In order to monitor encrypted communication, investigators will in future, according to the Senate draft and the Änderungen der Abgeordneten, not only be allowed to hack IT systems but also to secretly enter suspects’ apartments.
If remote installation of the spyware is technically not possible, paragraph 26 explicitly allows investigators to “secretly enter and search premises” in order to gain access to IT systems. In fact, Berlin is thus legalizing – as Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania did before – state intrusion into private apartments in order to physically install Trojans, for example via USB stick.
So what’s the threshold for this power to be used? It doesn’t actually say.
Is Heise a reliable source? There’s not much corroborating this ATM, and the legislation title returns nothing - maybe because it’s just a draft.
Edit: Also ironic that they make you sign away your full GDPR rights to view the privacy article without an account.
My offline alarm disagrees about the secret part.
We should be deeply concerned where this is heading. There will be a point in history, where all this stuff will get abused. From biometric camera systems, state trojans or Palantir-like software.
Only problem is: We seem to keep voting for governments pushing all this BS. Why?
Morbid question: some people have large dogs, often willing and more than capable of guarding and defending the house.
Probability says it is bound to happen an event where:
- the dog is hurt/killed by the infiltrating people
- someone is seriously injured/killed by the dog
- the dog makes a mess of the house, either trying to scare away the intruders or hiding from them
- the people infiltrating the house leave a mess behind
Among others.
But this only serves to raise the obvious: at soke point, someone will notice and things will go wrong.
SWAT breaking in to enforce some drug law and shooting the dog is a pretty common thing in the US. They still do it. But, we’re not talking about the US, so it might be harder to just sweep that kind of thing under the rug with tough-on-crime arguments.
according to the Senate draft and the Änderungen der Abgeordneten, not only
I, too, like to teilweise Übersetzen aber dann überraschend German in the middle of the Satz
Ah, that must be the freedom we’re obliged to defend with our lives.
Germany is going back to its roots as an authoritarian state. Statsi and Gastapo would be proud.
back to its roots
Well someone has a very narrow sense of history
Germany’s government is not in a good place atm. It’s a big coalition between the center-left (SPD) and the center-right (CDU/CSU). After the previous failed coalition of even more parties.
While the far-right populists (AfD) are gaining ground.
The (previously) center-right parties are pushing hard to the right, and the center-left (Social democrats) do not want to stay behind.
This climate has already bred some pretty evil shit esp. wrt immigration, car industry, and senselessly clinging on to the USA as “our friend and ally”. Willingly rolling over whenever Donnie threatens more tariffs.
The topic of this article seems perfectly in tune with everything so far (e.g. this).
coalition of even more parties.
Even more than two?
As a Dutch person, haha. (I don’t actually mind broad coalitions though.)
Due to our 5% hurdle to even get into Bundestag there are not many parties to create coalitions with and they mostly have very different agendas.
The last government failed because one tiny party in the coalition not just refused to corporate but even sabotaged some things. There was no other party in Bundestag to work with because there were only nazis, Russian puppets and the CDU/CSU who were in full opposition mode.
I also believe it would be better to remove the 5% hurdle so there is more to choose from and smaller parties have a chance to gain traction. People would not need to vote for the „lesser evil“, they could just vote exactly what they want.
100%. Every now and again people keep bringing up the idea of introducing a hurdle in the Netherlands as well, and I’m always strongly opposed. It doesn’t even do what people expect it to, and there are other ways to achieve that goal too.
Every now and again they also bring up the idea of introducing a bigger hurdle in Portugal.
I believe the only ones who profit from this hurdle are the big parties. It’s better for them if there is less choice. I hope for you that it never gets introduced in the Netherlands.
Exactly, and the worst thing is that that’s kind of the point: people don’t like there being so many little parties. So apparently then it’s OK to take away the vote of people who vote for them?
Yes. It was called the Jamaica coalition because of the 3 colors representing 3 parties: black=CxU, yellow=liberals, green=Green, but the SPD (Olaf Scholz) is missing in this picture? I’m confused now.brainfartGerman government has been very confusing during the past years, and who benefits? Fucking fascists.
The last one was the traffic light coalition, right? Red (SPD), yellow (FDP) and green (Greens)?
deleted by creator
Stasi 2.0
Only stupider.
If i don’t exit my home then it’s not secret anymore
🤣
Yeah, because putting in a USB stick is a real solution for a somewhat secure system and not just media bullshit referenced to justify invading private homes at will.
Usbguard, locked bios, and disallowing booting from USB. Good luck to them I guess.
Locked bios doesn’t mean anything if they have physical access to your PC.
They can reset the bios with a jumper, replace your bootloader, forensically image your hard drives and wait for you to boot and unlock your drives so they can grab the keys from memory.
A second trip could install a rootkit/malware because they know your encryption keys.
Not that I even remotely believe the “nothing to hide nothing to fear” rhetoric, but given the depth of your assumptions, why would the police bother doing all that to a person they don’t have strong suspicions of? Because doing all that takes time.
It’s not that they wouldn’t want to supervise literally everyone for no reason at all, but unless you’re running a drug market from your pc or are a pathetic pedophile with cp, I find it kinda hard to believe the cops would bother.
(And I’m an actual professional criminal, but in another country.)
For all of America’s faults, keeping jackboots scared to do something like this is one thing we got right.
Yeah, like ICE is too afraid to do their jobs because everyone is armed.
I am not targeted by them. But I live in constitutional carry state. God should send a need to be afraid.
Every day I understand better why americans need the right to own firearms. Soon we europeans will need it too.
Try living in Canada. In Canada pre-2020 the gun laws were a lot looser than you think. In just 5 years they’ve banned so many firearms (and none have been turned in yet. Not a single rifle) that it is actually significantly stricter than the UK. This is not something I or anyone expected to happen so rapidly. The Liberal party is also not doing anything to endear me to them. They’re still trying to work with Trump and Mark Carney is trying to cut deals with him, and the housing crisis in Canada is becoming increasingly insane and they’re still favoring landlords and investment property guys over tenants. This is in addition to cutting public health and funnelling public funds to private clinics.
Also the ‘experts’ in charge of banning firearms in Canada have no knowledge of either firearms or even of the current laws or how they work. This is the exact scenario that happened in the early 90s when they drew up a list of firearms to ban that included the G11 for some reason. The H&K G11 was an experimental assault rifle being developed in Germany at that time that never went into production and the project was cancelled. the only examples of the gun are still in state armouries or on display somewhere. Even right now their wording indicates that they are at absolute war with shooting sports of all kind. They want to ban any carbine or rifle in a pistol caliber because it is ‘unsuitable for hunting’, or treating firearms that are semi-auto versions of, or styled after, submachine guns, even if they are internally very different, like they were fully automatic and military weapons.
They stop just short of saying ‘we want to destroy sport shooting, and would like to shut down all ranges and disallow shooting firearms on private property’.
It’s a lot harder to get it back after you already gave it away.
Wow. I hope people are pushing back on this. Completely outrageous.
As long as they can only do it with a court order and for just that specific instance (no dragnet bulk surveillance shit like in the UK and US) just like they would any other wiretap, then I don’t see the problem.
The scary authoritarian shit is the bulk surveillance without Court oversight such as in Chat Control.
The same way that Patriot Act activity was required to get court orders and be specific instances with no bulk surveillance?
FISA warrants became rubber stamps and with no penalties from violations, it became “legal” authoritarian police state bullshit.
I don’t really count special surveillance courts with closed door sessions and secret rulings as Judicial oversight - that shit is a theater of justice meant to disguise authoritarianism as Democracy, not real Justice with all the requirements of it.
So, does this one have real Judicial oversight or is it something that operates without court oversight or under the “oversight” of special courts setup for the purpose of whitewashing bulk surveillance that don’t actually operate like real ones?
