German government wants ‘backdoor’ access to every digital device: report(thelocal.de)
thelocal.de
German government wants ‘backdoor’ access to every digital device: report
https://www.thelocal.de/20171201/german-government-wants-backdoor-access-to-every-digital-device-report
26 comments
On the one hand, you are right.
On the other hand, it is still troubling.
Also, I get the impression that the supreme court is tired of basically having to make policy by invalidating unconstitutional laws.
If there were serious consequences for politicians and members of parliament for creating unconstitutional laws, maybe they would think twice before doing that. But of course, the people who would have to put such sanctions in place are the very people who would be affected by them, so that is not going to happen. :(
On the other hand, it is still troubling.
Also, I get the impression that the supreme court is tired of basically having to make policy by invalidating unconstitutional laws.
If there were serious consequences for politicians and members of parliament for creating unconstitutional laws, maybe they would think twice before doing that. But of course, the people who would have to put such sanctions in place are the very people who would be affected by them, so that is not going to happen. :(
I'm not happy either with this surveillance freak in a position with publicity. No matter how sure I am that his political attempts will fail again and again, with him repeating this bullshit over and over people are actually starting to believe things like that we need surveillance cameras to stop terrorism, even though surveillance cameras really can do fuckall about a guy hiding a bomb under his jacket and then blowing himself up or someone driving a van into a group of people.
Not to mention that this guy is actively helping out terrorists with that. He's spreading terror. He's making citizens here worry quite a bit, even though there's no real reason to be worried. You're a hundred times more likely to die of all kinds of things every day. There is no point being worried about terrorists.
Not to mention that this guy is actively helping out terrorists with that. He's spreading terror. He's making citizens here worry quite a bit, even though there's no real reason to be worried. You're a hundred times more likely to die of all kinds of things every day. There is no point being worried about terrorists.
Its like this guy never heard of the DDR and the Stazi.
It's written Stasi (Ministerium für Staatssicherheit). That z you probably get from association with Nazis.
I'm sure he's heard of them. The question is, have the voters who elected him?
He's not directly elected. Merkel appointed him.
Nothing to add.
Coming soon: a proposal to hold the government responsible for every breach of data that occurs because they corruptly assigned some contract to an irresponsible third party or hired a minimum wage cop who decided surveillance power's main use is to prove that you really do secretly love him [1]. And of course for selling your private photos. [2]
Wait. Nope, no way in hell the government is responsible for those things [2] (even ignoring the fact that the government internally knows about thousands of abuse of surveillance data cases as the AP points out and I was able to find 2 references to cases about such abuse, neither held the government responsible for anything (and neither was filed by the government). However they do make clear that government cares deeply that cops not be punished for abusing surveillance systems)
[1] https://www.computerworld.com/article/3124641/security/cops-...
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
Wait. Nope, no way in hell the government is responsible for those things [2] (even ignoring the fact that the government internally knows about thousands of abuse of surveillance data cases as the AP points out and I was able to find 2 references to cases about such abuse, neither held the government responsible for anything (and neither was filed by the government). However they do make clear that government cares deeply that cops not be punished for abusing surveillance systems)
[1] https://www.computerworld.com/article/3124641/security/cops-...
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
When I see a story where representative democracy is failing to serve the people, I can't help but remember that this form of democracy was invented before we had the Internet.
The Internet should be used to fix its deficiencies. Change.org clearly isn't enough.
Digital democracy, even with 10% fraudsters, would be better than representative democracy by a large margin.
The Internet should be used to fix its deficiencies. Change.org clearly isn't enough.
Digital democracy, even with 10% fraudsters, would be better than representative democracy by a large margin.
The theoretical advantage of representative democracy is that the average voter doesn't have the time or knowledge to make decisions on the vast majority of issues, while an elected representative can spend 100% of their time ensuring they make the decision that benefits their constituents.
That, plus it's actually _really_ hard to write a law.
I agree that representative democracies as we see them implemented have serious issues but I don't think it's viable to replace it with direct democracy, digital or not. Imagine if America was a direct democracy, the country would be a flaming wreck by now.
That, plus it's actually _really_ hard to write a law.
I agree that representative democracies as we see them implemented have serious issues but I don't think it's viable to replace it with direct democracy, digital or not. Imagine if America was a direct democracy, the country would be a flaming wreck by now.
"the average voter doesn't have the time or knowledge to make decisions"
That's condescendent, and openly anti-democratic. The time argument is the worse of the two: "people don't bother with making decisions, so let's make decisions for them". Really?
"elected representative can spend 100% of their time ensuring they make the decision that benefits their constituents"... "could" instead of "can" would be more appropriate. That's an hypothesis.
"it's actually _really_ hard to write a law": to me it seems there are too many laws anyway, so let's make it easier. No prejudice? no law. Less freedom for the People? no law. How many laws would become obsolete?
"representative democracies as we see them implemented have serious issues": if representative democracies were working on those issues, we wouldn't have this discussion.
"Imagine if America was a direct democracy, the country would be a flaming wreck by now"...
America once was a flaming wreck... then a great country emerged. Sounds a lot like FUD.
That's condescendent, and openly anti-democratic. The time argument is the worse of the two: "people don't bother with making decisions, so let's make decisions for them". Really?
"elected representative can spend 100% of their time ensuring they make the decision that benefits their constituents"... "could" instead of "can" would be more appropriate. That's an hypothesis.
"it's actually _really_ hard to write a law": to me it seems there are too many laws anyway, so let's make it easier. No prejudice? no law. Less freedom for the People? no law. How many laws would become obsolete?
"representative democracies as we see them implemented have serious issues": if representative democracies were working on those issues, we wouldn't have this discussion.
"Imagine if America was a direct democracy, the country would be a flaming wreck by now"...
America once was a flaming wreck... then a great country emerged. Sounds a lot like FUD.
> That's condescendent
Really? In the wake of the GFC, which bills would _you_ have voted for and why?
> and openly anti-democratic
No, it's realistic. Lawmakers needs to make decisions on a _huge_ variety of issues and people with full time jobs simply _cannot_ become familiar enough with all these issues to make an educated decision about which option is in their best interests.
Unless you're suggesting people stop working, I don't think there's anything we can do.
> to me it seems there are too many laws anyway, so let's make it easier
How? The only way I can see is to make the language required to write them less precise, which opens them for more interpretation by the judicial branch. Are you okay with putting more of the country in the hands of the courts?
> No prejudice? no law. Less freedom for the People? no law.
Guarantees like this are the purpose of the constitution. I don't think "Less freedom for the People" is viable anyhow as laws inherently reduce freedom.
> if representative democracies were working on those issues
There are representative democracies that don't have the issues we see in others. Representative democracy isn't the problem. Things like electoral systems and corruption are the bigger problems.
> America once was a flaming wreck... then a great country emerged.
Not coincidentally, the "great country" (as a non-American living in America, I find this hilarious) was a representative democracy.
Really? In the wake of the GFC, which bills would _you_ have voted for and why?
> and openly anti-democratic
No, it's realistic. Lawmakers needs to make decisions on a _huge_ variety of issues and people with full time jobs simply _cannot_ become familiar enough with all these issues to make an educated decision about which option is in their best interests.
Unless you're suggesting people stop working, I don't think there's anything we can do.
> to me it seems there are too many laws anyway, so let's make it easier
How? The only way I can see is to make the language required to write them less precise, which opens them for more interpretation by the judicial branch. Are you okay with putting more of the country in the hands of the courts?
> No prejudice? no law. Less freedom for the People? no law.
Guarantees like this are the purpose of the constitution. I don't think "Less freedom for the People" is viable anyhow as laws inherently reduce freedom.
> if representative democracies were working on those issues
There are representative democracies that don't have the issues we see in others. Representative democracy isn't the problem. Things like electoral systems and corruption are the bigger problems.
> America once was a flaming wreck... then a great country emerged.
Not coincidentally, the "great country" (as a non-American living in America, I find this hilarious) was a representative democracy.
"Really? In the wake of the GFC, which bills would _you_ have voted for and why?": I'd have chosen a plan, maybe not "save the banks who caused all of this", but that's only me. In democracy, you learn to accept the choice of your fellow citizens (rather than the choice of an out-of-this-world elite).
I don't suggest we should remove all law-makers, but most decision-makers. That's a huge difference.
"more interpretation by the judicial branch": how is it a bad thing? A judge who doesn't judge but applies an algorithm instead isn't a judge to me. Funny enough, a jury is still chosen among the people, but they have to judge respect of the law, not facts, and the law is so tight (over-constrained) there's no room for judgement.
"No prejudice? no law"... "Guarantees like this are the purpose of the constitution"
The original purpose of the constitution? probably. Is it working? No, in a great extent. A "no prejudice no law" would forbid surveillance of the whole people.
"Less freedom for the People? no law": read it in the context of prejudice. Prejudice is what makes law necessary because it must be repaired, punished, and the people protected... from an individual who has caused prejudice. We could abolish most laws and there wouldn't be more prejudice, because many laws don't protect from prejudice. Lots of laws try to avoid potential prejudice (eg. drug laws to protect order) and cause more pain than gain (war on drugs! a war doesn't protect order, it causes chaos).
As long as you pay people to write new laws, guess what: they write new laws, more is better for them. Then law become complex, people dodge it, then you write new laws and people dodge them... Then a guy gets out of prison because a fax-machine ran out of paper which compromised the procedure. This is caused by too many laws, and judges who don't judge but are tasked to merely apply the law.
"There are representative democracies that don't have the issues we see in others": the Swiss are a striking example of more direct democracy... but yet, the internet would allow us to go much further. See how people are passionate about change.org, even if there's no guarantee of any effect? Imagine if their opinion did count!!!
"the "great country" (as a non-American living in America, I find this hilarious) was a representative democracy". I'm a non-american living abroad, but I keep in mind what America once was (my phrasing wasn't clear about the "once was" point). It's still a great country, but it's less and less free and less an less great. Hence a bit of nostalgia. If the USA falls to more government control, more enslavement of the people, less freedom, then a star goes dark... and the USA is no more.
I don't suggest we should remove all law-makers, but most decision-makers. That's a huge difference.
"more interpretation by the judicial branch": how is it a bad thing? A judge who doesn't judge but applies an algorithm instead isn't a judge to me. Funny enough, a jury is still chosen among the people, but they have to judge respect of the law, not facts, and the law is so tight (over-constrained) there's no room for judgement.
"No prejudice? no law"... "Guarantees like this are the purpose of the constitution"
The original purpose of the constitution? probably. Is it working? No, in a great extent. A "no prejudice no law" would forbid surveillance of the whole people.
"Less freedom for the People? no law": read it in the context of prejudice. Prejudice is what makes law necessary because it must be repaired, punished, and the people protected... from an individual who has caused prejudice. We could abolish most laws and there wouldn't be more prejudice, because many laws don't protect from prejudice. Lots of laws try to avoid potential prejudice (eg. drug laws to protect order) and cause more pain than gain (war on drugs! a war doesn't protect order, it causes chaos).
As long as you pay people to write new laws, guess what: they write new laws, more is better for them. Then law become complex, people dodge it, then you write new laws and people dodge them... Then a guy gets out of prison because a fax-machine ran out of paper which compromised the procedure. This is caused by too many laws, and judges who don't judge but are tasked to merely apply the law.
"There are representative democracies that don't have the issues we see in others": the Swiss are a striking example of more direct democracy... but yet, the internet would allow us to go much further. See how people are passionate about change.org, even if there's no guarantee of any effect? Imagine if their opinion did count!!!
"the "great country" (as a non-American living in America, I find this hilarious) was a representative democracy". I'm a non-american living abroad, but I keep in mind what America once was (my phrasing wasn't clear about the "once was" point). It's still a great country, but it's less and less free and less an less great. Hence a bit of nostalgia. If the USA falls to more government control, more enslavement of the people, less freedom, then a star goes dark... and the USA is no more.
I bet in a few years most countries will simply follow China and make it illegal not to own/use "closed" devices that are not accessible for the government. 1984 was harmless compared to what is already here and what is coming.
FYI man, alright. You could sit at home, and do like absolutely nothing, and your name goes through like 17 computers a day. 1984? Yeah right, man. That's a typo. Orwell is here now. He's livin' large. We have no names, man. No names. We are nameless!
Can I score a fry?
The Germans will be safe for a good few years yet. Their government will only be able to do this when everyone who lived under the Stasi dies and can no longer vote.
Proposing such a drastic law should somehow be not so easy to do. Sure, this proposal won‘t go through as is but what ever „weaker version“ of it will come in a few months will therefore sound much more sensible and might go through.. these „tactics“ make me really angry..
Folks, don't despair; always look at the bright side. They're still years away from backdoor access to every German person!
Never expected this from Germany.But we should wait to see if this is really considered by the governament as viable or not.
The good thing about Germany is that there is a healthy separation of powers and the Constitutional Court will never allow this, not even coming from the executive. If that step fails, there is still the German people who would never allow this to get approved.
Or at least this is my intuition of what will possibly happen.
Or at least this is my intuition of what will possibly happen.
Bet ob the court because german people has been quite toothless in the last decade
> The Constitutional Court
... found the government's "propaganda outlets" supporting mandatory fees which are a bunch of times over the European average not disagreeable, for one example. Abuse of surveillance could be used to set the court under pressure, eventually.
... found the government's "propaganda outlets" supporting mandatory fees which are a bunch of times over the European average not disagreeable, for one example. Abuse of surveillance could be used to set the court under pressure, eventually.
There is another big Risk to this point. If you have Back Doors everybody can use it not just government
The Germans always were anally fixated.
The guy says unconstitutional shit like this every other week. It'll be shot down by our supreme court for sure, if it's even taken into consideration in the first place.