Slashdot Mirror

And hate speech. If Twitter was German he would be prison already.

Note that as usual Wikipedia is a poor-quality source with undisclosed bias. Here is the text of the law.

Why? It sounds to me like Wikipedia has got a pretty good translation of the gist of that law which is the paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2, the rest of what you linked to is mostly a discussion of what kind of jail sentences you are liable to get. My German may be a bit rusty but the Wikipedia translation is pretty accurate:

130
Volksverhetzung

Whosoever, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace:
1. incites hatred against a national, racial, religious group or a group defined by their ethnic origins, against segments of the population or individuals because of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or

2. assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning an aforementioned group, segments of the population or individuals because of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or segments of the population, or defaming segments of the population,

Where please, is the undisclosed bias in that literal translation of the Volksverhetzungs law? Or, for that matter, the discussion of the above text on the Wiki page which sounds pretty dispassionate to me? I keep hearing you alt-right trolls dropping drive-by accusations like this but just for once I'd like to hear one of you justify it.

Note that as usual Wikipedia is a poor-quality source with undisclosed bias. Here is the text of the law.

Article 16 paragraph 2 of the German constitution states:

Kein Deutscher darf an das Ausland ausgeliefert werden. Durch Gesetz kann eine abweichende Regelung für Auslieferungen an einen Mitgliedstaat der Europäischen Union oder an einen internationalen Gerichtshof getroffen werden, soweit rechtsstaatliche Grundsätze gewahrt sind.

roughly translated (neither English nor German is my native language, so beware of mistakes):

No German may be extradicted to a foreign country. However, laws may allow for extradiction to a member state of the European Union or to an international court, as long as the fundamental requirements of a state of law and order ("Rechtsstaat") are secured.

Clearly, German nationals living in Germany won't be extradicted. They could be prosecuted in Germany, however, if it turns out they broke German law.

Much more dangerous is, by slow overtaking you're prolonging the time spent in the blind spot of the overtaken car, which is why for instance German law forbids overtaking with less than 20 km/h difference in velocity.

There is no such law.

The wording in the law (article 5 StVO) translates as "considerably faster". No numbers.

And nevertheless, the spying is illegal in the country you are spying on. The NSA doesn't violate any U.S. laws by spying on Angela Merkel, but it does violate German law (actually, it violates section 99 StGB for those wanting to look it up). And the same is true for the other direction, the BND (Bundesnachrichtendienst) spying on U.S. politicians is illegal in the U.S..

In Germany you can be punished with up to one year in prison for publishing a mugshot: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/kunsturhg/BJNR000070907.html http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/201a.html

In Germany you are allowed to take pictures of any person, you just need their permission to publish or exhibit KunstUrhG 22 with uploading usually being publication. Since 2004 you are not allowed to take pictures of people without their consent inside someones home or similar secured spaces StGB 201a. Outside these special locations you won't need a permission if people are just accessories ("Beiwerk") or part of an assembly ("Versammlung") or parade ("Aufzug") or similar KunstUrhG 23.

In Germany you are allowed to take pictures of any person, you just need their permission to publish or exhibit KunstUrhG 22 with uploading usually being publication. Since 2004 you are not allowed to take pictures of people without their consent inside someones home or similar secured spaces StGB 201a. Outside these special locations you won't need a permission if people are just accessories ("Beiwerk") or part of an assembly ("Versammlung") or parade ("Aufzug") or similar KunstUrhG 23.

In Germany you are allowed to take pictures of any person, you just need their permission to publish or exhibit KunstUrhG 22 with uploading usually being publication. Since 2004 you are not allowed to take pictures of people without their consent inside someones home or similar secured spaces StGB 201a. Outside these special locations you won't need a permission if people are just accessories ("Beiwerk") or part of an assembly ("Versammlung") or parade ("Aufzug") or similar KunstUrhG 23.

No, I didn't "paste the wrong law". That is one of the relevant laws. Similar exceptions exist in other laws:

http://dejure.org/gesetze/GG/10.html

http://bundesrecht.juris.de/g10_2001/BJNR125410001.html#BJNR125410001BJNG000300000

Note that exceptions can be justified under "Volksverhetzung", which is such a vague concept that a lot of politically unpopular speech might fall under these exceptions.

If you want to claim that "in germany EMails can not be read without a judge giving a warrant first", you have to justify that statement based on law, and ... good luck trying.

It is more or less the same like in the US. You have to convince a judge to give a search warrant.

You're from Germany. While Germany does have search warrants for some online searches, they are required in fewer circumstances than in the US. In the WikiLeaks/Twitter case, a warrant would likely not be required and targets would not be informed.

In fact, the German government has been trying to give police and prosecutors direct electronic access to these records.

Some of the retention laws have declared unconstitutional, but that's because some details of the German laws went too far. Germany is still required to implement the EU directive, and the government is going to do that.

The situation elsewhere in Europe is similar or worse for the most part.

Look at paragraphs 112, 113, 160, 161 here: http://dejure.org/gesetze/TKG/113.html

1. The network was in fact not open. It was secured with WPA1 and a default password (source, German)

"Somit ist auch noch einmal zu Betonen: Es ging in der Entscheidung nicht um ein vollständig ungesichertes WLAN! Der BGH hat also nicht über ein offenes WLAN verhandelt, wie lange fälschlicherweise berichtet wurde. Vielmehr ging es ganz allgemein um die bedeutsame Frage, welche Sicherungspflichten die Betreiber von WLAN allgemein trifft."

2. The 100 euro is not for copyright infringement, but rather it seems that in Germany the reciever of a DMCA-like notice is liable for up to 100 euro unless they can either a) Point the blame to someone else or b) Pass some standard of having done everything reasonable to avoid damage. That's at least how I read the law:

" 97a Abmahnung

(1) Der Verletzte soll den Verletzer vor Einleitung eines gerichtlichen Verfahrens auf Unterlassung abmahnen und ihm Gelegenheit geben, den Streit durch Abgabe einer mit einer angemessenen Vertragsstrafe bewehrten Unterlassungsverpflichtung beizulegen. Soweit die Abmahnung berechtigt ist, kann der Ersatz der erforderlichen Aufwendungen verlangt werden.

(2) Der Ersatz der erforderlichen Aufwendungen für die Inanspruchnahme anwaltlicher Dienstleistungen für die erstmalige Abmahnung beschränkt sich in einfach gelagerten Fällen mit einer nur unerheblichen Rechtsverletzung außerhalb des geschäftlichen Verkehrs auf 100 Euro."

The key sentence here is "Soweit die Abmahnung berechtigt ist, kann der Ersatz der erforderlichen Aufwendungen verlangt werden." which translates to something like "When the warning is justified, compensation for the relevant expenses can be demanded." The second caps it to 100 euro for simple cases.

Let's take a look at the Grundgesetz...

Grundgesetz, Artikel 5:

(1) Everybody has the right to express and distribute his opinion in word, writing or picture, and also to inform himself from any public source. The freedom of press and the freedom of reporting through broadcasting and movies is assured. No censorship takes place.

(2) These rights are limited only by the general laws for protection of the youth and protection of the personal honor.

(3) Art and science, research and teaching are free. The freedom of teaching does not release from the faith to the constitution.

(IANAL, but it beats Babelfish)

If you understand any German, here is the original law:

Urheberrechtsgesetz

Relevant for us are Sections 31-44, which deal with the Usage Rights (Nutzungsrechten).

31 states:

(1) Der Urheber kann einem anderen das Recht einräumen, das Werk auf einzelne oder alle Nutzungsarten zu nutzen (Nutzungsrecht). Das Nutzungsrecht kann als einfaches oder ausschließliches Recht sowie räumlich, zeitlich oder inhaltlich beschränkt eingeräumt werden.

(1) The Author can transfer the Right to use the Work for a single usage or all usages (Usage Right). The Usage Right can be transferred as simple right or exclusive right, and it can be limited locally, timely or with regard to contents.

Also: here's a question... do german history books not have pictures of swastikas in them? Does this law not also make any such book illegal? It's interesting to note that the German wikipedia is clearly not following any such proscription.

German law includes exceptions for the use of symbols of banned organizations in education, science, research, news coverage and art (Â86 StGB, (3)). So history books and educational sites like Wikipedia are allowed to use these symbols (as long as they don't use them in totally different contexts). IMHO, the use of swastikas in video games should be allowed, as games are art, just like movies (Indiana Jones, Inglorious Basterds, etc..). But not everything that's allowed by the law is allowed by the BPjM.

In Germany, child pornography is defined as pornographic material with children of up to 14 years having or witnessing sex. This applies to real and realistic descriptions in any form, including textual descriptions and drawings. Material concerning teenagers less than 18 years old is called youth pornography.

http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/184b.html

No, it isn't. There is an exemption in the german penal code for "lawful public or professional purposes" for posessing child pornography (roughly translated). If you understand german, you can have a look at This page; the "subsection" ("Absatz") i am talking about is (5).

http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/202c.html

  202c
Vorbereiten des Ausspähens und Abfangens von Daten
-> Preparation to spy out or intercept data.

(1) Wer eine Straftat nach 202a oder 202b vorbereitet, indem er
-> Anyone preparing a criminal offense according to 202a or 202b by ...

        1. Passwörter oder sonstige Sicherungscodes, die den Zugang zu Daten ( 202a Abs. 2) ermöglichen, oder
                            -> collecting passwords or similar security codes, which allow access to data ( 202a / 2), or

        2. Computerprogramme, deren Zweck die Begehung einer solchen Tat ist, herstellt, sich oder einem anderen verschafft, verkauft, einem anderen überlässt, verbreitet oder sonst zugänglich macht, wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu einem Jahr oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.
                            -> produe, supply or sell Computer Software with aims at perpetrating such offenses, is punishable by one one year in prison or a fine.

Where 202a/b basically define the crime "getting at data you are not supposed to get at"

I think the real problem is the first sentence "Anyone preparing a criminal offense according to 202a or 202b by..." which creates a circular dependency. I really don't understand even from the German text if that means that 202c 1/2 only comes into effect if you really are preparing to actually hack someone specific (202a/b) of if it's the other way around.

I don't give that law a lot of time before it is changed. (At least I hope so)

AFAIK, Wolfenstein 3D wasn't banned because it "glorifies Nazis", but because Nazi symbols are displayed.
In Return To Castle Wolfenstein, the swastika was changed to a "Wolfenstein-Eagle", others are missing and names were changed.
The display of Nazi symbols in Germany is a crime according to StGB 86a http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/86a.html and can get you in jail for up to 3 years.
Even the crossed out swastika buttons, which punks usually wear, caused problems about a year ago, although the Federal Court Of Justice has deemed them legal as of March 15 2007 according to http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakenkreuz#Juristisch e_Auseinandersetzung_um_Anti-Nazi-Symbole

Ok, as there seem to be some open questions about the german law governing child pornography, I will try to explain it a little bit... Child pornography is a criminal offence according to 184b of the german penal code (Strafgesetzbuch).

According to 184b Stgb. it is forbidden to distribute, display, present or make accessible child pornography (punishable by up to 5 years of prison).

It is also forbidden to procure or to own child pornography (punishable by up to two years of prison). You don't even have to be aware that you own child pornography to be punished for it. There have been cases of people being convicted fo owning child pornography that have tried to fight agains it.

Child pornography includes everything that deals with the abuse of children (anyone under the age of 14 in germany); that means that it is forbidden for underage avatars to have sex with each other in germany (and it doesn't matter if the people behind it are adult or not). Stories of children (under 14) having sex are also forbidden.

Linden labs has to take actions against this, otherwise they might be punished themselves (for distributing and making accessible child pornography). And germany is an important market for linden labs; there are more germans in second life than u.s. residents (about 209,000 germany logged in to SL in april 2007 compared to 207,000 americans).

Furry sex is also forbidden in germany; according to 184a Stgb. the distribution, exhibition, etc. of pornography with animals is forbidden (it doesn't matter if they are virtual or not; it doesn't even matter if it are real animals or only fantasy ones). But it is not forbidden to own animal or to procure animal porn. But linden labs might be punished for making it accessible.

Ok, as there seem to be some open questions about the german law governing child pornography, I will try to explain it a little bit... Child pornography is a criminal offence according to 184b of the german penal code (Strafgesetzbuch).

According to 184b Stgb. it is forbidden to distribute, display, present or make accessible child pornography (punishable by up to 5 years of prison).

It is also forbidden to procure or to own child pornography (punishable by up to two years of prison). You don't even have to be aware that you own child pornography to be punished for it. There have been cases of people being convicted fo owning child pornography that have tried to fight agains it.

Child pornography includes everything that deals with the abuse of children (anyone under the age of 14 in germany); that means that it is forbidden for underage avatars to have sex with each other in germany (and it doesn't matter if the people behind it are adult or not). Stories of children (under 14) having sex are also forbidden.

Linden labs has to take actions against this, otherwise they might be punished themselves (for distributing and making accessible child pornography). And germany is an important market for linden labs; there are more germans in second life than u.s. residents (about 209,000 germany logged in to SL in april 2007 compared to 207,000 americans).

Furry sex is also forbidden in germany; according to 184a Stgb. the distribution, exhibition, etc. of pornography with animals is forbidden (it doesn't matter if they are virtual or not; it doesn't even matter if it are real animals or only fantasy ones). But it is not forbidden to own animal or to procure animal porn. But linden labs might be punished for making it accessible.

Well this one for example:
http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/166.html

But there are more. I say freedom of speech is better protected in the US than in Germany. But Germany has better privacy rights.

(1) Wer unbefugt einer anderen Person eine Mitteilung über Tatsachen macht, die dem Post- oder Fernmeldegeheimnis unterliegen und die ihm als Inhaber oder Beschäftigtem eines Unternehmens bekanntgeworden sind, das geschäftsmäßig Post- oder Telekommunikationsdienste erbringt, wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu fünf Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.

I can't give a you a URL to the specific case. The source is a friend of mine who's with the police. He was directly involved in the investigation.

But if you can read german: http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/184b.html
I can't translate it all (as you can guess english is not my first language and the formulations in german law texts are quite complicated) but the headline "Verbreitung, Erwerb und Besitz kinderpornographischer Schriften" translates to "distribution, acquisition and posession of child pornography" so posession is clearly a crime which can be punished with up to two years prison

Actually, theft can get you up to five years. But yes, anyone who steals some chewing gum (a regular amount, that is - not an entire truckload) won't get a prison sentence, much less one of two years (and if you did, you could fight the verdict as being not appropriate for the offense). In fact, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't even get a trial - it's just not worth it.

Ironically enough, Germany is one country where the people may successfully fight this new law (and European lawmaking in general) on constitutional grounds.

The German constitution grants the EU legislative rights in Art. 23. The constitution was changed to make this possible, also perfectly legal in accordance to Art. 79(1), which asks for 2/3-majorites of both chambers to change the constitution.

Article 146 of the "Grundgesetz" stipulates that the Grundgesetz may only be changed via a decision by the people (referendum),

This is one common but yet completely wrong misconception. All the article says is that the constitution is superseded at the very moment that another one is chosen by the german people - which is completely redundant since a new constitution always supersedes the old one.

which did not happen when the Grundgesetz was subordinated under the European laws (specifically the passus that European right overrides national right). This is a non-trivial change in constitution which was not approved by the people (because the people was not asked!).

It was trivial since no fundamental changes to legislative, jurisdiction or executive were made. Furthermore even it it wasn't trivial Art. 79 grants the chambers full rights of changes, as long as they are in accordance of Art. 79 (3) which makes changes to the democratic principles of Art. 1 and Art. 20 illegal, in which case you would have the right to resistance acc. to Art. 20(4).

Oh and thank you for not bringing up the tale that the whole existence of the FRG was illegitime since the former constitution of the Third Reich never "officially" ceased to exist and no "official" peace agreement was made. Supporters of this theory apparently want Hitlers signature on a revocation of some sort to believe otherwise.

Is it that hard to read the german penal code once in a lifetime?