Slashdot Mirror


Bavarian Police Seeking Skype Trojan Informant

Andreaskem writes "Bavarian police searched the home of the spokesman for the German Pirate Party (Piratenpartei Deutschland) looking for an informant who leaked information about a government Trojan used to eavesdrop on Skype conversations. (The link is a Google translation of the German original.) There is a high probability that the Trojan is used illegally. A criminal law specialist said, 'The Bavarian authorities worked on the Trojan without a legitimate basis and now try to silence critics.' The informant need not worry since 'every information that could be used to identify him' is protected against unauthorized access by strong encryption. The Trojan is supposedly capable of eavesdropping on Skype conversations and obtaining technical details of the Skype client being used. It is deployed by e-mail or in place by the police. A Pirate Party spokesman said, 'Some of our officials seem to want to install the Big Brother state without the knowledge of the public.'"

252 comments

  1. Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by gnick · · Score: 5, Funny

    Who would have thought that even a country like Germany could deteriorate into a police state?

    I kid, I kid... I'm in the US...

    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    1. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by jgarra23 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Certainly not the Brits!

    2. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by johnlcallaway · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That was my first thought. When you outlaw knives, only outlaws will have knives. Then baseball bats. Then rolling pins. Then bare hands.

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    3. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by rodgster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would not be surprised if the NSA has something similar at work here in the US.

      --
      Who will guard the guards?
    4. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Heh. Maybe this is what it'll take to make the general public (especially the baby boomers whose parents fought in WWII, or made other sacrifices) aware of how bad the rights deterioration in the US is.

      When the Germans do it, it's scary (to a lot of people). When the US does it, is it not also scary?

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    5. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Daimanta · · Score: 4, Funny

      `Then bare hands.

      Hello, I am Leopold II and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    6. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by F-3582 · · Score: 1

      Who said that Bavaria was Germany?

    7. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by koh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since the US government is already tapping your landlines, I would not be very surprised either.

      --
      Karma cannot be described by words alone.
    8. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Flyers2391 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      When you outlaw knives, only outlaws will have knives

      I never understood this argument, it seems inherently erroneous ...
      for example, "if you outlaw murder, only outlaws will have murdered" were people using this argument before?

    9. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would not be surprised if the NSA has something similar at work here in the US.

      In the US, the NSA is the phone company.

      AT&T: You're world delivered, to the NSA!

    10. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by gnick · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes. I fully realize that Bavaria is just a German state - It's actually very nice and the only part of Germany that I've been able to visit. But it's funnier to pick on the whole country even if it's inaccurate. (Although if this had gone on for some time, yielded results, and was not noticed, do you really think that it would have been contained to Bavaria?)

      Isn't there a nit somewhere that needs picking?

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    11. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by plague3106 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The statement is true. Only people that choose to obey the law to begin with will obey a law banning knives. Those that choose to break the law won't mind breaking another one as they mug you with their illegal knife.

      This leads to the unexpected result of handgun murders going up after handguns are banned. The "bad guys" know YOU won't have a gun, because they are illegal, and the police can't protect them...

    12. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by jack2000 · · Score: 0

      It's true, in Japan where there is epic Gun control, the rules can do nothing to stop those bent on breaking the law. They WILL have guns, and you the law-abiding citizen will be screwed!

    13. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      does that mean that we shouldn't have laws? The reason laws exist is not to stop law abiding citizens from doing things, it is to prosecute people who break laws.

    14. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How will they seek to outlaw the tools of prostitution? (pun intended)

    15. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by PitaBred · · Score: 0

      It means we shouldn't have laws that prevent the law-abiding public from protecting themselves, since the police obviously are not there for that purpose.

      But you probably knew that, and were just trolling. Still, it's a common enough fallacy that I had to refute it.

    16. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bit of history may be in order here:

      Bavaria has always been a bit of a special case,
      resentful to this day about how they were made to become part of Germany in 1871 (as Southerners will no doubt appreciate), reiterating this point in 1949 - the new constitution not being federal enough for there liking, they where the only state to vote against it - and ever since playing the regional vs central power card wherever possible.

      Which is why in the late 1970s, for instance, Bavarian police (police, like education, is a state, not a federal matter) could be, and were, given the right to shoot with the intent to kill, at a time when terrorist hysteria was rife (Bavarians had long been in favor of reintroducing capital punishment, though much to their chagrin the federal constitution prohibits this, so this was a way of reintroducing it by the back door).

      Anyway, they are a weird lot, but they sure know something about brewing drinkable beer ... now why can't they just stick to that?

      Still, there's worse places than that in Europe - try France: your civil rights are close to nil, and their beers are crap, too, most of its inhabitants smell awful, but the food's great ... now why can't they just stick to that?

      But then France has been a bit of a special case for much longer than Bavaria - they still revere Napoleon, go figure ... ("I will return in five days. Stop washing.")

    17. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by F-3582 · · Score: 1

      I wasn't nitpicking. Many people wouldn't even consider Bavaria a part of Germany, because despite being the richest state in Germany, it's also a state being ruled by an ultra-conservative religious right-wing party (called CSU) infamous for their war on violent games for almost fifty years, now. And I think that Lederhosn look just stupid. You could probably compare Bavaria to Texas in some ways. Filled with rednecks.

    18. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      >When the Germans do it, it's scary (to a lot of people).

      It's not 'the Germans', it's the Bavarian Police, they're more like a local LAPD.

    19. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Larryish · · Score: 2, Funny

      it is called svchost.exe

    20. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Thomasje · · Score: 1, Interesting

      This leads to the unexpected result of handgun murders going up after handguns are banned.

      I guess that explains why there are so many more handgun homicides in Europe than in the U.S... Oh, wait.

    21. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by operagost · · Score: 1

      What were the handgun-related homicides before putting bans in place? It's not a comparison of USA versus Europe, but of europe pre-ban to Europe post-ban. After all, many lawless countries have anti-firearm laws on the books-- if you want to play with red herrings.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    22. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by dougisfunny · · Score: 1

      A gun is a tool. Guns are not evil. They can be used to do evil things, so they are outlawed because it makes it easier to do evil things.

      You can say the same about knives. They make it easier to kill people as well.

      Or pencils. Or cars. They're all just tools. That make it easier to kill people or do bad things.

      He is raising the point, that someone intending to break the law in an act such as a mugging, they wouldn't care if they were breaking another law at the same time.

      If knives/guns are outlawed, you can't use a knife/gun to defend yourself from someone attempting to mug you using a knife/gun.

      --
      This is not the funny you're looking for.
    23. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1

      svchost.exe is the best name for executables of do-it-yourself keyloggers such as this one.

    24. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by gnick · · Score: 1

      I just got back from Lubbock, TX on Monday - Those people are damned proud of being ultra-conservative religious right-wing rednecks. But the image you just gave me of a TX family portrait with everyone wearing Lederhosn was absolutely priceless.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    25. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When all weapons are outlawed Vaseline is at an all time high.

    26. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not sure it means that, either.

      The value of the public in their ability to protect themselves (especially when weighed against the ability of police to protect society, which is not the same thing as the ability to protect individuals, and the rate of crime) is not necessarily worth permitting people to utilize specific methods or tools.

      For example, if we decided that it was very practical for people to protect their lives by equipping themselves with thermonuclear destruct devices activated by the lack of a heartbeat (which would probably solve all murders that weren't started out as suicide missions), the advantage, i.e., the protection of individual lives, would have to be strictly weighed against the risk to society in general.

      Laws that prevent people from 'protecting themselves' serve the same purpose as any other law; they weigh the advantage to individuals against the advantage to society. That is the fallacy of the 'the police will not protect you' saw- the police were never intended to protect you. Their purpose is to protect society, and your life, in the grand scheme of society, is not very valuable. If you happen to lose it because the law prevented you from protecting yourself, that's really just tough luck.

      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    27. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 1

      Society doesn't care about your life. Society also doesn't care about your ability to use tools. Society wants to protect itself, and if that means you lose your life because you can't use a tool, that's just tough luck.

      Now, whether or not there is a greater value to society that comes from banning guns is a totally separate question, but is really the only relevant one.

      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    28. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Firefalcon · · Score: 1

      So, carrying as knife makes you safer?

      Not according to http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jun/06/qanda.ukcrime :

      "Many people carry knives for self-defence, despite Youth Justice Board research indicating that 65% of young people carrying knives have had them used against them."

    29. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1
      Gun control really only works to lessen crime in certain specific ways -- if it materially decreases the number of guns in circulation (which is unlikely, as they're a durable good and easy to conceal) thus making them less available to criminals, or reduces the likelihood of death in crimes of passion, where lessened availability might increase the percentage of victims who survive a murder attempt because of the lesser efficiency of a blunt instrument vs. a firearm.

      It's certain that someone with criminal intent will not balk at breaking another law, but gun control would drop firearm-based fatalities by some small percentage. You might be part of that small percentage, so it can still be rather important.

      For the rabid gun keepers out there who misuse or play with these things at home, well, think of it as evolution in action.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    30. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Danse · · Score: 1

      For example, if we decided that it was very practical for people to protect their lives by equipping themselves with thermonuclear destruct devices activated by the lack of a heartbeat (which would probably solve all murders that weren't started out as suicide missions), the advantage, i.e., the protection of individual lives, would have to be strictly weighed against the risk to society in general.

      Did you really just make that argument?

      Laws that prevent people from 'protecting themselves' serve the same purpose as any other law; they weigh the advantage to individuals against the advantage to society. That is the fallacy of the 'the police will not protect you' saw- the police were never intended to protect you. Their purpose is to protect society, and your life, in the grand scheme of society, is not very valuable. If you happen to lose it because the law prevented you from protecting yourself, that's really just tough luck.

      And in the grand scheme of things, people having the right to protect themselves and their family seems to have a generally positive effect on the rate of violent crime, at least in the U.S. Not all countries are the same, so if you think that legalizing guns will cause your citizens to go on killing rampages, then by all means, don't do that.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    31. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Arthur+B. · · Score: 1

      You got it the other way around... it's not about "permitting" people to carry weapon. As long as you do not assault anyone, nobody has the right to tell you what you may or may not carry, even if they're wearing a colorful uniform.

      --
      \u262D = \u5350
    32. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Arthur+B. · · Score: 1

      Society doesn't exist, it has no will, no values, no interest, only individuals are real. The whole idea of "value to society" is simply meaningless.

      You are advocating pure totalitarian collectivism, an ideology responsible for the death of hundred of million of people during this century. Muse upon it.

      --
      \u262D = \u5350
    33. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by dontmakemethink · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A gun is a tool. Guns are not evil. They can be used to do evil things, so they are outlawed because it makes it easier to do evil things.

      Yeah yeah yeah... "Guns don't kill people, people kill people..." It's ignorance and intolerance that kills people, and access to guns perpetuates it. As long as it is in such abundance, guns should not be available to those that practice it.

      You can say the same about knives. They make it easier to kill people as well.

      Or pencils. Or cars. They're all just tools. That make it easier to kill people or do bad things.

      Buying a box of pencils doesn't require a willingness to do harm to someone. Chances are those who buy AK47's have plans to use them for something other than a prop in a school play. You must not have seen Bowling For Columbine, where a kid that was shot by another kid confronted Walmart for selling the shooter the ammunition. Try telling their parents that enlightened comparison with pencils.

      He is raising the point, that someone intending to break the law in an act such as a mugging, they wouldn't care if they were breaking another law at the same time.

      But how many muggings with guns would not have happened without the guns? You can't say that every one of them would have happened with knives instead. You can hold up 10 people at once with a gun. Try that with a knife. Access to guns enables crimes, which creates situations where the criminals would rather injure or kill victims or police officers rather than face a substantial jail sentence. Most gun-toting muggers would shoot a cop just to hide the fact that they had the gun.

      If knives/guns are outlawed, you can't use a knife/gun to defend yourself from someone attempting to mug you using a knife/gun.

      Get insurance, get secure plastic means of payment, give them your damned wallet, call the police. It's not worth the risk over such a relatively minor inconvenience. Credit cards can be canceled, ID can be gotten online in most cases, and cash is hardly worth carrying around anymore. Carrying weapons is no guarantee of protection, and it's a huge legal liability. If you carry a licensed handgun, fire it at a mugger for example, wing him, then the bullet carries on through a wall into a baby's crib, you might as well have stood over the crib and opened fire. Intent follows the bullet. Shooting at anything in a residential area under any circumstances is only for trained law enforcement. That's their entire purpose, so you don't have to. Buying insurance generates funds to research criminal activity and make communities safer.

      --

      War as we knew it was obsolete
      Nothing could beat complete denial
      - Emily Haines
    34. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Arthur+B. · · Score: 1

      Doesn't prove much, I think many people carrying knives do so because they know they are more prone to be attacked. Besides, it doesn't say how many times the knife was useful. If you are attacked 10 times, thwart 9 attacks thanks knife and get it used against you once, it puts you in the list of the 65%, although you benefited from the knife.

      --
      \u262D = \u5350
    35. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      If the Germans (or any non US country) has tried to pull something like this my assumption would be that they did it because the american police were already successfully doing it. That seems to be the trend with other freedom reducing government activities.

      "Hey did you hear the americans are foin this now?"
      "Ok get someone on it"

    36. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, please.

      Don't use terminology like "ultra-conservative religious right-wing party" when describing the CSU in a forum that has a large percentage of visitors from the US. That phrase means something totally different in the US than in Germany, and thus is bound to be misunderstood.

      Compared to "ultra-conservative religious right-wing" folks in the US, the CSU is a beacon of enlightenment, liberalism and tolerance (which only sounds so good because we are comparing it now to true, hard core "ultra-conservative religious right-wing" people here in the US).

    37. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Thomasje · · Score: 1

      What were the handgun-related homicides before putting bans in place? It's not a comparison of USA versus Europe, but of europe pre-ban to Europe post-ban. After all, many lawless countries have anti-firearm laws on the books-- if you want to play with red herrings.

      Feel free to stop speculating and start posting some actual statistics. Something that would actually back up the "This leads to the unexpected result of handgun murders going up after handguns are banned" comment that I was responding to in the first place.
      I guess you're suggesting that Europe was even safer before banning/regulating handguns? I'm open-minded, but unsubstantiated claims like the above are not terribly convincing on their own.

    38. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by SupremoMan · · Score: 1

      You don't have to outlaw guns to prosecute people for killing someone with a gun. Just like you don't have to outlaw cars so you can prosecute people for drunk driving into pedestrians. Make better laws.

    39. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by SupremoMan · · Score: 1

      Here is something your smart ass probably didn't know: if you have no access to a gun you can still kill someone! Wow, what a shocker!

    40. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Thomasje · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Here is something your smart ass probably didn't know: if you have no access to a gun you can still kill someone! Wow, what a shocker!

      Thank you for pointing that out. You're absolutely right; I had no idea that it is possible to kill someone without having access to a gun.
      Still curious how banning handguns would cause the rate of handgun homicides to increase. Please feel free to enlighten my not-so-smart ass.

    41. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by myowntrueself · · Score: 2, Funny

      For example, if we decided that it was very practical for people to protect their lives by equipping themselves with thermonuclear destruct devices activated by the lack of a heartbeat

      Please, nothing so complex.

      A thermonuclear device mounted on a motorcycle sidecar will do me *just* fine, thanks. Glass knives are optional.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    42. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 1

      Did you really just make that argument?

      Turn in your geek card, please. Anyway, yes, I did. Because that's the point of examples- they tend to exaggerate in order to draw out the differences.

      And in the grand scheme of things, people having the right to protect themselves and their family seems to have a generally positive effect on the rate of violent crime, at least in the U.S. Not all countries are the same, so if you think that legalizing guns will cause your citizens to go on killing rampages, then by all means, don't do that.

      People have always had a common-law right to protect themselves, and I know of no jurisdiction in the US or anywhere else for that matter that removes such a right (despite the fact that such rights tend not to be written down anywhere).

      But so what? You don't need a gun to protect yourself.

      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    43. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 1

      You got it the other way around... it's not about "permitting" people to carry weapon. As long as you do not assault anyone, nobody has the right to tell you what you may or may not carry, even if they're wearing a colorful uniform.

      All rights not explicitly granted to you are withheld to the sovereign body.

      A hint: That sovereign body is not the individual.

      I didn't get it wrong, you got it very wrong. In some places, that would be a lethal mistake if you tried to exercise your 'right' to carry whatever you wanted.

      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    44. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Society doesn't exist, it has no will, no values, no interest, only individuals are real. The whole idea of "value to society" is simply meaningless.

      Society most certainly 'exists', it may be a mirror of the collective will of the people who create it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

      Imagine 'society' being a giant voting bloc comprised of everybody. If you were to take a vote of 5000 people, how many of them would vote to kill one of their number rather than half? Almost all of them. If that means that individuals must die, so be it.

      You are advocating pure totalitarian collectivism, an ideology responsible for the death of hundred of million of people during this century. Muse upon it.

      Rubbish. Totalitarian collectivism is firstly not what I was advocating, and secondly not responsible for hundreds of millions of people's deaths. I have yet to see an effectively collectivist society, and while that may seem to be a no-true-Scotsman fallacy, it may be that political theorists just have high standards.

      In any case, even if it were true, so what if hundreds of millions of people died? That's the point of totalitarian collectivism- it doesn't matter if individuals die, as long as they serve the State in doing so.

      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    45. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Danse · · Score: 1

      Turn in your geek card, please. Anyway, yes, I did. Because that's the point of examples- they tend to exaggerate in order to draw out the differences.

      I understand that, but a good example usually has something to do with the case at hand. Yours goes so far beyond exaggeration that it couldn't possibly be used to make any sort of point.

      But so what? You don't need a gun to protect yourself.

      You do if your attacker is bigger and stronger than you, or has a weapon of some sort themselves. I think you'll find those things to be pretty common in assault and home invasion cases. The attackers kind of like to have the upper hand. Home invasions are generally less common in places where people can legally own guns than they are in places where guns are banned. Again I'm speaking of the U.S. and ymmv in other countries.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    46. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by TrekkieGod · · Score: 1

      Society doesn't care about your life. Society also doesn't care about your ability to use tools. Society wants to protect itself, and if that means you lose your life because you can't use a tool, that's just tough luck.

      Now, whether or not there is a greater value to society that comes from banning guns is a totally separate question, but is really the only relevant one.

      I don't think you understand what the point of "society" is. First of all, it's not a living entity, and it doesn't like to be anthropomorphized.

      Individuals define the society they live under. It's called a social contract. As an individual, you only agree to enact a societal rule because it somehow benefits you. Otherwise, you wouldn't agree. Because people value different things, we don't always get what we want, but the whole point is individual satisfaction. If it's not working for you, and you can't get enough people to agree on a change, you should move to a society of more like-minded people. There's absolutely no reason to be part of a society that maximizes the common good unless you're part of that common good. This is also a reason for having very few laws at a large scale government level (federal) and having most of the laws on a lower scale (state, municipal). It makes it easier for you to find a society of like-minded people that fits in with your views.

      As far as the gun laws argument, as with every law, what we need to think about is the purpose of the law. If it's about cutting down on armed robberies and gun homicides, then the argument "only outlaws will have guns" is valid because anyone committing any type of robbery and homicide is already willing to break teh law, and a law against gun ownership isn't going to deter them. Instead, it prevents law abiding citizens, who would not be committing those illegal acts anyway, from owning guns, which is not the intention of the law. These people are losing their rights to perform actions that society doesn't necessary care about.

      On the other hand, if the goal is lowering gun accidents then lowering the overall number of guns in legitimate settings will work. This is a point where lots of people differ, though. People like me don't want the government protecting people from their idiocy. I don't like seat belts laws either (in fact, I like seat belt laws worse than I like gun laws. Gun accidents usually involve other people, but if you don't wear your seat belt you're only hurting yourself).

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    47. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by coolsnowmen · · Score: 1

      For the rabid gun keepers out there who misuse or play with these things at home, well, think of it as evolution in action.

      And what about for the man who wants one gun (a shotgun) to defend his family with? Not to hunt no other purpose; than self-defence.

      Also, your argument is far from complete (but I'm sure you knew that). While it addresses the means, it does not address the motive. Most crimes are crimes of opportunity. If a criminal is more certain that he can get away with a crime, [s]he is more likely to commit it. If the criminal thinks [s]he will be greeted by a double barrel, then the likelihood drops considerably.

    48. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by spidr_mnky · · Score: 1

      Try telling their parents that enlightened comparison with pencils.

      The fact that certain people wouldn't want to listen to it, or that one wouldn't want to upset them further, says nothing about the validity of the argument.

    49. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 1

      I understand that, but a good example usually has something to do with the case at hand. Yours goes so far beyond exaggeration that it couldn't possibly be used to make any sort of point.

      In what way? A nuclear destruct device is an armament designed to deter the opponent from killing you on the risk that he himself will be killed.

      A firearm, presumably, operates on much the same principles of deterrence.

      You do if your attacker is bigger and stronger than you, or has a weapon of some sort themselves.

      Really? Are you saying that a smaller person cannot overcome a larger one? That a weaker person cannot overcome a stronger one?

      I think you'll find those things to be pretty common in assault and home invasion cases. The attackers kind of like to have the upper hand. Home invasions are generally less common in places where people can legally own guns than they are in places where guns are banned. Again I'm speaking of the U.S. and ymmv in other countries.

      Despite what you might like to believe, home invasions are very rare; home invasions in which people are killed, even rarer. Murders are very rare, and are more often than not they are committed by people who know each other, by a great margin. In fact, You seem to be under the belief that in fact, attackers choose their victims; this is rarely the case.

      I am minded of a case a while back in which a man was sleeping in his house when police, serving a drug warrant, burst through his door, and he shot one of them. His excuse, of course, was that he did not realize they were police. A logical entity would conclude this belief is preposterous; the number of home invasions conducted by well-trained, squad-sized criminal elements carrying assault weapons and wearing police body armor is a ridiculously small proportion of the home invasions committed, itself a very small proportion of all crimes; and the belief at that point that such an operation would go to such great lengths in order to kill you, when there are far simpler ways to do so if one were so minded and had access to the necessary equipment (as was obviously the case) boggles the mind.

      In any case, the point of that anecdote amongst others was to indicate that there is a perenial belief extant that one is surrounded by huge masses of well-armed, well-trained, and well-armored criminals, all of whom are apparently willing to conduct offensive maneuvers that would put Delta Force to shame at the drop of a hat in order to steal what petty cash someone might happen to have on their nightstand.

      Really, the restrictions that come into play with regard to self-defense in most jurisdictions rely on the fact that statistically speaking, the vast majority of self-defense situations do not involve one being attacked by special operations commandos, and therefore the force necessary to repel the attack is in fact far more limited than most people would at first imagine. Given that individuals do not have the ability to personally enforce the law and execute individuals they believe to be criminals, (as such is an abrogation of the rights of the State), it is further unreasonable to allow, legally, individuals to wander around executing petty vagrants for such offenses as trespassing.

      One of the primary motivations for restrictions on guns, amongst the usual attempts to limit their access by the criminal element, is to stop frightened individuals from wildly overreacting as they are so prone to do.

      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    50. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by moronoxyd · · Score: 1

      "This leads to the unexpected result of handgun murders going up after handguns are banned. The "bad guys" know YOU won't have a gun, because they are illegal, and the police can't protect them..."

      Yeah, right.

      That's why there are so many more crimes involving guns in Germany as compared to, let's say, the U.S., where (almost) everybody can own a gun.

      Sorry, but that's utter crap.

    51. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by moronoxyd · · Score: 1

      If guns are outlawed, you can not as easily get a gun to kill somebody with as when they are not outlawed.

      I'm German, and I can walk down most any street in my country without have to fear murder drive-bys or gang crime.
      Plus: How often is a weapon, that is meant to be used to defend it's owner, used against him?

    52. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by oodaloop · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Buying a box of pencils doesn't require a willingness to do harm to someone.

      I have guns and I don't want to harm people. I want to protect myself and my family from those who want to harm them.

      Chances are those who buy AK47's have plans to use them for something other than a prop in a school play

      No, chances are they are buying them for defense. There are extremely large quantities of "assault rifles" in the US and extremely few illegal uses of them. People buy "assault rifles" because they are easy and fun to shoot, easy to clean and maintain, easy to buy parts for, easy to customize, and are generally inexpensive.

      But how many muggings with guns would not have happened without the guns?

      How many people could defend themselves or their family from a mugging without a gun? There are over 5 million defensive uses of legally owned firearms in the US every year.

      If you carry a licensed handgun, fire it at a mugger for example, wing him, then the bullet carries on through a wall into a baby's crib, you might as well have stood over the crib and opened fire. Intent follows the bullet.

      Um, no. Not even close. Accidental killing and murder are not the same thing. And bullets missing intended targets, going through walls, and killing other people is EXTREMELY rare. Most handgun loads will not go through brick or cinderblock walls (using your example of an outside mugging, the bullet would have to first penetrate the outside wall) and there are plenty of loads specifically designed to not go through interior drywall for just this reason.

      Shooting at anything in a residential area under any circumstances is only for trained law enforcement.

      What about former military (like myself and millions of other Americans), former law enforcement, and other trained civilians? Most states that allow concealed handgun permits require training or prior military service before issuing, so no it is not just for law enforcement.

      Buying insurance generates funds to research criminal activity and make communities safer.

      And communities that own guns have lower crime. Those that ban gans have higher crime. Been to DC recently?

      For more reading, try More Guns Less Crime. It was written by a Harvard economist who started off trying to show bad guns are and after quite thorough research using over 1,000 sources ended up buying a gun to defend his family. If you would like an argument backed by facts and not flimsy emotional appeals, read the book.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    53. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most crimes are crimes of opportunity. If a criminal is more certain that he can get away with a crime, [s]he is more likely to commit it. If the criminal thinks [s]he will be greeted by a double barrel, then the likelihood drops considerably.

      Of course that argument works in both ways. If there is an opportunity to commit a crime with a gun - because it is legal for everyone to have one and there are a lot of them around - it is more likely they are committed. It takes a lot more "criminal determination" to organize guns to commit crime if they are rare and generally outlawed, which would prevent a lot of crimes of opportunity.

    54. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      Laws that prevent people from 'protecting themselves' serve the same purpose as any other law; they weigh the advantage to individuals against the advantage to society. That is the fallacy of the 'the police will not protect you' saw- the police were never intended to protect you. Their purpose is to protect society, and your life, in the grand scheme of society, is not very valuable. If you happen to lose it because the law prevented you from protecting yourself, that's really just tough luck.

      People can not reasonably be held to be under obligation to submit to any condition of society that would cost them their life. Since weapons are easily obtained, improvised or made by criminals, all citizens have the right to any weapons that would reasonably be required for personal defence against an armed assailant.

      If "society" requires me to lay down my life to outlaws, then "society" will have to get along without my cooperation.

      For example, if we decided that it was very practical for people to protect their lives by equipping themselves with thermonuclear destruct devices activated by the lack of a heartbeat...

      Oh, I see my mistake now, the rest of us were trying to have a sensible discussion. Sorry for disturbing you. What kind of mentality does someone require to bring up nuclear weapons in a discussion of personal self defense?

      All rights not explicitly granted to you are withheld to the sovereign body.

      So I see this from another post of yours. You're either trolling or you're the type of person that makes it necessary for the rest of us to retain the right to bear arms.

    55. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by JosKarith · · Score: 1

      65%? That's gotta be bull. Or a misleading interpretation of the actual statistics - such as most of these being people who had a knife waved under their nose by somebody and _then_ started carrying so that the next time somebody pulled a knife on them they had something to defend themselves with.

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
    56. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by level4 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Buying insurance generates funds to research criminal activity and make communities safer.

      Going slightly off topic, but I've always thought it would be a very interesting experiment to force police forces to offer insurance against crime.

      Or, in a socialist country (like, I presume, we ALL are from, including you Americans) you could formalise the insurance as default compensation coverage for all citizens. If you had a violent crime perpetrated against you, you receive a sizable cash payment from the Polices' own budget. Anything to directly link police "profit" to a reduction in crime as experienced by the citizens with whose protection they are charged.

      That would seem likely to "focus their minds", especially away from nonviolent consensual "crimes" like one stoner selling weed to another. There may be unintended consequences not immediately obvious in this gedankenexperiment, but I think it would be an interesting experiment at the least.

      --
      Let my new 7-digit UID be a lesson to all - write down your passwords.
    57. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by KGIII · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually you must not have seen Bowling For Columbine. They didn't buy their bullets at Wal-Mart, it was K-Mart. That doesn't negate your point but rather shows your presumptions based on your "elevated" awareness (such as watching a Moore movie will give a sense of) are flawed.

      If you insist on pointing out something as factual then, well, try to get the facts correct.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    58. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Luke_22 · · Score: 1

      For more reading, try More Guns Less Crime. It was written by a Harvard economist who started off trying to show bad guns are and after quite thorough research using over 1,000 sources ended up buying a gun to defend his family. If you would like an argument backed by facts and not flimsy emotional appeals, read the book.

      hello, european speaking here.
      we don't have all the guns you have, people here don't think having and carrying guns would protect them.(that's police work)
      guess what? we have less people killed by gunfire than you have.
      guns are needed where guns already have widespread use, i guess. that's why you need them in the u.s. i think it's called "arms race" or something...

      --
      "I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I didn't know." -- Mark Twain
    59. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by bentcd · · Score: 1

      But how many muggings with guns would not have happened without the guns?

      You seem to be basing your position on the notion that if guns were outlawed, criminals would not be able to obtain guns. This is not the case.

      Access to guns enables crimes, which creates situations where the criminals would rather injure or kill victims or police officers rather than face a substantial jail sentence.

      This tendency is caused by draconian punishments, not the possession of guns. If a criminal knows that what he's done is going to put him in jail for life (or worse) he might as well try to kill his way out of the situation since there's nothing to be lost by trying anyway.

      Get insurance, get secure plastic means of payment, give them your damned wallet, call the police.

      Carrying only plastic is, however, going to give them an incentive to kill you since being dead will preclude you from canceling the cards before they can be tapped.

      --
      sigs are hazardous to your health
    60. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Gun accidents usually involve other people, but if you don't wear your seat belt you're only hurting yourself).

      In many countries we have a publicly-funded health care thingy. If you inflict lots and lots of (expensive to repair) damage to yourself, the rest of the country has to pay for that. Off course if you decide to pay for all of your healthcare yourself, you're free to hurt yourself as much as you'd like, just don't feel insulted when we let you die because you couldn't afford the operation that would have saved you.

    61. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Thiez · · Score: 1

      If you are forced to defend yourself with a knife 10 times, maybe it's time to think 'Maybe I'm doing something wrong?' don't you think? It might just be a statistical anomaly, but one should at least consider the possibility that one intentionally seeks dangerous situations and/or has anger management problems?

      I think it is safe to say that most of those poor, poor people who have been in a knife-fight 10 times are looking for trouble and an excuse to 'defend' themselves.

    62. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'll admit America is a little different in this regard. We grew up on the frontier as a nation, and guns have a special place in our heart. We fought Indians, French, and British with our trusted hunting muskets and rifles. We carried guns in the lawless west for many years. We sold rifles in hardware stores up until recently. We also have right now, for various reasons, quite a lot of inexpensive and easily accessible weapons on the black market. And our culture of self-determinacy and independence is at odds with those who say personal security is the police's responsibility.

      That being said, the availability of guns to criminals in Europe, Canada, and other places is increasing and every place where laws were put in place to limit guns the crime rate has gone up. The premise of the book still holds in Europe, though the scale is admitedly smaller.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    63. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Thiez · · Score: 1

      > And what about for the man who wants one gun (a shotgun) to defend his family with? Not to hunt no other purpose; than self-defence.

      Seriously though, how often do criminals invade your house with the intent to the hurt people inside? If someone tries to steal your stuff and they think you might have a gun, they have a lot of incentive to shoot first.

      I'd rather get my stuff stolen than get in a firefight. Nothing I own is worth the potential loss of my life (or the thief's life, unless they be stealing a bottle of bitter lemon), and if I don't offer resistance then the person who is stealing my stuff has no reason to kill me. Nothing says 'prioritize me please' to the police like killing people.

      > Also, your argument is far from complete (but I'm sure you knew that). While it addresses the means, it does not address the motive. Most crimes are crimes of opportunity. If a criminal is more certain that he can get away with a crime, [s]he is more likely to commit it. If the criminal thinks [s]he will be greeted by a double barrel, then the likelihood drops considerably.

      You have a point there, but what if the criminal tries to make it easier to get away with the crime. Suppose he gangs up with 2 other criminals, and they all bring guns. Or they break in during the day (less of a problem if you work at home, they will notice someone is inside and steal from your neighbours instead). I'm from europe and as far as I know few burglars bring guns with them, and if they do they don't usually shoot anyone.

    64. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by MoonlightSeraphim · · Score: 1

      I understand that, but a good example usually has something to do with the case at hand. Yours goes so far beyond exaggeration that it couldn't possibly be used to make any sort of point.

      At least he is not comparing it to cars like it usually happens around here.

    65. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Pichu0102 · · Score: 1

      Shooting at anything in a residential area under any circumstances is only for trained law enforcement. That's their entire purpose, so you don't have to.

      There are many things I want to talk about in your post, but this stands out the most. If someone is pointing a gun at me, the last thing I want to do is wait for law enforcement to arrive, because by then, there's a good chance I'd be dead. Dead victims are terrible witnesses.

    66. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Danse · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In what way? A nuclear destruct device is an armament designed to deter the opponent from killing you on the risk that he himself will be killed.

      A firearm, presumably, operates on much the same principles of deterrence.

      A firearm is designed to kill your attacker, but generally not everyone on your block (I'm being generous in assuming a very small size here) and you along with it. If that was your intent, I would have just gone with the classic terrorist bomb-vest instead of the nuke. It's still ridiculous, as suicide is not one of the goals or even a likely outcome of self-defense using a gun. Mutually assured destruction does not apply.

      Really? Are you saying that a smaller person cannot overcome a larger one? That a weaker person cannot overcome a stronger one?

      Of course not. But those are the exceptional cases. The smaller person must be in better physical shape, and have not just the knowledge of how to incapacitate a larger opponent, but also the ability to do it under extreme pressure, and they need some luck as well because fights almost never go as planned.

      Despite what you might like to believe, home invasions are very rare; home invasions in which people are killed, even rarer. Murders are very rare, and are more often than not they are committed by people who know each other, by a great margin. In fact, You seem to be under the belief that in fact, attackers choose their victims; this is rarely the case.

      Of course they're rare. But that doesn't matter to the person who is the ultimate victim. Often the attacker is someone they know, such as an estranged ex-spouse or lover. They are often motivated by simple jealousy and rage, and restraining orders do little to stop them.

      In any case, the point of that anecdote amongst others was to indicate that there is a perenial belief extant that one is surrounded by huge masses of well-armed, well-trained, and well-armored criminals, all of whom are apparently willing to conduct offensive maneuvers that would put Delta Force to shame at the drop of a hat in order to steal what petty cash someone might happen to have on their nightstand.

      Or it could be that the perpetrator was simply offering it up as the only excuse he could come up with for his actions, even though he knew exactly what he was doing. I don't tend to fear paramilitary forces raiding my home. If they ever did, resistance would be a pretty bad idea.

      Really, the restrictions that come into play with regard to self-defense in most jurisdictions rely on the fact that statistically speaking, the vast majority of self-defense situations do not involve one being attacked by special operations commandos, and therefore the force necessary to repel the attack is in fact far more limited than most people would at first imagine

      Sure. I'd like to see you repel a larger attacker wielding a baseball bat. There's likely not more than a relative handful of people in this country or any other who could do that successfully. Unless the attacker does something very stupid, you're pretty screwed. I think normal people whose bodies are not lethal weapons should have the means to defend themselves too.

      One of the primary motivations for restrictions on guns, amongst the usual attempts to limit their access by the criminal element, is to stop frightened individuals from wildly overreacting as they are so prone to do.

      There are occasional overreactions, but most guns kept for self-defense are never even used. Of those that are used defensively, the vast majority are never fired. People are not as dumb and panicky as you like to think, especially if they've bothered to get any training, which is something that I'd recommend for all gun owners. Ultimately we're all responsible for our own safety, as there is nobody else willing or able to take that responsibility.

      Of c

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    67. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by bsims · · Score: 1

      All rights not explicitly granted to you are withheld to the sovereign body. A hint: That sovereign body is not the individual.

      Actually, that is not entirely accurate.

      "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

      I'll admit it's ignored like a redheaded step-child... but the intent is there.

    68. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by coolsnowmen · · Score: 1

      Seriously though, how often do criminals invade your house with the intent to the hurt people inside? If someone tries to steal your stuff and they think you might have a gun, they have a lot of incentive to shoot first.

      I'd rather get my stuff stolen than get in a firefight.

      Nothing I own is worth the potential loss of my life (or the thief's life, unless they be stealing a bottle of bitter lemon), and if I don't offer resistance then the person who is stealing my stuff has no reason to kill me....

      1) Since you asked, the chance of my house getting robbed based on only my zipcode is .09%

      I don't know if that is high, but with any risk, you take precautions.

      I understand the concept of escalation, but I fear that you trust criminals too much. In this scenario the person has already chosen to break-in to your (presumably locked) home. And you trust this person to value your life high enough that he won't violate your person despite the fact that he has chosen to violate your property.

      I feel that our argument, which has occured by others before, is more of a ghandi versus 0-tolerance approach to defence of self and property. Ghandi is admirable, but he was prepared to die for his cause, and that moved a nation, and he used his non-violence to show the British the error of their ways.

      But a criminal has already accepted the error of his ways, and rationalized them. I believe you will not change a criminal once he has made that choice to violate you. And I am not willing to die to show criminals that they are wrong.

      I also am currently poor and so everything but the laptop I type this on is replaceable. Presumably, as time passes, I will acquire something that I would rather not part with at which point I will either have to subscribe to one or the other. Perhaps I will bake some cookies everyday, and offer that to the first criminal who breaks in. [s]he will hopefully be so overwhelmed with my generosity, that [s]he will leave me. But what if they want some milk too?

      As in, where do you draw the line?

    69. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Not at all. It does mean however that we shouldn't make something illegal just because. That's the problem; you COULD kill someone with a knife or gun, but there are millions that prove they won't unless threatened.

      So the idea is not to make a stupid blanket law that ends up making everyone less safe... we need only a few laws that are aimed at protecting our rights, not take them away.

      If a law exists to prevent something, it probably isn't a good idea. It's lessening freedom, and will be inneffective at what it's trying to prevent anyway. So why bother? But if a law dictates what happens when one person violates another's rights, that's fine.

      Of course, in my perfect world, none of those rules apply to corporations, which can be regulated at will. In exchange for the people running the company not being personally liable for the companies actions, they agree that we can regulate them all we want. A company shouldn't be a person. Now.. if you're a sole propriator, you're free of regulation... but you're also now personally liable for the actions of your business. That's how I think things should be.

    70. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Arthur+B. · · Score: 1

      In any case, even if it were true, so what if hundreds of millions of people died? That's the point of totalitarian collectivism- it doesn't matter if individuals die, as long as they serve the State in doing so

      You are a true psychopath.

      --
      \u262D = \u5350
    71. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      I don't agree with you..

      When you say "society has a right to protect itself," you're basically saying the rights of a larger group of people outweight the rights of a smaller group. For example, suppose society would be better off if we allowed slavery. Does that mean we should be able to infringe rights of a smaller group to better society by keeping the smaller group as slaves?

      If you buy into the belief that people always have rights, that they are not granted (as our founders did, or as Thomas Paine did), then the answer is no.

    72. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      No, you actually did get it very wrong. Rights are NOT granted, they are part of human nature. Read what the founders wrote, or if you want just one book, read Rights of Man by Thomas Paine.

      Those are the ideas our country was founded on... people have rights simply by existing.

      Oh, and just because our current government routinly infringes our rights does not mean that we don't have them.

    73. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Buying a box of pencils doesn't require a willingness to do harm to someone. Chances are those who buy AK47's have plans to use them for something other than a prop in a school play. You must not have seen Bowling For Columbine, where a kid that was shot by another kid confronted Walmart for selling the shooter the ammunition. Try telling their parents that enlightened comparison with pencils.

      What's wrong will having a willingness to harm someone that wants to harm you? I see no wrong there. As far a selling bullets goes.. you can buy a knife or rat posion with a "willingness to do harm" too. What the parents should be asking is "why did that kid shoot my kid?" As far as the "victims," as you said victims choose themselves, don't they? So what did THEY do to get themselves on this guy's hit list?

      But how many muggings with guns would not have happened without the guns? You can't say that every one of them would have happened with knives instead. You can hold up 10 people at once with a gun. Try that with a knife. Access to guns enables crimes, which creates situations where the criminals would rather injure or kill victims or police officers rather than face a substantial jail sentence. Most gun-toting muggers would shoot a cop just to hide the fact that they had the gun.

      Muggings happen anwway, regardless of the availablity of guns. Or is mugging something new that only started in the last few hundred years?

      Get insurance, get secure plastic means of payment, give them your damned wallet, call the police. It's not worth the risk over such a relatively minor inconvenience. Credit cards can be canceled, ID can be gotten online in most cases, and cash is hardly worth carrying around anymore. Carrying weapons is no guarantee of protection, and it's a huge legal liability. If you carry a licensed handgun, fire it at a mugger for example, wing him, then the bullet carries on through a wall into a baby's crib, you might as well have stood over the crib and opened fire. Intent follows the bullet. Shooting at anything in a residential area under any circumstances is only for trained law enforcement. That's their entire purpose, so you don't have to. Buying insurance generates funds to research criminal activity and make communities safer.

      First, buying insurance makes some other guy richer. Second, police are unable to protect you. You said it yourself; you're already been victimized. What if the guy wants more than your wallet? What's really to stop him from killing you? How do the police help there? Oh, you also totally ignore the problem of police abusing their power, which is done everyday, including outright murdering people.

      And no, carrying a gun isn't a guarntee of protection. But it really helps balance the odds, much more than having some asshole with a gun and a badge sitting in a donut shop while you're being assaulted.

    74. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      If guns are outlawed, you can not as easily get a gun to kill somebody with as when they are not outlawed.

      Right. Because we banned pot, and it's really really hard to get pot isn't it?

      I'm German, and I can walk down most any street in my country without have to fear murder drive-bys or gang crime.

      I'm American, and I can say the same thing.

      Plus: How often is a weapon, that is meant to be used to defend it's owner, used against him?

      Exceedingly rarely.

    75. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 1

      The States hold joint sovereignty with the Federal government.

      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    76. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Thiez · · Score: 1

      > I understand the concept of escalation, but I fear that you trust criminals too much. In this scenario the person has already chosen to break-in to your (presumably locked) home. And you trust this person to value your life high enough that he won't violate your person despite the fact that he has chosen to violate your property.

      Like I said, 'Nothing says 'prioritize me please' to the police like killing people.'. Going around breaking into peoples homes and stealing their stuff will get some attention from the police. By Going around breaking into peoples homes and stealing their stuff and shooting them your are going to get lots and lots of attention from the police, and, in case you get caught, you are going to jail for a very long time (YMMV, depending on laws of your country)*. Every idiot who is smart enough to understand that he can take your stuff should be able to understand that.

      > But a criminal has already accepted the error of his ways, and rationalized them. I believe you will not change a criminal once he has made that choice to violate you. And I am not willing to die to show criminals that they are wrong.

      The criminal has very little to gain by killing you, and much to lose. Unless you are going to try and shoot him, in that situation he has more to gain by killing you first. I don't intend to show the criminal the error of his ways (It's not going to work, and if the chances of getting caught are low enough the only good reason why he shouldn't steal my stuff is cause it pisses me off, which isn't going to convince him), I just try to get the whole thing over with without people (especially me, since I like me very much) getting shot.

      * Somewhat unrelated, but an argument against lifelong imprisonment or capital punishment for rapists is to prevent them from always killing their victims. If you're going to spend the rest of your life in prison when you get caught you might as well dispose of the witness (aka victim). I really like this particular argument and I think in general that punishments in general shouldn't be too harsh, to prevent criminals (especially the stupid ones) from thinking they have nothing to lose.

    77. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 1

      Thomas Paine was an idiot. If 'rights' were an inherent part of human nature, everyone would have them.

      It is self-evident that this is not the case; it is equally self-evident that the rights of people are enforced and handed down by the State which holds sovereignty over the area in which they live.

      You say that 'just because our current government routinely infringes our rights does not mean that we don't have them'.... I'm not sure what else it means.

      The fact that your 'rights' are routinely being violated means, in fact, that you have no such rights.

      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    78. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 1

      And I don't buy into that belief, because it's self-evidently not true.

      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    79. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been mugged. Twice. Once at gunpoint, once at knifepoint. Neither time did the mugger look in the wallet after I handed it over to him. It's been my experience that they want what you have and then get the hell out of there as quickly as possible.

    80. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In many countries we have a publicly-funded health care thingy. If you inflict lots and lots of (expensive to repair) damage to yourself, the rest of the country has to pay for that.

      That doesn't follow. If you're part of that country, your taxes are going to the publicly funded health care just as the other people. It's perfectly fair for you to receive medical care for an accident that was your fault as long as your tax money is also going to pay for medical care when other people enter into accidents that are their fault.

      The fact that you're also benefiting from the money of those who are more careful is completely irrelevant. That's the whole point of any type of insurance. When you pay your car insurance you're helping to pay costs of people who get into accidents, even if you are a careful driver. The entire point is to distribute a risk that isn't even (careful drivers vs. not careful drivers, genetic conditions that predispose you to diseases vs. people who are perfectly healthy) so that everyone is responsible for the average risk across the population instead of their own (possibly too high) risk.

      Insurances usually implement a weighted average, but it's still a distribution of risk.

    81. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 1

      People can not reasonably be held to be under obligation to submit to any condition of society that would cost them their life. Since weapons are easily obtained, improvised or made by criminals, all citizens have the right to any weapons that would reasonably be required for personal defence against an armed assailant.

      Um, no.

      Firstly, the State has always reserved the right to kill citizens. Depending on where and when you happen to be, this varies, but, for example, many states have the death penalty.

      Secondly, the fact that the criminals have access to weapons does not give you the right to have equally deadly (or more deadly) weapons for self-defense; in no way does that follow. The criminals are breaking the law, and that's the point.

      If "society" requires me to lay down my life to outlaws, then "society" will have to get along without my cooperation.

      Please. We'll be better off without you.

      So I see this from another post of yours. You're either trolling or you're the type of person that makes it necessary for the rest of us to retain the right to bear arms.

      I'm not sure I see your point; it's not like this is a terribly new idea.

      Individuals are not, by themselves sovereign; sovereignty is a state apparatus. Sovereignty essentially means that one has no higher power. Hence, individuals only have rights that the sovereign body grants them.

      What part of this do you not really understand?

      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    82. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      They don't care that they're breaking the law. That's kinda, you know, the DEFINITION of a criminal. But either way, it doesn't matter one whit what the law is when someone robs you with a gun. They have the power due to their weapon, they take what they want, and you hopefully don't get hurt. Unless they're randomly mean. Or a jealous ex. Or just fucking loony. It may be illegal for them to have the gun, but the fact is that they DO have the gun, and the law really doesn't provide too much of an impediment to them having that advantage. And society is all the more geared to rewarding criminal behavior. I'm sure we want that, right? Laws that reward the people that don't follow them?

      If someone even thinks I might have a gun, they're going to think twice. They no longer have overwhelming force to back up their words. We're on equal footing, and there's a much higher likelihood that they'll go do something more productive, or at least go rob someone that doesn't have a gun.

      Laws are all well and good, but they're concepts. The world doesn't work on concepts alone.

    83. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Everyone does have them; the fact that they are being violated by some gives justification to those whose rights are violated to stand up and demand that they stop, and failing that, violently stop their rights from being infringed.

      The fact that rights are routinely violated means that people are not standing up for themselves. Nothing wrong with that, mind you, but should they decide to do so, they would be justified.

      Which by the way is the whole point of rights; it means you CAN ligitimately overthrow a standing government, and be justified in doing so. Which is exactly what our founders did. It's also why our goverment is expressly limited in it's scope. Read very carefully the wording of the amendments and the constitution itself.

      Of course, you're still free to disagree; but you're not free to force your idiology on me. You may be happier in another country with another philosophical idiology behind it. Perhaps China or North Korea, or even Japan. They seem to value society more than individual rights, so you'd probably be happier there.

    84. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Toonol · · Score: 1

      No, it's similar to saying "if you outlaw killing, only outlaws will kill."

      The difference is that killing may or may not be wrong, depending on the circumstances, just like using a knife or gun; but if you unilaterally outlawing it, you're ensuring that all killers are murderers, even in self defense.

      The proper stance is to outlaw [i]types[/i] of killing, as it is to outlaw [i]types[/i] of behavior with knives and guns.

    85. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by DerWulf · · Score: 1

      define 'society'. Define 'we'.

      --

      ___
      No power in the 'verse can stop me
    86. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by DerWulf · · Score: 1

      the fallacy of course is that there are still guns even when they are outlawed. This is where your whole argument falls on it's face: law does not change reality. Likewise, owning a gun is not the same as intending to shoot someone. Murder is also not manslaughter in the eyes of the law (baby etc). Lastly, the correlation of guns to crime is a very complex topic and not as clear cut as proponents of both sides would like to believe.

      --

      ___
      No power in the 'verse can stop me
    87. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by teletoca · · Score: 1

      Good reference, but the device goes off only if "his brain ceases to emit electrical impulses." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_Crash

    88. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      but the device goes off only if "his brain ceases to emit electrical impulses

      Damn, so it would do no good for, say, George W Bush to have such a device!

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    89. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US Gun Statistics
      Various Sources
      2-2-5

      (A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
      (B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
      (C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.

      (Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)

      Guns
      (A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
      Yes, that is 80 million.

      (B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
      (C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.

      Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
      Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."

      FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.

      Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!

      Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention.

    90. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Keith_Beef · · Score: 1

      I suggest you read a series of BBC news magazine articles, starting here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7542886.stm

      K

    91. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      Firstly, the State has always reserved the right to kill citizens.

      ... and restrict speech, and legislate religion, and enslave people, etc, etc, etc.

      So I see this from another post of yours. You're either trolling or you're the type of person that makes it necessary for the rest of us to retain the right to bear arms.

      I'm not sure I see your point; it's not like this is a terribly new idea.

      The state has always tended towards tyranny. Your posts indicate that you support this, hence my opinion that you are the sort of person that makes the right to bear arms necessary. For the sake of liberty. It's a concept you may have heard of, but don't seem to understand or approve. Historically, many people have been willing to risk death in combat to obtain or retain it.

      Sovereignty essentially means that one has no higher power. Hence, individuals only have rights that the sovereign body grants them.

      Sovereign bodies are made up of people. Since there is no logical argument persuasive to the non-sovereign that one has an inherent right to rule another, sovereignty can then be gained two ways, by agreement or by force. If by agreement, then the people naturally have the right to veto that "sovereign" and may not as a body of people have their rights revoked by the state (as in the sovereign power is by delegation and subject to review, such as is the case in democracy or representative government), and if by force, then anyone who can find the capability to wield enough force to become the sovereign has the moral right to do so. In either case, the people have a moral right to arms, only that if force is the determiner of sovereignty, then if the government is capable of removing your rights by force then they may do so. That's called oppression, or sometimes tyranny.

      If "society" requires me to lay down my life to outlaws, then "society" will have to get along without my cooperation.

      Please. We'll be better off without you.

      Since your ideal society requires that I am willing to lay down my life to support the rights of the "sovereign", then it's not much sacrifice to instead lay down my life for my own rights instead. Indeed, for any who aren't willing to enter into slavery, it is the only viable option. Fortunately, I live in a society where the system of government is not based on your idea of sovereignty. It doesn't look like I'll need to fight my government at any time, but ideas like yours must be opposed.

    92. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by eyendall · · Score: 1

      When you outlaw guns only the police and the outlaws have guns. Easy to identify and deal with the bad guys. Support your police: ban handguns.

    93. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How are people going to protect themselves against rape?

    94. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by eyendall · · Score: 1

      So what you are saying is that the State is failing to provide a key element of its responsibility i.e. security. So rather than fixing the state, you prefer to further weaken it by promoting the myth of frontier justice. Support your police, defend your community, ban handguns.

    95. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Rudd-O · · Score: 1

      Sure, why not, abdicate your ultimate responsibility to protect yourself, your loved ones and your property. Buy insurance that will not keep you alive, help fund research that will not save anyone you care about. Buy, buy, buy more, but under no circumstances resist abuse or crime, either from government or from wrongdoers. Father Government and Acolyte dontmakemethink know best.

      Moron. If your life or your loved ones are in grave immediate danger by an assailant, you have a DUTY to kill the assailant if you have clear advantage. No one is going to do it for you unless you're a white female in distress. And if you think your life is not worth defending with all means possible, then very probably your life isn't worth anything at all.

      Your cowardice disgusts me. I sincerely hope nothing bad happens to you (however likely you are to experience such an event at least once in your lifetime), but I will never tolerate cowards like you, discoursing and setting public policy that prevents me from defending what's mine and what's dear to me.

      --
      Rudd-O - http://rudd-o.com/
    96. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by eyendall · · Score: 1

      Utter nonsense. You simply don't understand the world you are living in. A Society-the community-is everything. The individual can only find identity and fullfilment within society. The rich and powerful only get so because they can take advantage of what society provides-stability and security. Get over this frontier myth of the rugged individualist: it is a destructive fantasy and the cause of much of the social and political dysfunction in the US.

    97. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by slashdotwannabe · · Score: 1

      Not unless you want it to go off the moment it's connected to him

      --
      This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
    98. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by sjames · · Score: 1

      does that mean that we shouldn't have laws? The reason laws exist is not to stop law abiding citizens from doing things, it is to prosecute people who break laws.

      It means that laws primarily designed to prevent people from breaking other laws aren't likely to be effective.

      Laws certainly do exist to stop law abiding citizens from doing things. Prosecution is an incentive to be law abiding.

    99. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by dontmakemethink · · Score: 1

      Sharpshooting trivial aspects does not become this thread. Kids shot other kids, they got the ammunition from x-Mart. Who cares what the name was! Are you suggesting that it's ok for Wal-Mart to sell ammunition to kids because there haven't been any school shoot-ups using their ammunition yet?

      --

      War as we knew it was obsolete
      Nothing could beat complete denial
      - Emily Haines
    100. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by dontmakemethink · · Score: 1

      And communities that own guns have lower crime. Those that ban gans have higher crime. Been to DC recently?

      Ah, the capital of excuses to keep guns legal. Guns were outlawed in DC in 1977. Yes, gun violence did get out of hand in the late-80's and early 90's, but the crime wave did not start until about 1985. If the gun law was the direct cause, why did criminals take 8 years to take advantage of it?

      Also, the number of homicides has dropped back to levels more on par with 1977, all without changing the law until very recently, which still leaves DC as one of the most restrictive cities on guns in the US. In fact DC had already had fewer homicides per capita than neighboring Baltimore or Richmond in 2005, both of which do not have as severe restrictions.

      So to answer your question, no I haven't been to DC recently, but I wouldn't mind a visit.

      --

      War as we knew it was obsolete
      Nothing could beat complete denial
      - Emily Haines
    101. Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like the anarchist variant:
      "When laws are outlawed, only outlaws will have laws"

  2. Oblig lame joke by philspear · · Score: 0

    I prefer durex myself.

  3. rooms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    "several policemen at the private residence of the party's spokesman appeared and had threatened to eliminate all the rooms, if he does not cite its sources."

    you see these rooms? if you do not cite your sources, we will make SURE that you'll never see them again! ever!

    1. Re:rooms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You better do what they say! Rumor has it that Europe has a black hole generator!

  4. Re:Actung! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Funny

    Look! I 'drew' ASCII Hitler! It's OK, though, the Bavarian Gendarmerie already pre-Godwinned the topic!

    (\:7=[

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  5. Could be worse... by Deadstick · · Score: 5, Funny
    ...Most governments screw you without one.

    rj

  6. How would YOU install a police state . . .? by mmell · · Score: 3, Insightful
    In plain sight of the public, which might just barely conceivably still have sufficient intelligence and strength of will to stop you, or quietly, unobtrusively, all-but-unnoticed in the shadows?

    "The price of Freedom is eternal vigilance." - who said that again?

    1. Re:How would YOU install a police state . . .? by thermian · · Score: 1

      Not sure, I guess you could write a nsis script for it.

      --
      A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
    2. Re:How would YOU install a police state . . .? by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Every government, ultimately, will be inclined to install a police state. It is the most efficient way for people who's main concern is enforcing the law to operate. Which would be fine if we could know that the laws were just and the people enforcing those laws were also just. But it is in human nature to disagree on such subjective terms as "just" even if we ignore that it is also human nature to abuse and become corrupted by power.

      As it is a natural inclination to install a police state, the steps to do so will take many forms. Some quiet. Some with great pomp and circumstance. Some will be corrupt and self-serving. Some will be introduced with entirely good intention.

      Eternal vigilance is required to maintain a check on this behavior. It is easy to point out the corrupt. It is harder to realize that the actions based on good intention leads to corruption and abuse. But ultimately, both must be identified and stopped.

      It is a part of the process... an ongoing process that is likely to continue as long as we exist.

    3. Re:How would YOU install a police state . . .? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The price of Freedom is eternal vigilance." - who said that again?

      John Philpot Curran (1790, upon election as Lord Mayor of Dublin, Ireland)

    4. Re:How would YOU install a police state . . .? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I very much agree with you, but I notice that less people care every day - for reasons we all could enumerate. It's like saying "will science provide solutions for the problems the future poses? Yes, of course!" but also asking "Will the powers that be listen to science? Or even only to reason?".

      So, I guess we're screwed, all of us. I am from Germany and I followed the subject at hand closely - it's the same thing everywhere: it is absolutely amazing what politics and law enforcement can get away with by manipulating the public, the code of law and the way Joe Sixpack looks at things. See what they've done to the Land of the Free in the name of 2,823 dead people. And corporations. Sometimes it makes me wanna cry, really.

    5. Re:How would YOU install a police state . . .? by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I very much agree with you, but I notice that less people care every day - for reasons we all could enumerate. It's like saying "will science provide solutions for the problems the future poses? Yes, of course!" but also asking "Will the powers that be listen to science? Or even only to reason?".

      So, I guess we're screwed, all of us.

      We're going to have rough times. Its part of the ebb and flow of it all; we're wired for, and a rational system requires, conflict. But I'm not convinced we're doomed (nor are we guaranteed to survive).

      If you look through history, there is always a swing of growth and decay; enlightenment and ignorance. One is a part of the other. We can only hope that the general cycle is always positive and we've done all we can to limit the damage caused by negative swings.

    6. Re:How would YOU install a police state . . .? by pilgrim23 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ever notice that laws against something in tech (encryption, network use, limit downloads, etc.); defense (ban guns knives Marshall Arts knowledge); or most anything else, are proposed and passed by clueless politicians without a shred of morality or knowledge of the subject. And that laws in favor of something (RIAA favorable laws, copyrot, big money bail outs etc) are passed by clueless politicians without a shred of morality or knowledge of the subject.
      not that I woudl expect otherwise mind...

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    7. Re:How would YOU install a police state . . .? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks, I'll go to bed now taking some of your optimism with me, even though I'm still having a hard time making myself believe. "hope... we've done all we can" is what frightens me, and I'm not too sure if the rules of the pendulum still apply - but I really do hope you're right. Thanks.

    8. Re:How would YOU install a police state . . .? by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      I submit to you that the reason to be optimistic is that you now live in the most enlightened times known to man. The fact that we are having this conversation over a matter of hours despite us living a world apart is one aspect of these times.

      You can point to various current developments and call them signals of the End. But people have been pointing to supposed signs of the End throughout recorded history. Indeed, mankind's collective history does contain plenty examples of decay. Yet here we stand today.

      When I was growing up, people knew that the end of the world was neigh; it would end in a nuclear fireball. This is reflected in popular culture (Dr. Strangelove, WarGames, The Day After, Missile Command). In a Cold War era, it was hard to maintain optimism. I even grew up to be stationed in Germany - part of the preparation for when your country was the battleground between NATO and the Warsaw Pact for Europe. And so I was there when the Berlin Wall fell. And here we stand today; The End still a distant fear.

      As for hope - that's the nature of things. You can never be sure. You can't know until you've been tested. But we can prepare. We can be vigilant. And we can hope when, not if, we are tested we stand.

    9. Re:How would YOU install a police state . . .? by taucross · · Score: 0

      The net outcome will be equivalence of form with our Creator, one way or another. All life moves to this rhythm. It's only a question of whether we choose to suffer through it, or celebrate it. The science of Bnei Baruch offers some interesting insight into this.

      --
      "In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
  7. Bavarian Police Seeking Skype Trojan Informant by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Funny

    Likes outdoor activities, pets, and long moonlit walks on the beach. Mild uniform fetish. Possible LTR. Call me soon - let's drink beer and eat Souvlakia on Walpurgisnacht!

  8. Disconcerting convergence of technologies... by Lumenary7204 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The trends I've been noticing lately are very disconcerting.

    Think about what you get when the following technologies converge:

    -- IP Traceback
    -- VOIP Interception
    -- Keylogging
    -- Deep Packet Analysis
    -- Automatic Vehicle License Plate Identification
    -- Public/Metro Transit Card Tracking

    Everyone now has the potential to become their own "Poor Man's NSA." Even local governments, or relatively poor and/or developing countries.

    Of course, if a private citizen used these tools to protect their *own* interests, they could be charged with all sorts of crimes, like illegal wiretapping, computer intrusion and abuse, etc...

    1. Re:Disconcerting convergence of technologies... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Think about what you get when the following technologies converge:
      -- IP Traceback
      -- VOIP Interception
      -- Keylogging
      -- Deep Packet Analysis
      -- Automatic Vehicle License Plate Identification
      -- Public/Metro Transit Card Tracking

      The MAFIAA's wet dream?

    2. Re:Disconcerting convergence of technologies... by HungryHobo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I can remember a debate I had a while back about the potential of some cheap wifi tech hooked up to a small webcam and worn on your person when going to protests or other events where you expect there to be a high chance of the police breaking the law. So that it could stream everything you see directly to a secure online store.
      This would have great potential for making sure police who abuse their power get in trouble or are at least publicly shown to be abusing their power.
      My friends rebuttal was that they'd simply introduce a law banning private citizens from using such devices at protests and call it a measure against pedophiles (to stop them filming the little kids walking around in the streets! You never know what they'd be thinking about if they had video of your children walking on a public street!!!).
      As long as people will accept anything in the name of fighting terrorists or paedophiles then civil liberties are fucked.

    3. Re:Disconcerting convergence of technologies... by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually legality of it would very from place to place. In the US it is totally legal to take pictures in public spaces but in some states it is illegal to record audio. Those laws are privacy laws.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    4. Re:Disconcerting convergence of technologies... by megamerican · · Score: 2, Informative

      All of this has already come to pass.

      It was possible to watch protesters live at the DNC and RNC at justin.tv.

      The police in Minnesota arrested dozens of journalists during the RNC, many with legitamite press credentials (not that you need them to be protected by the 1st amendment). Of course they weren't arrested for engaging in a protected right, but the police arrested them all on bogus charges anyway.

      --
      If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
    5. Re:Disconcerting convergence of technologies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once these technologies are widely applied, the MPAA is your smalles problem.

    6. Re:Disconcerting convergence of technologies... by BLQWME · · Score: 1

      From what i understand, in Illinois it is illegal to film or record police activities.

      --
      "Nobody shoots anybody in the face unless you're a hit man or a video gamer"- Jack Thompson
  9. With a name like German Pirate Party... by CDMA_Demo · · Score: 1

    what did you expect, lawyers and RIAA?

  10. Re:Actung! by djdavetrouble · · Score: 2, Funny

    Zero to Godwin in 3 posts, a new record !

    This part was particularly compelling: In January 2008, the Pirate Party unbestätigtes letter from the Bavarian Justice Ministry zugespielt.

    Love that translation program.

    --
    music lover since 1969
  11. I'm sure they'll do an excellent investigation... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    of themselves, and find no wrongdoing, as usual.

    It is genuinely fucked up that, when evidence of a most-likely-illegal government surveillance program comes to light, they are hunting for the person who brought the problem to light, rather than the people who are the problem.

    FFS, if evidence of an illegal program is leaked, your problem isn't leakers, it is lawbreakers.

  12. Just like China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Even the translation feels Chinese.

  13. Re:Actung! by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

    Look! I 'drew' ASCII Hitler!

    Does that make your post illegal in Germany?

  14. Re:With a name like German Pirate Party... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i expect adolescent whining by the paranoid dork kdawson. so no surprises here

  15. Should be the opposite by unity100 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    federal authorities should be seeking the bavarian fascist that initiated the program.

    1. Re:Should be the opposite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      federal authorities should be seeking the bavarian fascist that initiated the program.

      "bavarian fascist"? That's a tautology if I've ever seen one.

    2. Re:Should be the opposite by meist3r · · Score: 1

      He can't be that far, he's in a wheelchair after all.

    3. Re:Should be the opposite by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Fascist is probably not technically true and extremely inflammatory.

      However it does make me wonder just how much power the states in Germany have. I agree that it would seem a federal investigation would be in order if any laws where broken.
      I am not a German and I don't know German law so for all I know this is totally legal in Germany.
      I don't like it but since I am not a German voter it really isn't up to me.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    4. Re:Should be the opposite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are talking about Beckstein here. Facist is an understatement. As for the legality: I'm not from Bavaria (lucky me!) so I don't really know, but if they violated any law at all, it would have to be state law. Police is mostly state-level as well, so it would in fact be up to them to investigate themselves. Which is going to work out great. For them, that is. Meanwhile, Beckstein can go back to advertising drunk driving.

    5. Re:Should be the opposite by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      But isn't their federal laws that would apply? In the US if some state police force did this the ACLU and the federal government would be all over them. Again I don't know and it isn't my country or state so I really have no say in it's laws. The only statment I can make on the subject is that if I was a citizen of that nation I wouldn't like it. I suggest that you guys move to Linux ASAP. I bet they haven't coded a Linux version of that Trojan.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    6. Re:Should be the opposite by erlehmann · · Score: 1

      I am not a German and I don't know German law so for all I know this is totally legal in Germany.

      At the time, there was no "trojan law", neither on the federal level nor in Bavaria. So, in a Rechtsstaat, these actions were illegal !

      I agree that it would seem a federal investigation would be in order if any laws where broken.

      On the federal level, they are drafting a new law (after the first "federal trojan" law of another German state was found unconstitutional by the constitutional court) which, as I am aware, will also contain secretly breaking into appartments to install a trojan. Of course, they will have to change the constitution to do that, but the current government is a coalition of the two biggest parties ...

    7. Re:Should be the opposite by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Would they require the German equivalent of a court order to install these trojans?

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    8. Re:Should be the opposite by Rudd-O · · Score: 1

      ...and, of course, gassing him afterwards. Old habits die hard :-).

      (Yes, it's a very bad Godwinism).

      --
      Rudd-O - http://rudd-o.com/
  16. And this surprises anyone? by Twyst3d · · Score: 1

    Seriously?

    --
    And this has been another installament of Captain Obvious! /whoosh
  17. Nonsense by Stultsinator · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    This is just a ruse by the Bavarian Illuminati to distract from their real weapon: Skype-induced hallucinations!

    1. Re:Nonsense by megamerican · · Score: 1

      This is just a ruse by the Bavarian Illuminati to distract from their real weapon: Skype-induced hallucinations!

      No, the Bavarian illuminati just like to run around naked at Bohemian Grove.

      --
      If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
    2. Re:Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bavarians cavorting with Bohemians? What is this world coming to?

  18. Re:Flaimebait by MRe_nl · · Score: 1

    Speaking of Nazi's, that should be spelled
    "Achtung! Sieg Heil!"

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
  19. Pirate Party?? by TheNecromancer · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Arrrr, break out the rum, me hearties!

    --
    Attention all planets of the Solar Federation! We have assumed control! - Neil Peart
  20. Perhaps I'm dense, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The informant need not worry since 'every information that could be used to identify him' is protected against unauthorized access by strong encryption

    If there's strong encryption, how do they know that there's information which could be used to identify the informant?

    I assume this means that someone knows that there's incriminating evidence in encrypted media. And they know where the encrypted media is, and who owns that media?

    If I were the informant, I'd be worried about how reliable the owner of the encrypted information is. But, perhaps there's something I don't get?

    - Anonymous(Paranoid)Coward.

    1. Re:Perhaps I'm dense, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The owner of the encrypted media is a technically competent member of the german pirate party executive. Though frankly, I wish he'd said "there's nothing identifying on the disks, but they're strongly encrypted anyway, so the police can waste a lot of time trying to decrypt them". I don't know if the police would try to torture him to get him to disclose the keys, but he's unlikely to disclose them voluntarily.

    2. Re:Perhaps I'm dense, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know if the police would try to torture him to get him to disclose the keys, but he's unlikely to disclose them voluntarily.

      What the fuck, dude. We are talking about Germany, not USA.

  21. It happens in the UK too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Posting Anonymously to protect my job,

    I have been working for a few months on software designed to extract skype calls from streams of captured packets. The software is highly distributed, and while I can't know the exact use, I'm guessing it will be installed near every network interconnect point. Interestingly, it has nowehere near the performance required to record every skype call on the internet, so it will probably only be used for certain targets.

    The good news is that the project is failing badly due to funding issues and poor management, and probably won't be deployed for years yet.

    Note that this IS with the help of skype engineers - we haven't reverse engineered the encryption.

    1. Re:It happens in the UK too. by Daimanta · · Score: 1

      The Inner party welcomes your contribution.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    2. Re:It happens in the UK too. by erlehmann · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Posting Anonymously to protect my job, [...]
      I have been working for a few months on software designed to extract skype calls [...]

      Fuck you !

      Sincerely, a concerned citizen

    3. Re:It happens in the UK too. by CBravo · · Score: 1

      No: thank him. He could have shut up. Maybe the ethics are questionable but at least he provides the public with the situation at hand (so they too can form an opinion).

      --
      nosig today
    4. Re:It happens in the UK too. by fedxone-v86 · · Score: 1

      I've fucked your mother. Maybe my ethics are questionable but at least I provide the public with the situation at hand (so they too can form an opinion).

      The GP is right for telling the OP to fuck himself.
      We're all intelligent enough to make decisions based on reason and morals. If the OP had declined this job in the first place because of its ethical implications and had told us about that instead, he could have been a role-model.

      But as it stands, he only serves as a target for our powerless outrage.

      --
      (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
    5. Re:It happens in the UK too. by fedxone-v86 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd wish you all the best for the project and that one of your peers gets caught by your software. So that you can experience first hand what ethics are good for.
      But this would be quite a selfish wish and only would only do bad for society.

      So, all I can do instead is say:

      FUCK YOU!

      --
      (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
    6. Re:It happens in the UK too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you ! Sincerely, a concerned citizen

      you know, it may not be that bad....
      i mean, if he's helping bringing the project down, i'm glad he's there....

    7. Re:It happens in the UK too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find you aggressive outburst mindboggling.

      It's for example a well-known fact in Germany that a number of 'right-wing' groups are massively infiltrated by the government. In fact, a criminal case against a fringe political party for organised racism collapsed because it was so heavily infiltrated that the court found it impossible to distinguish between material created by the accused and material created by the infiltrators.

      To do this infiltration, a number of technologies and methods must have been used, including wiretaps and various forms of surveillance. I have yet to find a political party or group in the centre or anywhere to the left of the centre that has condemned this form of infiltration and surveillance.

      Are you saying however that _existing_ surveillance methods are evil? Are you saying that that the METHOD is evil, regardless of the target? Or is the METHOD only evil if the TARGET is not a justified one? And the evilness of developing new surveillance technology to cover new communication technologies, is that because of the standalone act of CREATING NEW SURVEILLANCE METHODS in general is evil, or is it because of the specific good TARGETS ('Skype-users') that you get the impression are being targetted? How is it that ANY NEW surveillance method is by default 'evil', unless every CURRENT surveillance method (including the good old hidden microphone) is also evil in its existence?

      Sincerely,

      Mind-boggled.

    8. Re:It happens in the UK too. by CBravo · · Score: 1

      Fucking my mother messed up your brain. Did you get tested? [/cynicism]: i'll bite.

      Since you don't know nothing about the OP's situation it is hard to discuss ethics and drawing valid conclusions.

      You let yourself get angry without thinking if that is the best response. What do you gain by calling him names? It won't make him reconsider his job. What would you want the OP to do? Is this the best way to achieve that goal? And no, your previous answer doesn't count.

      --
      nosig today
    9. Re:It happens in the UK too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Considering all whistleblowers are from the inside, you should appreciate the heads up.

      Sincerely, not the same AC

  22. Re:Actung! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Being a German myself, I actually find the "ASCII Hitler" kind of funny.

    The GGP is obviously lame, though .

  23. But? by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Does it run under Linux?
    I am wondering it really could be another reason to run Linux.
    I am sure that the NSA has forensics tools for Linux but I bet the local police sure don't.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    1. Re:But? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would be wrong, sir.

    2. Re:But? by cpghost · · Score: 1

      I am sure that the NSA has forensics tools for Linux but I bet the local police sure don't.

      As a matter of fact, the german LKAs (which are approximately the equivalent of the FBI, but limited to the local states -- Laender) do have some (very professional) Linux geeks in their computer forensics units...

      But the funny thing is: even if they didn't have any in-house Linux expertise and if they couldn't contract some freelancing specialists, it wouldn't matter: as long as the file systems are not encrypted, a sector-by-sector analysis of the hard disks would still reveal the name of informants or any other sensible data just as easily. And if they were encrypted, it's a matter of cryptanalysis and cracking the key management; and that's a task that's immensely more complicated than dealing with an unfamiliar file system layout.

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    3. Re:But? by Rudd-O · · Score: 1

      Yes, they have forensics tools for Linux. They're called "SELinux". ;-)

      Frankly, I don't know of anyone who has audited the SELinux trojan horse.

      --
      Rudd-O - http://rudd-o.com/
  24. Contradiction in terms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    "A Pirate Party spokesman said, 'Some of our officials seem to want to install the Big Brother state without the knowledge of the public.'"

    This would seem to be an impossible desire. In Orwell's 1984, the whole idea of Big Brother was that everyone knew they were under constant surveillance.

    How can you know that 'Big Brother is Watching You', and at the same time not know it?

    1. Re:Contradiction in terms by Perf · · Score: 1

      This would seem to be an impossible desire. In Orwell's 1984, the whole idea of Big Brother was that everyone knew they were under constant surveillance.

      1984 - Michael Moore's Cuban paradise.

    2. Re:Contradiction in terms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you read the bit about doublethink? You know that bit, it's the whole book.

    3. Re:Contradiction in terms by megamerican · · Score: 1

      This would seem to be an impossible desire. In Orwell's 1984, the whole idea of Big Brother was that everyone knew they were under constant surveillance.

      How can you know that 'Big Brother is Watching You', and at the same time not know it?

      Doublethink.

      Obviously you can't be a member of the inner party because you can not engage in it.

      --
      If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
    4. Re:Contradiction in terms by owlnation · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "A Pirate Party spokesman said, 'Some of our officials seem to want to install the Big Brother state without the knowledge of the public."

      In this they are incorrect. The beauty of the Orwellification of the Western world right now is that it is with the full co-operation of the general public.

      Step 1. Create imaginary bogeymen -- "terrorists", "pedophiles"
      Step 2. Create hysteria that gives the false impression that said bogeymen are common, rather than, in reality, very rare.
      Step 3. Create economic crisis to fan the flames of hatred and jealousy.

      And viola, the general public will help you light the gas ovens.

      We have learned nothing whatsoever from history. Nothing. Not. One. Thing.

    5. Re:Contradiction in terms by ThatGuyJon · · Score: 1

      IIRC, everyone in the party knew they were under surveillance. The proles were observed without their knowledge.

      --
      I must be new here...
    6. Re:Contradiction in terms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Multi-culturalism" at its finest.

    7. Re:Contradiction in terms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Queen of Diamonds!

    8. Re:Contradiction in terms by straybullets · · Score: 1

      Step 1. Create imaginary bogeymen -- "terrorists", "pedophiles"
      Step 2. Create hysteria that gives the false impression that said bogeymen are common, rather than, in reality, very rare.
      Step 3. Create economic crisis to fan the flames of hatred and jealousy.

      Step 0 : Create technological fads with useless gadgetoids to make the general public admit without resistance RFIDs, Biometry, CCTV and all other police crap because "it's the future, it' cool" .

      --
      With that aggravating beauty, Lulu Walls.
    9. Re:Contradiction in terms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And viola, the general public will help you light the gas ovens.

      What has that got to do with musical instruments?

    10. Re:Contradiction in terms by Rudd-O · · Score: 1

      More people should have read 1984. It was cathartic for me and I'm sure it would be cathartic for a great swath of people now too zombified to return to life, vegging out to the latest Big Brother episode.

      --
      Rudd-O - http://rudd-o.com/
  25. Choices vs. objects by CustomDesigned · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Murder can usefully be outlawed, because it is a choice that an intelligent person makes. (In fact, if the killer is mentally deficient and incapable of making that choice, it is treated different legally.) A gun, knife, automobile, HCl etc, morphine, are objects of varying degrees of danger and usefulness.

    Particular objects are reasonably controlled when the danger they present is not obvious to an ordinary person. Someone not familiar with chemistry may be tragically surprised by the destructiveness of a bottle of HCl (although warning labels help). Hence it makes sense to make it hard to get unless you know what you are doing.

    A knife is an obvious danger. Even if you don't speak the language. Even if you just came from deepest darkest Africa and have never seen technology before. A gun is an obvious danger to someone exposed to any technology of the last 400 years. (Although apparently too many idiots don't think about the danger of it going off accidentally.)

    So objects likely to result in accidental death are controlled, and hopefully still available with a license that demonstrates basic competence. (And where you draw the line depends on how stupid you think the average citizen is.) And deliberating causing death via any means is illegal - although most places allow for circumstances like duels, self-defense, etc.

    Controlling an object/substance to prevent accidental death does *not* protect anyone from intentional death via that object/substance. Gun control may prevent some accidental home shootings, but it does not stop criminals from getting guns. Heck, if nothing else go back to basics and make a primitive weapon from steel rod and homemade gunpowder like they did in the 18th century. What next? Outlaw lathes? Outlaw metal cutting tools that could be attached to a homemade lathe? Outlaw fire since it could be used to forge and temper metal cutting tools?

    1. Re:Choices vs. objects by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      When they outlaw CNC machinery and fabrication systems, only outlaws will have them =) You can take my CNC lathe and UV plastic prototype from my cold, dead hands.

    2. Re:Choices vs. objects by DancesWithBlowTorch · · Score: 1

      And deliberating causing death via any means is illegal - although most places allow for circumstances like duels, self-defense, etc.

      Please elaborate. How is a duel (with guns) not a "deliberate causing" of "death"?

    3. Re:Choices vs. objects by heeen · · Score: 0

      Murder can usefully be outlawed, because it is a choice that an intelligent person makes.

      Even the most intelligent humans get influenced by drugs and/or emotions. The culprit being legally treated different afterwards because of being under the influcence of either doesn't help the victim.

    4. Re:Choices vs. objects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Controlling an object/substance to prevent accidental death does *not* protect anyone from intentional death via that object/substance. Gun control may prevent some accidental home shootings, but it does not stop criminals from getting guns. Heck, if nothing else go back to basics and make a primitive weapon from steel rod and homemade gunpowder like they did in the 18th century. What next? Outlaw lathes? Outlaw metal cutting tools that could be attached to a homemade lathe? Outlaw fire since it could be used to forge and temper metal cutting tools?

      Gun control prevents intentional shootings as well. Not the premeditated ones primarily, but the ones that are "crimes of passion". An enraged person with access to a gun is likely to be a hell of a lot more dangerous than the same person with access to just a kitchen knife.

    5. Re:Choices vs. objects by Thiez · · Score: 1

      Well, since a murder was comitted, what do you suggest IS going to help the victim?

    6. Re:Choices vs. objects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A gun is an obvious danger to someone exposed to any technology of the last 400 years.

      Make that 700 years. The first guns turned up sometime before 1300 A.D.

    7. Re:Choices vs. objects by Kharny · · Score: 1

      Though gun control doesn't prevent intentional murder, it can prevent a lot of "accidental" I have to shoot first situations.

      In Europe someone robbing your place is less likely to shoot you than in the US, simply because he can assume you don't own a gun, so aren't much of a threat. Gang-related crime is another field where gun-control helps, it is a lot harder to get a gun as a random thug than for example a organised criminal.

      The barrier that exists to own an Illegal gun is a lot higher, a random street robber won't likely bother to get one.

      --
      Make a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life
    8. Re:Choices vs. objects by heeen · · Score: 0

      Not having it made simple for a emotionally disturbed person to have a gun in the first place.

  26. Vacation in scenic Souvlakia... by zooblethorpe · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... where the wild souvlaki herds roam! :)

    Cheers,

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
    1. Re:Vacation in scenic Souvlakia... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      No, no, it's the Czech herd souvlaki in Czech herd souvalkia.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re:Vacation in scenic Souvlakia... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      err.. souvlakia.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  27. Stasi 2.0 by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    For the first time in my life, I will attempt to post something informative on Slashdot.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi_2.0

    The, err, um, joke, is that the Stasi were the former East German secret police (1.0).

    The major failure of the Stasi (1.0), was that they were collecting too much data, that they could ever dream of analyzing.

    Has 2.0 deeper pockets?

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:Stasi 2.0 by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Has 2.0 deeper pockets?

            No, but the cost of sifting through that information is almost negligible nowadays, with our computers and even voice analysis software. Far more efficient than filing cabinets and typewriters.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:Stasi 2.0 by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Far more efficient than filing cabinets and typewriters.

      Which brings me to the punch line: a colleague of mine from former East Germany told me about programming his first C programs ... on a VAX ... more than 20 years ago ... before the wall went down. I thought that VAXen were still restricted by export stuff back then.

      Ironically, he said that he never had heard of IBM ... well, I guess we can't really blame everything on them.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    3. Re:Stasi 2.0 by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Funny

      well, I guess we can't really blame everything on them.

            Nah, we have George Bush for THAT.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  28. Re: Bad german history by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comments from a German:

    German history has in the past worked as a deterrent against giving the police and secret services too much power. But after 9/11 and with the generation that has lived under the Nazi regime gradually dying off, those lessons seem in danger of being forgotten.

    The USA, however, have the "disadvantage" that they never had a dictatorship that was universally regarded as completely evil in hindsight. As a consequence, you guys over there have never learned these things the hard way and are (on average) way too trusting towards your government.
    [Flamebait]
    With stuff like arbitrarily detaining people ("illegal combatants" who are denied a fair trial) and torture of prisoners I think you are closer to a Fourth Reich than Germany.

    --
    C - the footgun of programming languages
  29. Re: Bad german history by Daimanta · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The so called "disadvantage" isn't a real disadvantage. Why? People forget, generations go past. Old people die, young people are born. World War II will be a lesson as long as people who have lived during that era can tell something about it. That may be possible now but in about 30 years almost all people who went through that period will have died. Then, nobody can tell us about the horrors of WWII, the brutalities, the bombing raids, the razzias.

    World War II will become like World War I, a forgotten war. As a joke I always use "Wilhelm II" as my avatar on every forum I am a member of. Nobody knows who "the guy with the weird moustache" is. Nobody is offended because it happened before any of us lived. The shockeffect is gone. 40 million people DIED in that war and I bet not even 1% can tell you who fought who.

    It's a tragedy.
    And the tragedy will return, but as a farce.

    Nobody is safe from failings, people thinking that they are immune to making mistakes are wrong. You WILL support the wrong guy and he will take away your freedoms. You WILL cheer for the soldiers sent into a useless and bloody war. And the lessons will be learned by you and forgotten by your children.

    I feel sorry for humanity.

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
  30. Fscking civil liberties, eh? by zooblethorpe · · Score: 1

    As long as people will accept anything in the name of fighting terrorists or paedophiles then civil liberties are fucked.

    Aha, wery interestink, I tink hyu haff found de appropriate neurotic diagnozis! A new form of philia!

    On a slightly more serious note, it seems the folks who get involved in such governmental shenanigans do indeed have a problem, though. Instead of lusting after kids, they lust after destroying civil liberties. To coin a new word, perhaps they should be labeled as katapnixiphiles? (katapnixi = repression)

    Cheers,

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
  31. English Press release by nxsty · · Score: 2, Informative

    Probably a bit better than the translated page:
    http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/Press_release_2008-09-17

    Also check out this mail to the Pirate Party International list:
    http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/2008-September/001514.html

  32. Re:I'm sure they'll do an excellent investigation. by dave562 · · Score: 1
    of themselves, and find no wrongdoing, as usual.

    There are always exceptions.

    http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20080916-1935-ca-immigrationrallyclash.html

  33. Re: Bad german history by operagost · · Score: 1

    The USA, however, have the "disadvantage" that they never had a dictatorship that was universally regarded as completely evil in hindsight

    No, instead we keep busy eliminating everyone else's dictatorships.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  34. Re: Bad german history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, instead we keep busy eliminating everyone else's dictatorships.

    ... when they don't side with the USA, while deposing democratically elected governments, when those do the same, and instituting US-friendly dictatorships (Iran, all over Latin America, etc).

    tmegapscm

  35. Re: Bad german history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    40 million people DIED in that war and I bet not even 1% can tell you who fought who.

    Well duh, they're dead.

  36. Re: Bad german history by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Informative
    As a joke I always use "Wilhelm II" as my avatar on every forum I am a member of. Nobody knows who "the guy with the weird moustache" is. Nobody is offended because it happened before any of us lived. The shockeffect is gone. 40 million people DIED in that war and I bet not even 1% can tell you who fought who.

    Most people at the time probably weren't too clear on who was fighting who. That war was a confused mess. As I understand it, a Bosnian shot an Austrian, so Austria declared war on Serbia, so Russia declared war on Austria, so Germany declared war on Russia, and knowing that would mean that France declared war on them they decided to declare war on France as well because doing them first fitted in better with their railway timetables, and Belgium too because they were in the way, so Britain declared war on Germany, and then everyone proceeded to kill each other for a few years.

    And the leaders of that war weren't celebrities. Churchill, Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin were all larger-than-life figures. Memorable. Charismatic. The leaders of WW1 were nowhere near so media-friendly.

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  37. In Nazi Germany... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Government spies on YOU!

    OK, OK, not as funny as Soviet Russia for some reason. And the Rooskies killed as many people.

  38. Re: Bad german history by cpghost · · Score: 1

    The USA, however, have the "disadvantage" that they never had a dictatorship that was universally regarded as completely evil in hindsight. As a consequence, you guys over there have never learned these things the hard way and are (on average) way too trusting towards your government.

    Interesting. But are you sure that collective memory w.r.t. past dictatorships still protects from repeating the same mistakes? Just talk to young Germans of the MTV generation (say teens and twens) about the current surveillance laws, and remind them of what Gestapo and Stasi did. Would you get them to take it to the streets and protest? Or would you mostly collect blank glances -- you know: the kind of face you get when someone tells you non-verbally "what the f*ck are your talking about???"

    I'm afraid that collective memory is like a vaccine: if it's not refreshed every now and then, it loses its preventive effects, and history tends to repeat itself.

    --
    cpghost at Cordula's Web.
  39. can't believe it hasn't been said by corbettw · · Score: 0, Redundant

    You know who else used to spy on Germans?

    --
    God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
  40. Exceptions by CustomDesigned · · Score: 1

    As I said, it is an exception allowed in some place, just like self-defense is allowed in most places. A duel is distinguished by mutual consent. If you are going to allow risky sexual behavior between consenting adults, why not a traditional duel?

    1. Re:Exceptions by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      I would argue that "risky" sexual behavior between consulting adults is much safer than a duel. In the duel, *someone's* gonna die. It's just a matter of which person.

  41. Carly Fiorina by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    well, I guess we can't really blame everything on them.

    Nah, we have George Bush for THAT.

    Didn't you mean Carly Fiorina instead of George Bush ... but who the hell can tell the difference between them anyway.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  42. Re: Bad german history by Daimanta · · Score: 1

    "And the leaders of that war weren't celebrities. Churchill, Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin were all larger-than-life figures. Memorable. Charismatic. The leaders of WW1 were nowhere near so media-friendly."

    Celebrities are made, not born. From the age of around 8 you have been drowned in information about World War II. You are taught by teachers in schools, by going to musea, from television(documentaries) and newspapers(which desribe WWII as a major turning point). World War II is everywhere. No wonder that the people who were involved in WW2 Are many times more famous than people involved in WW1. If people had forgotten about WW1 after a few years, we wouldn't have had WW2.

    And true, WW1 was complex but if nobody decides to teach you about it how are you supposed to know about it? WW1 does not exist as far as the media is concerned.

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
  43. Re: Bad german history by MarkvW · · Score: 1

    The deterrent effect of German history? What about the STASI? They didn't get deterred! As I recall, they were pretty bad . . ..

  44. Re:I'm sure they'll do an excellent investigation. by pimpimpim · · Score: 1
    What I especially liked is that the same Trojan becomes "illegal" if used by someone else than the police.

    Unfortunately, since the German minister of Interior is a paranoid, and the rest of the government is a flock of sheep, actions like this are currently tried to be "legalized" under the german "law. Fortunately there is a http://www.heise.de/newsticker/Karlsruhe-laesst-kaum-Raum-fuer-heimliche-Online-Durchsuchungen--/meldung/104134">high court (german website) that can have a final vote in such matters if a new law is disputed, but there is a lot of pressure to continue with those privacy-intruding measures in any possible way.

    --
    molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
  45. Hey! Bavarian Police! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    I got yer Mama'a Trojan right here! In my wallet!

    Yer the same sons of bitches who went round with party pins on yer coats, and rounded up trade unionists and sculptors and Catholic objectionists for torture. I laugh everytime one of you makes the grave. Because... Now you realize the extent of the evil you've done in this life.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  46. Re: Bad german history by akincisor · · Score: 1

    It's like the yearly flu epidemic. The fact that you get it gives rise to the antibodies that stay in your body to protect you for a while. Then you are vulnerable again

  47. Re: Bad german history by KGIII · · Score: 1

    That has to be one of the best posts on /. today. WWI History - Cliff Notes Version.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  48. Assumption ... the screwup of mother nature .. by freaker_TuC · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Assumption is the biggest $*@#up of mother nature ... .. On the other hand .. Diversion always worked best before with us
    humans; like it does now too for the general public... It's just too easy!

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  49. We really need by linhares · · Score: 1

    a good, open-source, alternative to skype. Otherwise, nobody is safe from the eavesdropping. Perhaps there's no skype for the iPhone because all the guys in Skype are busy looking at all that free porn they get.

    1. Re:We really need by moronoxyd · · Score: 1

      How will open source software help you, when the police secretly invades your home and installs a hidden trojan?

    2. Re:We really need by geekgirlandrea · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'd like to see them install a trojan on my UltraSPARC.

  50. Complete translation of linked article by schnipschnap · · Score: 1

    Responding to first post for extra visibility. As usual, no time for proof-reading :P

    [Federal trojan]: Pirate Party's Home Searched
    The search for an informant from the Bavarian Ministry of Justice

    Bavarian police officers have searched the home of the spokesman of the German Pirate Party, Ralph Hunderlach. They were searching for an informant from the Bavarian Ministry of Justice, who gave the privacy activists and computer experts information about the probably illegally used trojan to listen into skype conversations.

    The Bavarian federal state government is pressuring the Pirate Party with the search of its spokesman's home. "The Bavarian authorities have worked without any legal foundation on a trojan and are now trying to silence their critics", said Udo Vetter, a lawyer and law-blogger to the Frankfurter Rundschau.

    On September 11 at 5:45 [probably AM] police men appeared in the spokesman's home and threatened to remove every piece of furniture if he didn't tell them where he got the information. Hunderlach is at the same time political business man [WTF] of the Regional Association Bavaria of the Pirate Party. "His home was searched to find out the identify of the informant", said Thorsten Wirth, chair of the Pirate Party Hessen [a state in Germany] to Golem.de. It wasn't possible to reveal the search of his home earlier to the public because Hunderlach was busy with his job.

    The person who gave the documents to the Pirate Party however was assured of the securedness of every bit of information that could identify him from unwanted access (by the Party). Another Pirate-activist's server that was also confiscated was also secured using strong encryption.

    The question is "if there maybe might be an excess of governmental activity here", said the former Minister of the Interior Gerhart Baum (FDP), who is now a civil liberties activist to the Frankfurter Rundschau.

    In January 2008 the Pirate Party was given a letter from the Bavarian Ministry of Justice, which included possible evidence of the use of a trojan to listen in on skype conversations and technical details about the employed software. According to the Party, the trojan is suitable for eavesdropping of VoIP conversations and should be able to be installed by police by e-mail or by accessing the system locally. Furthermore, the software can be changed or even deleted without leaving traces and allows access to internal properties of the Skype client and SSL-encrypted websites. "Now that this search has taken place, there's no doubt left about the genuineness of the letter", according to the Pirate Party.

    "Some of our people [policemen/politicians] seem to be quite intent on implementing a police state", said Jens Seipenbusch, deputy chairman of the Pirates.

  51. Exactly why you need tit-for-tat laws. by freedom_india · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When it comes to defending itself, a Government can be truly frightful. They can take away your property (rezoning), your wife(abuse charges), your kids(child abuse charges) and almost anything they can think of. You can do nothing to protect yourself except in courts: Try defending yourself with a handgun when a SWAT team raid (illegally), and you would be lucky to escape alive, let alone unharmed.
    Try protesting your innocence in a police station when you are roughly handcuffed and tossed into a cell containing hardened criminals.
    And when finally courts rule against the government, the government goes scot-free by throwing your tax money back at you in compensation and escaping any other liability.
    If you owe taxes to IRS, they can seize your home, imprison you and incarcerate you forever.
    But if the government owes back taxes to you or any other money, you cannot walk in seize their property: its a sure way to get shot.
    Which is why laws must be tit-for-tat.
    All laws must be reciprocal. If the law allows the State to raid your home with just a no-show warrant, you should be able to do the same against them with same warrant and walk in with a few gun-slingers.
    If the law allows state to seize your property for taxes with just a notice, you should be able to walk in and seize their property when they refuse to pay you.
    Simple.
    Roman laws were like that.
    Its a pity it was not followed.

    --
    "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    1. Re:Exactly why you need tit-for-tat laws. by chthon · · Score: 1

      Here in Belgium we have cases where citizens have seized state property using a magistrate and a court order.

    2. Re:Exactly why you need tit-for-tat laws. by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      Any fool can seize anything with a court order.
      Am talking about laws that allow citizens the right to directly seize state property based on accusations, just like the state can seize your property because of same law.
      Courts are last resort.
      In india the local blood sucking IRS levies interest @ 15% p,.a for taxes due beyond the date, plus a fine of about $150-$5,000 plus criminal charges if delayed beyond 3 months. However the same las allow the government to refund excess taxes within 12 months at zero interest and at 3% interest beyond that period with no ability to enforce it.
      Can i walk into the IRS office, seize their computers, auction them on spot, throw out their officers from their homes, raid them in mid-night, and seize all their money??? After all the government claims to represent me! Why can't i use force unilaterally to recover my money back?
      Please don;t give arguments like anarchy will result, etc. The government causes the greatest anarchy.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    3. Re:Exactly why you need tit-for-tat laws. by Rudd-O · · Score: 1

      > Roman laws were like that.

      Doubt it. Roman law's central tenet is that the State is the supreme force from which all law and rights emanate, and that the citizen is a subject of the State. Contrast to common law, where the central tenet is that government emanates from the people.

      Not that it matters very much. See how the U.S. government is completely unaccountable and irresponsible, despite supposedly being "a government by the people, for the people" in accordance to the central tenet of common law. That's what you get when the populace has been dulled into apathy by so much MPAA and RIAA.

      --
      Rudd-O - http://rudd-o.com/
  52. Re: Bad german history by JSchoeck · · Score: 1

    Partly, of course, you are right. People do die and things are forgotten or at least not as shocking to us after a few decades.

    But you can be damn sure that the "class" with higher education (at least in Germany) knows who Willhelm II. is and they would also recognise him. Who was fighting in the war is also well known (maybe not ALL the participants, but the most important ones like Germany, Austria-Hungary, France, Russia etc.).

    Some things never are forgotten (as long as history records remain intact), even though their impression on the present humanity gets weaker. But everyone (in Europe) still knows about the 30-years war, for example, because it was such a huge tragedy.

    As a side note: according to Wikipedia.de "only" 10 million people died in WW I.

  53. Re: Bad german history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a joke I always use "Wilhelm II" as my avatar on every forum I am a member of. Nobody knows who "the guy with the weird moustache" is. Nobody is offended because it happened before any of us lived. The shockeffect is gone. 40 million people DIED in that war and I bet not even 1% can tell you who fought who.

    Maybe the reason for that is also that WWI is actually much more complex than WWII was in terms of who and what caused it, who's responsible and all that. With WWII, everything's clear - Germany attacked the rest of Europe. With WWI, it's not, and the USA, for example, refused to sign the treaty of Versailles specifically because they felt that it was unfair to put all the blame on Germany, as the treaty did.

    If you'll allow an analogy, Europe before WWI was like a glass of superheated water - calm, but ready to react violently to the tiniest disturbance. And that's exactly what happened.

    Wilhelm II was a shitty guy for many other reasons, but he was not a scourge of mankind the same way that Hitler was.

  54. Re: Bad german history by level4 · · Score: 1

    Good points. I'm a bit of a history buff myself and also lament the decline in knowledge of the Great War - and the popular conception of WWII is also desperately inadequate.

    That said, I can think of a couple more reasons why WWI is particularly susceptible to forgetting, and why its "villains" are not more prominent in the public mind.

    Firstly, the war was so long ago that it seems irrelevant to the modern mind. Unlike WWII, where the technology and even the name of the countries are roughly comparable to today, WWI was very primitive. For example, people today know what a modern tank looks like - when they see those weird trapezoid things crawling around over trenches they disconnect. It seems too long ago to be relevant. Ditto aircraft of the time, horses, the tactics in general .. it's all just too removed from the modern age.

    Secondly, the lack of moving picture records. WWII movies may be B&W but at least they're watchable. What WWI even looked like is something you pretty much have to imagine.

    Thirdly, despite the label "World War I", it really was pretty localised. It's difficult for people outside Europe to feel very personally connected to a war a long time ago on the other side of the world. This lack of global "appeal" leads to a reduction of popular media coverage, eg. films, compounding the effect.

    Fourth, it lacks the accessible "drama" of WWII. Everyone can tell you how WWII began and ended. Even the layman knows which country Germany invaded first, or how America was dragged in - Pearl Harbour was a brilliant opening act, from a dramatic perspective! And no-one will forget how the war ended for Japan in a hurry.

    WWI, on the other hand - even for afficionados its beginnings were a bit, for want of a better word, lame. Some guy gets shot in Austria. Right.

    Lastly, WWI was awful, but it lacks the pure "evil" of WWII. Oh sure the fighting was inhumane; I would much rather have been a solider in WWII - but compared to the concentration camps, the atrocities against the Jews and by the Japanese, the Bomb - it just doesn't compare. You rightfully lament the lack of recognition of Ol' Willie the Deuce but he was no Hitler. The Kaiser was hardly a Prince of Peace, to be sure, but he wasn't exactly an Architect of Evil either.

    Well, this is turning into a bit of an essay so I'll stop there. Anyway, it is regrettable that WWI is so forgotten in the modern age. The ignorance is unjustified, but it's easy to find reasons why it came about.

    --
    Let my new 7-digit UID be a lesson to all - write down your passwords.
  55. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is actually huge

  56. demonstration in munich / bavaria / germany by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    This is one of the reasons, why we are going to demonstrate on this Saturday, 20.Sept.2008 in Munich, Germany.

    Informations (in german) : www.freiheit-weiss-blau.de.

    We are going to have one english translated speech.

  57. Re: Bad german history by Pichu0102 · · Score: 1

    And the lessons will be learned by you and forgotten by your children.

    I've always preferred the idea of "If your children do not inherit your sins and guilt, they will recreate them." as opposed to that.

  58. Re:Actung! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because I keep reading stuff like that on /., let me clarify:

    One of the principles of the German constitution, for obviously "historic reasons", is to protect itself (to simplify, you can think of the way that the Nazis got rid of the democratic constitution of the Weimar Republic as a hack).
    This protection works both ways -- the most fundamental parts cannot be changed, and other basics can't be modified in a way that changes the original meaning. This also includes a clause that permits resistance, if all legal ways have been tried, against a government that abolishes it. But it also means that organizations that have the ultimate goal of abolishing it can be declared illegal (in practice this is rarely done, not to drive such organizations underground). The Nazi party and related organizations are obviously covered by that.

    What is also covered, and what you probably mean, is the public display of symbols that represent anti-constitutional organizations, like the swastika, the SS runes, etc.
    So, if you visit, don't plan on goose-stepping through Berlin with a swastika flag. What you can do, though, is to visit museums where you can see that in all it's "glory" -- display for educational or artistic purposes is perfectly legal. If you want to do a comedy show with a Hitler in uniform, including insignia, that's fine. A movie with a Nazi parade, no problem (as long as it's not something like a recruitment video, obviously). Original footage in history class is also OK, and very commonly used. A picture of Hitler in front of Nazi party flags over your bed (assuming it's not public), hey, whatever rocks your boat.
    Just no public display outside of a historic or artistic context.

  59. Re: Bad german history by MECC · · Score: 1

    And the lessons will be learned by you and forgotten by your children.

    Lessons are forgotten even faster than you propose. We're in Vietnam all over again, only so brief a time later, and preparing for another once that is done.

    People do not make these mistakes for a lack of memory, but for a lack of insight. Many people believe war solves problems, when in fact it doesn't - it creates them. That's why we declare war on drugs to solve drug addiction. Ask yourself, did declaring war solve that problem? Its as if people believe that only by declaring war can they motivate themselves to take action to improve things, yet war is not about improving things, but destroying them and attacking truth, the first casualty in any war. Now we declare "war on terror", while the overwhelming failure of war to solve problems sits at our very feet in the glaring present.

    --
    "We are all geniuses when we dream"
    - E.M. Cioran
  60. Re: Bad german history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Pearl Harbour"

    It's a proper name, not something you get to decide the spelling of as you wish. "The harbour" is not a proper name and therefore you can spell it the way you like. If I decide I always want to spell the word "city" as "sity", that doesn't change the name of New York City, you pompous douchebag. Fuck you.

  61. The only way by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    The only way to communicate through skype privately is to use it to play WoW...and then subversively insert encrypted text once every hour or so....as for the chat of a guild doing raid for about 6 hours...it might get boring for them to listen in on...

  62. Re: Bad german history by Daimanta · · Score: 1

    "but he wasn't exactly an Architect of Evil either."

    Leave Albert Speer out of this! ~

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
  63. Re: Bad german history by level4 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    And this disturbing specimen, ladies and gentlemen, is a chilling reminder of the consequences of allowing an otherwise normal male to go without sex for upwards of five years ..

    you pompous douchebag

    It's the language I learnt at school and have spoken and written every day of my life, you crazy asshole. You have a minor point, but it's commonplace and completely undeserving of your ridiculous rant. The harbour of the city I live has the proper name "Sydney Harbour" but I often see Americans writing it without the "u". They should know better and so should have I, but your reaction is just insane.

    Why don't you go home and think about what went so wrong in your life that you're reduced to writing crazy anonymous rants in response to minor spelling errors to people you've never met on Slashdot.

    --
    Let my new 7-digit UID be a lesson to all - write down your passwords.
  64. Re:Actung! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And highly illegal. Nazi peaedophila ist verboten.

  65. Re: Bad german history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Thick-headed dullards like you won't respond to gentle corrections. I know your type. I'm on to you.

    Did you learn something today? I hope so.

    I enjoyed the fact that you had to resort to making assumptions about who I am based on a post on Slashdot. That's fun. Are you sure I'm male? Maybe I'm female and we can meet up and have a wild love affair, get married, have kids, and tell them all about how we met - "Oh, well your father was a fucking douche-nozzle and didn't know how to fucking spell Pearl Harbor." That'll be nice.

    So, in conclusion: I made a completely correct point about your post and, being unable to find any fault with anything I said, you said that I don't get enough use out of my genitals. Who is the real asshole here?

  66. Re:Actung! by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

    Thanks for your post. I never understood the subtleties of the law. My closest experience with it was when the German government wanted to have copies of Mein Kampf removed from bookstores located in US military bases in Germany. It was an interesting situation.

  67. Re: Bad german history by jrumney · · Score: 1

    and with the generation that has lived under the Nazi regime gradually dying off, those lessons seem in danger of being forgotten.

    Surely the Stasi is still fresh in some Germans' minds (though admittedly not those in Bavaria).

  68. Re: Bad german history by level4 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Who is the real asshole here?

    You. Your "gentle correction" was completely over the top. It was a pointless, stupid rant - and how you can think someone is "pompous" for simply using normal British English defies belief.

    I know your type too. You're a nobody in real life, you're frustrated with your boring life, but unable to change it. You deal with your frustration by trying to bring others down to your level, arguing viciously over minutiae as some kind of pathetic imitation of the challenge that eludes you in reality.

    All you really achieve is wasting everyone's time. You've wasted a few minutes of mine today, but probably far more of your own. No great loss, you have nothing better to do, right?

    You're not evil. I don't hate you - I'm not even angry. I understand only too well why you do what you do. But I am telling you - you are on the wrong path. You are going in the wrong direction.

    I repeat - go do something better with your life. Annoying random people on websites is pretty fucking lame. Don't you think that deep down you have the potential to be better than this?

    Go do something. Make some money. Do something cool. Girls dig that shit. "I spend my days being a jerk on Slashdot" isn't good enough. Why not make today the day that you go and make a change?

    --
    Let my new 7-digit UID be a lesson to all - write down your passwords.
  69. Re: Bad german history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Troy McClure? Is that you?

    Thanks for the advice chief. Calling people names on Slashdot is a hobby, just like any other. I'm quite pleased with my life but I appreciate your concern. Now - let's review - how do you spell Pearl Harbor?

  70. Re:Actung! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Glad I could help. :)

    "Mein Kapf" is a special case. It's actually illegal to publish or sell new copies -- because the state of Bavaria claims copyright. I don't know what will happen in 2015 (70 years after the author's death).

    I gave up after the first chapter. Turns out he wasn't good at writing, either.

  71. Re: Bad german history by level4 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Now - let's review - how do you spell Pearl Harbor?

    However the fuck I want to, loser.

    --
    Let my new 7-digit UID be a lesson to all - write down your passwords.
  72. Re: Bad german history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Your "gentle correction" was completely over the top."

    And another thing!Re-read that sentence. My point was that I wasn't using a gentle correction so your quotation of it makes no sense whatsoever. Christ on a Fucking Pogo Stick, you really need my help. First you've got the spelling issues and now you can't even fucking read for comprehension. I'm afraid this is a sure sign that you're sad with your life and want to kill yourself. But there's help out there for you, believe me.

    Or maybe it's just that you're an idiot. Either way, your Internet slap-fighting skills are incredibly weak.

  73. Re: Bad german history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Oh no! How sad! You're calling people names on Slashdot. That's a sure sign that you're not getting your dick wet often enough and that you're incredibly unhappy with your life and you're a nobody.

    Or maybe only a fucking idiot would draw those conclusions and you should drink some bleach. Have a great day!

  74. Re: Bad german history by Daimanta · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately no. I was in Berlin a few weeks ago. Nobody could tell me where the Stasi Museum was. Not even when we were closer than 1km. And the Stasi museum is part of a HUGE complex.

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
  75. Re: Bad german history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thick-headed dullards like you won't respond to gentle corrections. I know your type. I'm on to you.

    Did you learn something today? I hope so.

    I enjoyed the fact that you had to resort to making assumptions about who I am based on a post on Slashdot. That's fun. Are you sure I'm male? Maybe I'm female and we can meet up and have a wild love affair, get married, have kids, and tell them all about how we met - "Oh, well your father was a fucking douche-nozzle and didn't know how to fucking spell Pearl Harbor." That'll be nice.

    So, in conclusion: I made a completely correct point about your post and, being unable to find any fault with anything I said, you said that I don't get enough use out of my genitals. Who is the real asshole here?

    There are no women on the internet.

  76. Re: Bad german history by level4 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Not calling you names, pal - just stating the facts.

    And if by "bleach" you mean "icy cold Asahi Super Dry" then why yes, I think that's exactly what I'll do. Cheers! :)

    PS. Pearl Harbour

    --
    Let my new 7-digit UID be a lesson to all - write down your passwords.
  77. Re: Bad german history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Enjoy the mod-bomb, idiot.

  78. You can't trust Government by Conrad+Mazian · · Score: 1

    No Government has your best interests at heart, only their own. The best Government is the least Government, and the least Government is no Government at all (from a book by L. Neil Smith).

  79. Re: Bad german history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OMG bombs! That was like a digital Pearl Harbour!

  80. Police state? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least the Germans haven't started taking people's laptops, phones, USB sticks and iPods as people enter the border.

    Want to know the definition of police state? You don't have to look far -- you're LIVING IN ONE.