure that doctors' and lawyers' files are secure...
Forget the privacy issues. That a government is inspecting the safeguards of lawyers is something to applaud. I;m on a bunch of ABA committees that constantly discuss the ridiculous state of security at most law firms. Most US states require that lawyers,in short, "try". So long as some modicum of effort is put into securing client secrets the average law firm won't hear anything from their bar associations.
(Yes, I said most! Most firms are actually very small, without the budget even for a full-time IT person.)
Forget the privacy issues. That a government is inspecting the safeguards of lawyers is something to applaud. I;m on a bunch of ABA committees that constantly discuss the ridiculous state of security at most law firms. Most US states require that lawyers,in short, "try". So long as some modicum of effort is put into securing client secrets the average law firm won't hear anything from their bar associations.
(Yes, I said most! Most firms are actually very small, without the budget even for a full-time IT person.)
Very interesting! I'm wondering if it's possible to use these effects to modify images on the client side before uploading it to the server?
Good luck with that.
I'm still hopeful. If there's a country where people would be genuinely putting up barricades over privacy issues, that's Germany.
My vision might be a bit biased by the fact that I live in Berlin, where people are much more politically active then elsewhere in Germany, but I still think that it's a theme that strikes the average German's interest
> If there's a country where people would be genuinely putting up barricades over privacy issues, that's Germany.
Really, why would you think that?
Because of Stasi? That was quarter a century ago. Almost forgotten. Ask representative sample of Germans what was Stasi and, I strongly assume, most wouldn't know anything about it. Especially the younger generation. Sadly.
Or because of Nazi time? Despite Hitler (and Hitler-related) documentaries being constantly shown in German TV, most Germans are still not aware of the methods being used by the Nazis to keep Germans under surveillance during that time. Sadly.
And, if lots of people do go out and do demonstrate/voice their discontent?
In October 2015 250,000 people demonstrated in Berlin against TTIP (for US friends: EU-USA TPP) [1] and what did "das Merkel" do? Nothing, it's TTIP full steam ahead!
Then 1.6 million Germans (together with 3.3 million EU citizens in total) signed a petition against TTIP. Government spokeperson: "Merkel will not receive a petition". [2]
Recently, "over 300,000" people have demonstrated against TTIP and CETA (for US friends: EU-Canada TPP) and what was the reaction of the Government? "It's their right to demonstrate". [3]
Has anything changed in the policy of the German government after all these democratic means? I think you can answer this question yourself.
This system we live in doesn't work. It probably never did, but we didn't notice it.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/10/berlin-anti-tt...
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQykeaSC3Dk
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOEWkH8RpgM
Really, why would you think that?
Because of Stasi? That was quarter a century ago. Almost forgotten. Ask representative sample of Germans what was Stasi and, I strongly assume, most wouldn't know anything about it. Especially the younger generation. Sadly.
Or because of Nazi time? Despite Hitler (and Hitler-related) documentaries being constantly shown in German TV, most Germans are still not aware of the methods being used by the Nazis to keep Germans under surveillance during that time. Sadly.
And, if lots of people do go out and do demonstrate/voice their discontent?
In October 2015 250,000 people demonstrated in Berlin against TTIP (for US friends: EU-USA TPP) [1] and what did "das Merkel" do? Nothing, it's TTIP full steam ahead!
Then 1.6 million Germans (together with 3.3 million EU citizens in total) signed a petition against TTIP. Government spokeperson: "Merkel will not receive a petition". [2]
Recently, "over 300,000" people have demonstrated against TTIP and CETA (for US friends: EU-Canada TPP) and what was the reaction of the Government? "It's their right to demonstrate". [3]
Has anything changed in the policy of the German government after all these democratic means? I think you can answer this question yourself.
This system we live in doesn't work. It probably never did, but we didn't notice it.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/10/berlin-anti-tt...
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQykeaSC3Dk
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOEWkH8RpgM
Indeed German politicians have been consistently ignoring their voters' mandate for the last two decades:
The SPD (originally the worker's party) has destroyed the welfare state, the CDU (center right) lets in millions of refugees, and the Green party (originally anti war) goes to war.
It will be interesting what happens in the next federal elections. In the Berlin state elections the "ultra right" AfD had 12%.
The reason is of course that they also represent positions that originally were part of regular conservative agenda.
After the state elections Merkel suddenly started to (pretended to?) listen to some voter concerns.
Apparently in Germany politicians only react if protest parties approach 20% results.
The SPD (originally the worker's party) has destroyed the welfare state, the CDU (center right) lets in millions of refugees, and the Green party (originally anti war) goes to war.
It will be interesting what happens in the next federal elections. In the Berlin state elections the "ultra right" AfD had 12%.
The reason is of course that they also represent positions that originally were part of regular conservative agenda.
After the state elections Merkel suddenly started to (pretended to?) listen to some voter concerns.
Apparently in Germany politicians only react if protest parties approach 20% results.
> The SPD (originally the worker's party) has destroyed the welfare state, the CDU (center right) lets in millions of refugees, and the Green party (originally anti war) goes to war.
While true, it was a bit more complicated than that, so I will add three facts, that are also true:
- There were 5 million unemployed people in Germany and it was called "the sick man of Europe", the SPD had to do something. Economically Germany has never been better off than today.
- The Green party fought physically against its leaders about going to war [0]. There were war crimes being committed right inside Europe, so ultimately they decided for the lesser of two evils.
- The CDU's full name is Christian Democratic Union. I think you can justify your actions, when you are doing literally what it says in your name.
I think you can also make the argument, that "ignoring your voters mandate" by being fundamentalist does not lead you anywhere. Merkel has been chancellor since forever.
SPD and the Green party implemented some of their policies, because they are able to compromise. The Left party holds true to its voters mandate, thereby securing Merkel, because you simply cannot work with fundamentalists. Their domestic policy essentially is to spend all the money (TM), their foreign policy is to make the leading power of Europe behave like an inflated Switzerland. A bonus on top is their very questionable relationship with their past as the governing party of the GDR.
So as long as they are not ignoring their voters mandate in some areas - you simply cannot govern Germany, if you want to leave NATO - they will get non of their voters will implemented as policies and Merkel will stay in office.
[0] https://www.phoenix.de/content/phoenix/bibliothek/441774
While true, it was a bit more complicated than that, so I will add three facts, that are also true:
- There were 5 million unemployed people in Germany and it was called "the sick man of Europe", the SPD had to do something. Economically Germany has never been better off than today.
- The Green party fought physically against its leaders about going to war [0]. There were war crimes being committed right inside Europe, so ultimately they decided for the lesser of two evils.
- The CDU's full name is Christian Democratic Union. I think you can justify your actions, when you are doing literally what it says in your name.
I think you can also make the argument, that "ignoring your voters mandate" by being fundamentalist does not lead you anywhere. Merkel has been chancellor since forever.
SPD and the Green party implemented some of their policies, because they are able to compromise. The Left party holds true to its voters mandate, thereby securing Merkel, because you simply cannot work with fundamentalists. Their domestic policy essentially is to spend all the money (TM), their foreign policy is to make the leading power of Europe behave like an inflated Switzerland. A bonus on top is their very questionable relationship with their past as the governing party of the GDR.
So as long as they are not ignoring their voters mandate in some areas - you simply cannot govern Germany, if you want to leave NATO - they will get non of their voters will implemented as policies and Merkel will stay in office.
[0] https://www.phoenix.de/content/phoenix/bibliothek/441774
What do you think, why is that so?
- Why have social-democrats dismantled the social state?
- Why have center-right let over 1.5 million refugees in?
- Why does the Green party go to war?
- Why does the German political establishment pretend to listen with AfD breathing down their necks?
- Why don't they care about the voice of the people even thou they talk about "the people being querulous of democracy" (Demokratieverdrossenheit) in numerous political talk shows for the last twenty years?
- What's next after limiting privacy rights?
- Does all this happen just by chance?
- Why have social-democrats dismantled the social state?
- Why have center-right let over 1.5 million refugees in?
- Why does the Green party go to war?
- Why does the German political establishment pretend to listen with AfD breathing down their necks?
- Why don't they care about the voice of the people even thou they talk about "the people being querulous of democracy" (Demokratieverdrossenheit) in numerous political talk shows for the last twenty years?
- What's next after limiting privacy rights?
- Does all this happen just by chance?
When money talks, bullshit walks.
The former chief officer for revelation of Stasi information and still current president had exactly nothing to say about the Snowden leaks, a tapped Merkel phone, and new surveillance laws.
It's just one guy but it shows how privacy is handled by politicians. Expect only little and still be prepared to be disappointed.
It's just one guy but it shows how privacy is handled by politicians. Expect only little and still be prepared to be disappointed.
The right of Germans to access data about themselves (which this proposal would apparently weaken) is what Malte Spitz used to get his cell phone location data from Deutsche Telekom in 2011, leading to this pretty striking visualization:
http://www.zeit.de/digital/datenschutz/2011-03/data-protecti...
In that way, it's been useful for making concerns about what others know (and can deduce) about us more concrete and specific.
http://www.zeit.de/digital/datenschutz/2011-03/data-protecti...
In that way, it's been useful for making concerns about what others know (and can deduce) about us more concrete and specific.
This is fascinating, thanks for posting this link. A quick question = why is Flensburg relevant in the this quote/lyric reference:
"The seminal electronic band Kraftwerk was well ahead of the curve musically, but even the lyrics to their 1981 song "Computerwelt" can seem uncannily prescient. "Interpol and Deutsche Bank, FBI and Scotland Yard, Flensburg and the BKA, they’ve got all our data squirreled away."
Flensburg is just a northern city no?
"The seminal electronic band Kraftwerk was well ahead of the curve musically, but even the lyrics to their 1981 song "Computerwelt" can seem uncannily prescient. "Interpol and Deutsche Bank, FBI and Scotland Yard, Flensburg and the BKA, they’ve got all our data squirreled away."
Flensburg is just a northern city no?
It is also where the "Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt" is located and keeps track of driving offences. We have a system where for some driving offences (speeding, running over a red light, using a mobile phone while driving) you, in addition to a fine, get penalty points. Accumulating a certain amount of points within a 2 year period may cost you your driver's license. In German this is referred to as "Punkte in Flensburg" (lit. points in Flensburg).
Ah neat, thanks, it is amazing how prescient that Kraftwerk line is.
I am curious what was the general public response to the Malte Spitz's visualization?
I am curious what was the general public response to the Malte Spitz's visualization?
Interesting, but I think it makes a pretty bad argument in favor of privacy if you publish your whereabouts of a whole year in a newspaper.
In favor of his own privacy yes. He exposed his location history to inform others that big brother knows this about them too.
He was also a politician, and their expectation of privacy is less than ordinary people anyway (e.g. sex life, earnings, people they meet, donations they do, etc.). So I'm happy he made a case of himself for privacy, demonstrating in parallel that he's not ashamed of his whereabouts.
First UK now Germany? What is happening? Why do people let this slide?
Right wing concerns over recent acts of Islamic terror.
Leftwing concerns over gains of right wing populists, and citizens publishing things on social media which could potentially be described as 'hate speech'.
Both tough issues.
Leftwing concerns over gains of right wing populists, and citizens publishing things on social media which could potentially be described as 'hate speech'.
Both tough issues.
This is really odd because Germans are really skittish about this - more so than any other Western nation.
The Stasi is in living memory for millions of them.
The Stasi is in living memory for millions of them.
What the hell is going on around the world? I can't believe this sh*t. Why are we putting up with this?!
The state of surveillance we are headed towards is getting more and more ridiculous each day.
The state of surveillance we are headed towards is getting more and more ridiculous each day.
> What the hell is going on around the world?
The end stages of capitalism in which automation is about to make many of the proles redundant and make them realise it.
Lots of people are going to wake up one day and realise that all the wealth ended up in the hands of a few and they got the shit end of the stick despite the only difference been who had the capital at the start of it.
They are getting a head start on that eventuality even if they haven't expressly realised it themselves.
Governments are always frightened of the people because they know what the people might do if they found out everything the governments do.
The end stages of capitalism in which automation is about to make many of the proles redundant and make them realise it.
Lots of people are going to wake up one day and realise that all the wealth ended up in the hands of a few and they got the shit end of the stick despite the only difference been who had the capital at the start of it.
They are getting a head start on that eventuality even if they haven't expressly realised it themselves.
Governments are always frightened of the people because they know what the people might do if they found out everything the governments do.