Slashdot Mirror


Even More Restriction For German Internet

tikurion writes "It's only been a few weeks since the law dubbed Zugangserschwerungsgesetz (access impediment law) was passed in the German Parliament despite over 140,000 signatures of people opposed to it. The law will go into effect in mid-October 2009. Now Minister for Family Affairs Ursula von der Leyen implied in an interview that she is planning on extending the reach of the law, claiming '...or else the great Internet is in danger of turning into a lawless range of chaos, where you're allowed to bully, insult, and deceive limitlessly.' More on golem.de via Google translate (here is the German original)."

330 comments

  1. 4chan by DreamsAreOkToo · · Score: 5, Funny

    where you're allowed to bully, insult, and deceive limitlessly.

    If this was their goal, there would only need to be one domain on the list.

    1. Re:4chan by bhima · · Score: 1

      Trying to block 4Chan just encourages them

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    2. Re:4chan by Senes · · Score: 1

      Specifically img.4chan.org, which was what AT&T did for a brief while. As an added benefit for ISPs it also cuts down on all the illegal porn and DDoS that people like to fling at the site as well.

    3. Re:4chan by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 1

      oh there's worse than 4chan.

      don't make me show you.

    4. Re:4chan by m0ve · · Score: 2, Funny

      come on ! we can take it ;)

    5. Re:4chan by purpledinoz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      German laws are pretty strange. You can be sued just by insulting someone. Of course it's hard to differentiate a harsh opinion and a genuine insult. And if you swear at any governmental worker (police, vehicle licensing office, employment office, etc), forget about it. Free speech is not as strong as it is in the US. So the likes of Howard Stern could not exist in Germany. Of course Germans are worried about l33thax0r posting insults on message boards.

      What I find even crazier is that most Germans I've talked to agree with this speech law. I suppose Germans don't value free speech as much as the Americans.

    6. Re:4chan by koinu · · Score: 1

      @USA: It's that time again. Send us some bombs here. We need it badly again...

      (Btw, sign it with "4 TEH LULZ!".)

    7. Re:4chan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      There is no law specifically against swearing at goverment emploeyees. There just isn't. It's a myth.

    8. Re:4chan by TheP4st · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I suppose Germans don't value free speech as much as the Americans.

      "Brett Bursey" learned the hard way what the price can be for exercising your "right" to free speach in the USA.

      --
      "I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
    9. Re:4chan by jhoegl · · Score: 0

      You assume too much. Would you be a willing speech advocate if your child was harmed due to speech on the internet? Harmed could be anywhere from crying about it to deep depression to suicide. Yeah, its happened.

    10. Re:4chan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google "gurochan".

      You're welcome.

    11. Re:4chan by purpledinoz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I guess I should rephrase: I suppose Germans don't value free speech as much as the Americans used to.

    12. Re:4chan by Grimbleton · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Absofuckinglutely.

    13. Re:4chan by karstux · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not all is lost in Germany. Political activism against the ongoing restriction of our civil rights is strongly on the rise. The petition against the censorship law has been mentioned in the article, and our Pirate Party has gained thousands of new members in the past few months. It has done pretty well in the European elections this year, and I think that public awareness to civil rights matters has improved since then. I strongly hope the Pirates will enter the Bundestag (parliament) in September.

      Our government has used pretty underhanded techniques to push these laws, effectively grouping all opposition to the censorship law with child molesters. So if you ask someone on the street if "they're against a law which will combat child pornography on the internet", of course they will decline. On the other hand, if you asked them if "government and police should be able to censor the internet at will", the result would surely be different.

      By the way, this phenomenon is not unique to Germany. In America, civil rights have been whittled away with terrorists as a scarecrow.

      --
      Don't whistle while you're pissing.
    14. Re:4chan by Wowsers · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bullying, insults and deception.... isn't that what all governments do best? Are they going to legislate against themselves?

      --
      Take Nobody's Word For It.
    15. Re:4chan by Stachybotris · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What I find even crazier is that most Germans I've talked to agree with this speech law. I suppose Germans don't value free speech as much as the Americans.

      I'm going to Godwin this, but only because it's true...

      IIRC, it's not that Germans don't value the freedom of expression, but rather that they're still suffering from a pretty bad case of what we'd term 'pendulum swing'. You see, after World War II ended, they got a little touchy about people being able to openly spew hateful and hurtful speeches. They clamped down pretty hard on peoples' ability to say what they want, though not directly through legislation, and it never really let up. To this day the Germans still remember what happened to them as a nation the last time bullying, lying, and insulting others went unchecked - they started a war that involved a fairly large number of countries and ended up with them losing and, essentially, being split in two. So, as a result, the older generation, and even the current on (albeit to a lesser extent) is really strict about policing itself.

      Penny Arcade's 'Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory' also comes into play here... When hiding behind a screen of semi-anonymity, people with an audience will say and do just about anything to get a rise out of others. This is, unfortunately, part of human nature.

      Given that, it's not difficult to see why they're overly sensitive about what people do and say on-line. They're trying, in their own misguided and ill-conceived way, to put the same sort of self-policing mechanism in place on the web that they use in real-life. But since they have to deal with an enormous number of outside influences (read: every site on the internet that doesn't originate in Germany), they have to use the club of law instead of the softer form of social pressure that works when people are standing around talking in the town square. Unfortunately for them, the 'net and the town square aren't the same thing and certainly don't work the same way.

      Or, to summarize; this law, though probably poorly-written, is conceived with good intentions, though we all know how that goes.

    16. Re:4chan by Jurily · · Score: 1

      it also cuts down on all the illegal porn

      You mean spam, which is 90+ percent of all internet traffic? And censorship isn't really the solution for this.

    17. Re:4chan by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Informative

      IIRC, it's not that Germans don't value the freedom of expression, but rather that they're still suffering from a pretty bad case of what we'd term 'pendulum swing'. You see, after World War II ended, they got a little touchy about people being able to openly spew hateful and hurtful speeches. They clamped down pretty hard on peoples' ability to say what they want, though not directly through legislation, and it never really let up.

      You're mostly correct, except it wasn't the Germans themselves who did it. It was the Allies, then still occupying Germany, who imposed most of those restrictions as the required condition of Germany becoming a free independent state again.

    18. Re:4chan by SlashWombat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're mostly correct, except it wasn't the Germans themselves who did it. It was the Allies, then still occupying Germany, who imposed most of those restrictions as the required condition of Germany becoming a free independent state again.

      Am I alone in thinking that this seems rather ironic? The countries that traditionally valued freedom disallowing the very same freedom in a conquered country? (However, most of these so called "freedom loving" countries are now devolving into fascist regimes in their own right.)

    19. Re:4chan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullying, insults and deception.... isn't that what all governments do best? Are they going to legislate against themselves?

      No. This only applies to the Internet, which most politicians don't know how to use.

    20. Re:4chan by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Do as I say, don't do as I do. It seems to be the creed of governments these days.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    21. Re:4chan by jesset77 · · Score: 1

      You assume too much. Would you be a willing speech advocate if your child was harmed due to speech on the internet? Harmed could be anywhere from crying about it to deep depression to suicide. Yeah, its happened.

      OMFG I can't believe you just said that! I'm going to kill myself now, I hope you are happy murderer! Why can't you keep your small minded attacks to yourself? </sarcasm>

      Wait, what? Ah shit! I put that end tag one sentence farther forward than I meant to. My bad! :P

      --
      People willing to trade their freedom of expression for temporary entertainment deserve neither and will lose both.
    22. Re:4chan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's not really ironic.

      If you are bad, you lose privileges. If you scream in the restaurant, you go straight to bed with no story. If you park in the No Loading Zone you get a fine. If you beat a guy with an iron bar you go to jail.

      If your country starts World War II, your government gets put on trial and you get your constitution rewritten by outsiders. Bad Germany. No biscuit.

    23. Re:4chan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, to summarize; this law, though probably poorly-written, is conceived with good intentions, though we all know how that goes.

      This current law and the proposed extension is nothing but an attempt to win voters. Even if it had started with only good intentions after the 140000 people complaining about it even the last politician knows what it really is. However, 140000 votes of mostly younger people help nothing against all the votes from clueless older ones that they will get from this.

      You're right about everything else though. What I'd stress is that Germans do have and value the freedom of expression. We also do have and value freedom of speech as a subset of it. I'd even dare say that in practice, we might be more free than our American friends. For instance, all that censorship of curse words doesn't exist over here. However, we do not have the freedom to open our mouths and see what falls out, which basically is summed up to: "Denying the holocaust, promoting national-socialism, insults and blasphemy are prohibited." Luckily, the latter isn't enforced, I have no problem with the first two, and in respect to insults... well, nothing that will stop someone who's only marginally able to articulate themselves in German.

    24. Re:4chan by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I even question the intentions of the law.

      The alleged intention of the law is to make viewing child porn impossible or at least make it a lot harder. There are videos on YouTube how it's possible to circumvent the problem in a matter of 10 seconds. Even child protection organisations called the law "short sighted" and "useless", if they were friendly and didn't want to use stronger words.

      Instead, what will happen? Someone browsing for CP will encounter this stop-page. If he's dumb, he'll browse through. If he's smart, he will start looking around for IP masking tools, making it even harder to find them if (not when, but if) a server containing such material is raided and IP logs are analyzed. Over time, the only IP addresses from Germany will be those of TOR exit nodes and similar tools, which in turn will result in a crackdown against anonymizing services.

      Also, some politicians already "thought" about expanding the number of sites, to encompass other "undesirable" pages (like, say, TPB and similar "illegal" pages). Once such a tool is in existance, it will be abused. And I'm not so convinced that abuse has not been part of the idea altogether.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    25. Re:4chan by Random+Person+1372 · · Score: 0

      It is sad that you see Freedom of Expression, one of the Human Rights, as a privilege that can be taken away instead of an inalienable right. On the same line of thought goverments take away the *right* (not privilege) not to be tortured (because you are an evil person and so do not deserve any "privileges")...

    26. Re:4chan by Kokuyo · · Score: 2, Informative

      The abuse of the tool already happened... or at least the abuse is already intended. Just after this law was accepted (matter of single digit hours, not days, mind), politicians asked to extend this tool to contain sites besides CP. The next thing is terrorism. After that? Well, I think filesharing is a top candidate.

      Nobody guarantees that it will stop there, though.

    27. Re:4chan by Kokuyo · · Score: 1

      You're asking the wrong country. The US is, or at least the government is, applauding right now and thinking about how they can assimilate this great idea.

      Frankly, I'm fucking scared of the western world and have been for a few years. I really, really want my own planet.

    28. Re:4chan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "'...or else the great Internet is in danger of turning into a lawless range of chaos, where you're allowed to bully, insult, and deceive limitlessly.' "

      Yes, we can't have people "bullying" or "insulting" the JEWS who run Germany, can we? Otherwise known as unelected tyrants.

      Do you think the German people chose to be ruled over by a bunch of whining, money grabbing Jews?

      Why aren't the Jews all living in Israel, if we're all so 'anti-semitic'?

      Because a parasite cannot live off other parasites...

      All of Europe and every other white country on Earth are currently in the hands of unelected Jewish tyrants... or hadn't you noticed?

      Isn't it strange how EVERY white country has an open borders policy, clearly against the wishes of the majority of the indigenous population? Can you explain this? Who benefits? Who rules Congress?

      THE JEW.

    29. Re:4chan by rve · · Score: 1

      You're mostly correct, except it wasn't the Germans themselves who did it. It was the Allies, then still occupying Germany, who imposed most of those restrictions as the required condition of Germany becoming a free independent state again.

      Am I alone in thinking that this seems rather ironic? The countries that traditionally valued freedom disallowing the very same freedom in a conquered country? (However, most of these so called "freedom loving" countries are now devolving into fascist regimes in their own right.)

      It's benign compared to some alternative punishments that were considered at the time, ranging from canceling the country and dividing it among their neighbors to shrinking the population by means of starvation or forced sterilization to razing all cities and reducing the economy to a subsistence farming model without industry or technology.

      In the end, they decided to shrink Germany, split it in two, ethnically cleanse all Germans from areas outside German borders and write a new constitution for them.

    30. Re:4chan by erlehmann · · Score: 1

      Incidentally, 4chan is on the australian censorship list. Google is also censoring its search results regarding /b/.

    31. Re:4chan by Nathrael · · Score: 2, Informative

      If my child gets harmed by reading something on the Internet I failed at parenting. Young children shouldn't be allowed to use the Internet alone, older children should be able to coup with most of what they see (you know, one of the jobs of parents is to prepare their children for the big mean world out there).

      --
      A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
    32. Re:4chan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes, just like if my child were allergic to peanutbutter, I wouldn't try to arrest others for eating it.

    33. Re:4chan by intheshelter · · Score: 1

      While I see your point, keep in mind that Americans still like free speech. Lying, scumbag presidents who should be impeached don't like free speech. I think that explains the incidents in your link.

    34. Re:4chan by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      You don't understand; the problem is that they don't want the competition.

    35. Re:4chan by digitig · · Score: 1

      It is sad that you see Freedom of Expression, one of the Human Rights, as a privilege that can be taken away instead of an inalienable right.

      The right to liberty is also one of the Human Rights, at least according to the Univeral Declaration of Human Rights, but I notice that you didn't complain about "If you beat a guy with an iron bar you go to jail."

      Another Human Right is "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment", and it could be argued that some cases of internet lying and bullying constitute "cruel" or "degrading" treatment, so the issue is balancing conflicting rights. How do you propose that be managed, without restricting the rights of those who abuse them?

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    36. Re:4chan by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2, Informative

      In the end, they decided to shrink Germany, split it in two

      In fact, there was no decision as such to split Germany in two. Immediately after Germany's surrender, it was split into four occupation zones (US, British, French and Soviet), but this was always intended to be temporary. However, the zones under occupation of the Western powers and zone under Soviet occupation each formed a separate government, each of which claimed to be the rightful government of all Germany. The differences could not be reconciled (the Cold War was heading into high gear at this point), so each wound up ruling its portion of Germany.

    37. Re:4chan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can try to block 4chan, or you can fuck with someone who is more compassionate and understanding, like the Russian mob.

    38. Re:4chan by 2obvious4u · · Score: 1

      I disliked Bush as much as the next guy, but if you think Obama is any better you've got issues. Obama is just better at spin, aka running the propaganda machine.

    39. Re:4chan by bmatt17 · · Score: 1

      What you mean take responsibility for yourself and your children? That's clearly not the American way.

    40. Re:4chan by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      There are already laws against harrassment. If someone is getting upset about mere speech that doesn't constitute harrassment, then they either need to learn to get used to it, or not go on the Internet if it's so upsetting for them.

    41. Re:4chan by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      You can't group all Americans together, a lot of us still value free speech abd bristle at restrictive, obviously unconstitutional laws.

    42. Re:4chan by Narishma · · Score: 1

      If your country starts World War II, your government gets put on trial and you get your constitution rewritten by outsiders.

      Only if you lose the war.

      --
      Mada mada dane.
    43. Re:4chan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The weird thing is, Germany is already where a huge number of Tor exit nodes are. Also there are a bunch of anonymizing services located in Germany (everything from proxies to full VPN's).

      Maybe it's simply because of all these restrictions, I don't know. Makes me nervous to use those services myself because of that fact that they are in Germany or pass through Germany. Are they really anonymous? How would we know if the German government started snooping on those services? That seems very likely with the way they are going.

    44. Re:4chan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or a Russian MOAB.

    45. Re:4chan by hesiod · · Score: 1

      He hasn't started any wars so far. I also haven't heard of him condoning practices that violate international treaties. It's an OK start.

    46. Re:4chan by hesiod · · Score: 1

      As soon as there's a WWII that's won by the instigator, that rule will be rewritten. :P

    47. Re:4chan by TheP4st · · Score: 2, Insightful
      What prompted my reply was that Germans too like free spech as can be assesed from reading the summary. Something the poster I replied to overlooked and responded with the usual BS about the US having/liking free speech and Germany and/or EU not.

      over 140,000 signatures of people opposed to it

      I am fed up with us regular people on each side of the pond "shouting" our free speech is better than yours, you don't even have free speech.

      Time to wake up and realize that things are becoming pretty bad on both sides of the pond. The sooner we all realize that neither system is perfect and leave a lot to wish for, we can actually deal with our problems rather than just as our respective governments wants us to, indulge in useless finger pointing!

      --
      "I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
    48. Re:4chan by Zerth · · Score: 1

      Just because somebody dislikes Bush, doesn't automatically mean they like Obama. Yourself, for example, apparently.

      Dems & Reps are just the largest parties, not the only ones.

    49. Re:4chan by jhol13 · · Score: 1

      Even child protection organisations called the law "short sighted" and "useless",

      Not so in Finland, actually totally opposite.

      We have a law which allows ISPs to block by police given list. "Pelastakaa Lapset Ry" (Save The Children non-profit-org.) has said the law is very good one.

      The list is secret but due to the size of DNS (IPv4) it is easy to find out. A person who did find out it was put into the list ... and at the moment there is no way to get out of the list. Besides, police is keen to put sites to the list but not keen at all to attempt to close down the sites ...

      BTW, already ÃKT (music & movie industry representation group, kinda RIAA+MPAA) wants to use it for blocking thepiratebay, etc.

    50. Re:4chan by Hasai · · Score: 1

      ....Our government has used pretty underhanded techniques to push these laws, effectively grouping all opposition to the censorship law with child molesters....

      "But...but it's for the CHILDREN!"

      Amazing, isn't it, how much you can get away with if you precede all your actions with that one line.

      'Security' is the ultimate tool of the dictator, for who can successfully argue against 'security?'

      --

      Regards;

      Hasai

    51. Re:4chan by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2, Informative

      He hasn't started any wars so far.

      He doesn't seem to be in any hurry to wind down Bush's wars, either. Granted, it's a lot easier to get into a war than get out of it, so I'm willing to give him a pass on this one. But --

      I also haven't heard of him condoning practices that violate international treaties.

      Then you haven't been paying attention. He is extending Bush's monstrous policies on "enemy combatants" and vigorously fighting any effort to open up the records. Glenn Greenwald has been covering this extensively on Salon for the last several months; look through the archives and you'll be pretty shocked.

      Look, I voted for Obama, and I haven't yet -- quite -- ripped the "Vets for Obama" sticker off my car in disgust. I still have no doubt that he'll make a much better President than McCain would have. But while I expected him to back off somewhat on most of his campaign propaganda once he got in office, as all politicians do, I have to say I'm really kind of surprised at how thoroughly he's turned his back on what appeared to be some core values.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    52. Re:4chan by jipn4 · · Score: 1

      Am I alone in thinking that this seems rather ironic? The countries that traditionally valued freedom disallowing the very same freedom in a conquered country?

      Not really. Germany was still full of the same people who had supported the Nazis just a few years earlier; some restrictions were bound to be necessary. It's actually quite amazing, and a testament to US political skill, that Germany managed to do so well with so few restrictions.

      The US might have chosen 50 years of draconian military rule and reeducation in Germany, and neither the American voter nor Germany's European neighbors would have shed a tear over it. That wouldn't have been inconsistent with US principles: the primary objective of US foreign policy is to keep America safe and democratic, not to democratize the rest of the world. But it would likely have worked much worse than the actual strategy: a wealthy, happy, democratic Germany was the best defense against the USSR. Germans should just remember that this kind of post-war treatment by the West wasn't a right, it was a side-effect of other political objectives of the victors of WWII.

    53. Re:4chan by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Suppose that your child had died in a swimming pool. Would you continue to advocate that water be legal?

      Suppose that your child had died in a traffic accident. Would you campaign for the abolition of automobiles?

      Lots of children have died in car accidents, and a significant number in swimming pools. Most of us realize that this is not a good reason to ban cars or swimming pools.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    54. Re:4chan by tenco · · Score: 1

      In the end, they decided to shrink Germany, split it in two, ethnically cleanse all Germans from areas outside German borders and write a new constitution for them.

      The new constitution was written by germans: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grundgesetz#Drafting_process Of course, approval had to be obtained.

    55. Re:4chan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do - it's just the government that does not give a rat's ass about it...

    56. Re:4chan by tenco · · Score: 1

      Frankly, I'm fucking scared of the western world and have been for a few years. I really, really want my own planet.

      I second that.

    57. Re:4chan by Tom · · Score: 1

      Or, to summarize; this law, though probably poorly-written, is conceived with good intentions, though we all know how that goes.

      Err, no.

      I've never seen a law that was conceived with fewer good intentions, and I've been following this one closely. The whole "child porn" nonsense was sand-in-the-eyes from the get go. There's a reason that several organisations of actual child abuse victims are amongst the most vocal opponents of this law.

      The intent was never to fight child porn. Everyone with even three working brain cells can see that it will achieve nothing in that regard. The intent was and always has been cheap publicity for Zensursula. Read up on her background and what she's done since in office and you'll realize that she's done almost nothing to help families, and a lot to get her name into the media. If her intentions are even partially honest and good, then she's the dumbest human being alive, and yes including GWB.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    58. Re:4chan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only your "Pirate Party" were a viable choice. I voted for them in the EU elections, but I won't do it again. The European PP decided to not have any political agenda besides the Internet stuff, and they joined the Green faction, who are in their majority in favor of censorship. The German PP seems very reluctant to get rid of nazis in their midst, just like the Swedish PP, a spawn of Thepiratebay, co-founded and financed by a nazi. No thanks. Being against censorship doesn't mean I have to side with that scum.

    59. Re:4chan by SaidinUnleashed · · Score: 1

      Yes, but don't you dare call them "dictatorships". Under the 2009 I Don't Like That Naughty Word Act, you can't use dirty words, like "dick", improper conjugations like "tater", and you must have a commissioned vessel to call it a ship. So call it what it is. A penispotatoboat.

      --
      Shiny. Let's be bad guys.
    60. Re:4chan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As soon as there's a WWII that's won by the instigator, that rule will be rewritten. :P

      With the subject line still what it is, the question has to be asked: Jews?

    61. Re:4chan by mujadaddy · · Score: 1

      Frankly, I'm fucking scared of the western world and have been for a few years. I really, really want my own planet.

      Fuck that, everyone else can get off of this one and leave me the hell alone!

      Lawn? Not far enough -- Get off my crust!

      --
      Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
      "Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
    62. Re:4chan by tirefire · · Score: 1

      "Granted, it's a lot easier to get into a war than get out of it, so I'm willing to give him a pass on this one."

      Fuck that. Getting out of a war is easy. The hardest part is arithmetic: How many troops fit on an aircraft, how many transport aircraft do we have, how long does it take for each aircraft to fly back to the US, how much downtime can we expect for maintenance? THIS is how we should be getting out of Iraq. And probably Afghanistan, since last I heard Osama was more likely in Pakistan than Afghanistan.

    63. Re:4chan by aix+tom · · Score: 1

      OTOH, there are words in German childrens programs that get bleeped out in prime-time American shows. ;-P Well, I just have to vote Pirate in September and see if it makes a difference.

    64. Re:4chan by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      At this point, there are a lot of innocent Iraqis and Afghans who depend on the US military for protection from the fanatics in their midst. Now, you can argue that we should never have created this situation in the first place, and I'll agree with you (at least in the case of Iraq; Afghanistan's a little more complicated) but the fact is, that's the situation we have to deal with. The kind of abrupt pullout you suggest would lead inevitably to a bloodbath of epic proportions followed, most likely, by the creation of two new fanatical theocracies with active hatred for the US and the means (especially in Iraq's case) to fund massive terrorist attacks. There's bitter irony in this, of course, since before the wars, Iraq posed no threat to us and Afghanistan, while it was in the grip of a theocracy as grotesque as any the world has ever known, was only a threat insofar as it harbored foreign terrorists. But that's the way it is, and "how many transport planes do we need" won't make it go away.

      We should have just left Iraq alone, and we probably could have bullied and/or bargained the Taliban into giving us bin Laden. That's what we should have done. But now we are prisoners of our history, and I don't envy Obama his job of planning how to get the sentence reduced.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    65. Re:4chan by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      einsatzgruppen.net

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    66. Re:4chan by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      I third that.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  2. "to bully, insult, and deceive limitlessly" by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

    And also to click the big X in the top right of the screen.

    --
    A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    1. Re:"to bully, insult, and deceive limitlessly" by Rashdot · · Score: 1

      When I saw the title of your post, I thought you were going to say that the government thinks it's the only one who has the right to bully, insult and deceive limitlessly.

      --
      This is not the sig you're looking for.
    2. Re:"to bully, insult, and deceive limitlessly" by scaryjohn · · Score: 1

      And also to click the big X in the top right of the screen.

      Meh. That one is next.

      --
      One might ask the same about birds. What ARE birds? We just don't know.
  3. Das ist verboten. by gandhi_2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Heaven:
    Where the police are British,
    The cooks are Italian,
    The mechanics are German,
    The lovers are French and
    It's all organized by the Swiss.

    Hell is:
    Where the police are German,
    The cooks are British,
    The Mechanics are French,
    The lovers are Swiss and
    It's all organized by the Italians.

    1. Re:Das ist verboten. by foobsr · · Score: 1

      :-), though I would exchange Swiss/ German in Heaven.

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    2. Re:Das ist verboten. by mpoulton · · Score: 1

      :-), though I would exchange Swiss/ German in Heaven.

      You want the Germans in charge of scheduling your eternal peace? I am reminded of the Beck's beer ad, "COMMENCE RELAXATION...NOW!"

      --
      I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
    3. Re:Das ist verboten. by selven · · Score: 3, Funny

      The police are British? That's a bit outdated. Hmm.... what country has a good police force? Sealand?

    4. Re:Das ist verboten. by Repossessed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Heaven:
      Where the police are British,

      In heaven they write you up as a terrorist for taking pictures?

      --
      Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
    5. Re:Das ist verboten. by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      And the Anonymous are Japanese. ^^

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    6. Re:Das ist verboten. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heaven: ....

      Hatting on the United States /3
      We're pretty cool, sometimes. :o

  4. Internet nazi? by russlar · · Score: 3, Funny

    "No Internet for you!"

    --
    Anybody want my mod points?
    1. Re:Internet nazi? by Wowsers · · Score: 2, Funny

      The German music group Kraftwerk have reworded their hit Autobahn, it now goes..

      "No fun fun fun on the information autobahn!" /sarcasm

      --
      Take Nobody's Word For It.
  5. Remind me... by linux_stu · · Score: 0

    never to move to Germany.

    1. Re:Remind me... by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 1

      I'm just reminding you to never move to Germany

    2. Re:Remind me... by Yvanhoe · · Score: 0

      In nazi Europe, Germany moves to you !

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    3. Re:Remind me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol

    4. Re:Remind me... by V+for+Vendetta · · Score: 1

      The disturbing and sad part is ... you might be on to something there. This time not with tanks, but with "good intented" laws.

      (German citizen here)

  6. Umm.. why? by NervousNerd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now Minister for Family Affairs Ursula von der Leyen implied

    There shouldn't even be a family affairs department. What families do is their own matter, unless they do something illegal.

    1. Re:Umm.. why? by SerpentMage · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's called Social department in the Anglo Saxon world... All countries have "family affairs" departments.

      But besides that I do find it problematic on what the German government is proposing. If they truly did believe what they did, they would actually fix the school system first! The German school system is a mess and is prone to the exact problems that von der Leyen is trying to solve in the Internet. But hey fixing the school system would mean that von der Leyen would actually have to do something, you know her job!

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    2. Re:Umm.. why? by SerpentMage · · Score: 3, Informative

      I was further doing some reading and here is something interesting:

      http://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/it-medien/die-angst-vor-der-totalen-ueberwachung;2434939;2

      Einführen müssen die Filterstrukturen Internet-Provider ab 10 000 Kunden. Für kleinere Unternehmen wÃre der finanzielle Aufwand zu hoch. UniversitÃten und Ãffentliche Bibliotheken sind ausgenommen.

      Ok translated... Any ISP with under 10,000 clients can ignore this, as well small companies, universities, and libraries...

      TYPICAL GERMAN politics, come up with a screwy law, and make it even more screwy! So I guess what I can take from this is that child porn is ok to see at a university, but not a corporation or large ISP... Yeah that makes sense, really does...

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    3. Re:Umm.. why? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      *sarcasm* Hell, I think that I like all these laws. I mean, why should I be bullied if I post something that a lot of slashdotters don't like? What give them the right to mod me down? Just a few minutes ago, a fellow slashdotter responded to me, and used the word "fuck" in his reply! Disgraceful!! Just who the fuck is he, anyway, to be fucking at me?

      I welcome our new German censorship overlords. And, I hope the Ozzies, the Brits, and the Canucks all join with the United States, and follow Germany's example!! *end sarcasm*

      Fucking nazis. They're everywhere - even in the outback of down under. Eventually, they'll piss me off, and I'll become another crazy ass anarchist.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    4. Re:Umm.. why? by Anarchduke · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hey watch it, that's Germany you are talking about. In Germany, it is forbidden to talk about Nazi's, even when they are censoring the internet.

      --
      who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
    5. Re:Umm.. why? by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      Just wait until they create a Ministry for Desperate Housewives.

    6. Re:Umm.. why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She's a christian democrat. Christian democrats tend to put a strong emphasis on the family as the fundamental building block of society, strong enough to create family affairs departments.

    7. Re:Umm.. why? by moronoxyd · · Score: 1

      What give them the right to mod me down? Just a few minutes ago, a fellow slashdotter responded to me, and used the word "fuck" in his reply!

      You know, censorship is funny that way... in Germany, there are no rules stopping people from saying four letter words (or the German equivalents) on TV, and the rules against showing naked breasts or sex scences are much more relaxed.
      And we're allowed to drink alcohol on the streets and show the bottles and stuff.

      There isn't really more censorship in Germany then there is in America.
      It just affects different aspects of life.

      And that's because, you know, censorship is often based on moral standards that differ depending on historic and cultural backgrounds.

    8. Re:Umm.. why? by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      She actually got through woth the "But Think Of The Children!!"-approach.

      Worst. Election-Campign-Stunt. Ever.

      --
      bickerdyke
    9. Re:Umm.. why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me correct your translation a little bit:

      Any ISP under 10,000 clients doesn't have to implement this filter because of the cost!

    10. Re:Umm.. why? by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because "Zensurulla" (censorship Ulla) as the German Miss Education has been nicknamed, has a long history of political stunts and blunders.

      Very well remembered (even though she tried hard to downplay it and make it forgotten) was her attempt to encourage academics to have more kids. She was pissed at the "lowlives" who pump out baby after baby even though they couldn't get them what she deemed a good life and education, while people with PhD's simply don't have many kids, if any. So she envisioned a bonus for people with high education if they had more kids. Quickly nicknamed the "Akademikerwurfprämie" (university graduates litter bonus).

      Appearantly she didn't take into account that a few hundred bucks a month ain't enough to encourage someone with a career and an income beyond 6k a month to toss it all for a kid if all they got in return was a bonus they could possibly only laugh at.

      So now she stumbles with her feet firmly lodged in her mouth from one blunder to the next, hoping that she finally manages to come up with an idea that could possibly get her some recognition and make all the former "ideas" forgotten. Well, it works, but only because one stunt is even more harebrained than the one before.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:Umm.. why? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The amount of time she spends thinking of the children makes me wonder whether she's a pedo.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:Umm.. why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, it is done all over Europe right now, but only in Germany there is a passionate debate.

    13. Re:Umm.. why? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      It's called Social department in the Anglo Saxon world...

      Do you do know where the Angles were from? And the Saxons too, for that matter?

      I think in this case, `English speaking' might be a better phrase...

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    14. Re:Umm.. why? by SerpentMage · · Score: 1

      Contemporary Meanings:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxons

      Outside Anglophone countries, both in Europe and in the rest of the world, the term "Anglo-Saxon" and its direct translations are used to refer to the Anglophone peoples and societies of Britain, the United States, and other countries such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand. The term can be used in a variety of contexts, often to identify the English-speaking world's distinctive language, culture, technology, wealth, markets, economy, and legal systems. Local variations include the French "Anglo-Saxon" and the Spanish "anglosajÃn".

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    15. Re:Umm.. why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's Zensursula. her name is Ursula, not Ulla.
      You're mixing her name up with the SPD retard Ulla Schmidt.

    16. Re:Umm.. why? by lq_x_pl · · Score: 1

      "she envisioned a bonus for people with high education if they had more kids."
      Ah, eugenics is alive and well.

      --
      An internal system operation returned the error "The operation completed successfully.".
    17. Re:Umm.. why? by zeromorph · · Score: 1

      Yes I think this is important, the law mimics laws in Scandinavia or Australia. Technically, it will be a blacklist for IP-addresses somehow connected with child pornography. I think it is a good sign for Germany that the debate is lively and the resistance rather fierce.

      The German speaking Internet is all at rage:

      There are songs on youtube, comedians are taking rhather hard on the minister, protest is organized on the net and in Berlin in September

      The law is badly made, probably highly ineffective (just take a DNS-server outside of Germany, use Tor, whatever) and may have far reaching consequences. The resistance against it, however, is well organized and and I am rather optimistic that might have some effect, at least in the long run.

      --
      "Hannibal's plans never work right. They just work." Amy/A-Team
    18. Re:Umm.. why? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Right, it's "Zensursula".

      Then again, it's not like most politicians aren't interchangable. The faces change, the crap in the heads is pretty much the same.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    19. Re:Umm.. why? by he-sk · · Score: 1

      The law is also unconstitutional, simply because it touches criminal prosecution and media infrastructure which are responsibilities of the German member states, while the blacklist will be supervised by the federal German police.

      In short: The federal government had no legislative competency to pass such a law.

      I assume that eventually it will be struck down by the constitutional court. Which shows an alarming tendency of German lawmakers: Passing laws that they themselves not always agree with because of party discipline, while assuming that Karlsruhe (nickname for the court) will fix the mess they make. Pathetic! They also violated EU procedure, by conveniently forgetting to notify the EU commission before the law was passed. (The commission can comment on laws which touch the internet and has the power to change them.) Really shoddy law making. The petition against the law, which broke all records in 4 days was completely ignored and the petitioners demonized by the politicians. Disgusting!

      Of course, there's an election coming up in less than 2 month and the whole affair is such a blatant attempt of vote-grabbing, it's really, really sad.

      --
      Free Manning, jail Obama.
    20. Re:Umm.. why? by hesiod · · Score: 1

      She was pissed at the "lowlives" who pump out baby after baby even though they couldn't get them what she deemed a good life and education, while people with PhD's simply don't have many kids, if any

      Somebody thought Idiocracy was a documentary.

    21. Re:Umm.. why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, criminal prosecution and media/telecommunications infrastructure falls within the competence of the federal government. What does fall into the competence of the states is policing and prevention of crimes.

      You can argue whether the law falls under telecommunication infrastructure (federation) or policing (states). However, the data retention Directive was recently ruled valid by the European Court of Justice, based on the EC competence for economy (which includes telecommunications) as opposed to the competence for policing and crime preventions, which has not been transferred to the Community. If the German Constitutional Court argues on the same lines as the European Court of Justice, the federal government might be competent for the law.

      BTW, viewing child pornography is not illegal in Germany. Downloading, which leads to possession, is only illegal for child pornography that shows real or realistic acts--ie only a small fraction of sites that will be on the block list. In other words, the blocking would not even prevent crimes on a noteworthy scale even if what Zensursula says was true.

    22. Re:Umm.. why? by 3247 · · Score: 1

      Yeah. But their cars aren't... *cough*

      --
      Claus
    23. Re:Umm.. why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eventually, they'll piss me off, and I'll become another crazy ass anarchist

      My table is vibrating. It must be "them" quivering with fear.

    24. Re:Umm.. why? by nobaloney · · Score: 1

      Any ISP with under 10,000 clients can ignore this, as well small companies, universities, and libraries...

      1. Move to Germany.

      2. Start ISP

      3. Advertise you don't censor

      4. When you reach 9,999 clients close your business to new clients, start a new ISP, and loop back to step 2.

      When you care to, exit loop and retire with all your money. :)

  7. Minister for Family Affairs by sakdoctor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why are the most innocuous sounding positions in government, always the most malevolent?

    Minister for Family Affairs
    Home secretary

    I will literally shit myself if my government appoints a minister of puppies, pink ponies and day old baby ducklings.

    1. Re:Minister for Family Affairs by ysth · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...silly walks.

    2. Re:Minister for Family Affairs by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I will literally shit myself if my government appoints a minister of puppies, pink ponies and day old baby ducklings.

      What does the tasty foods ministry have to do with this?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:Minister for Family Affairs by dido · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Those are some of the finest examples of actual Orwellian doublespeak in the real world. Read 1984 sometime, and perhaps you'll get a glimmer of understanding. The Ministry of Peace is engaged in making war, the Ministry of Truth falsifies history, the Ministry of Love tortures and punishes those who do not love Big Brother, and the Ministry of Plenty oversees poverty and shortages.

      --
      Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
    4. Re:Minister for Family Affairs by kirill.s · · Score: 1

      Next thing you know, there will be a Ministry of Peace and a Ministry of Love...

    5. Re:Minister for Family Affairs by karstux · · Score: 1

      Well, to be fair, it's more a matter of Minister von der Leyen grossly overstepping her competencies. She simply shouldn't dabble in matters of communication and infrastructure. Of course, that's a benevolent interpretation... and it's shocking and unsettling that she was able to install the law.

      --
      Don't whistle while you're pissing.
    6. Re:Minister for Family Affairs by sakdoctor · · Score: 1

      Read it.
      But I thought, too obvious, slashdot is already overloaded with 1984 quotes already ;-)

    7. Re:Minister for Family Affairs by syousef · · Score: 1

      I will literally shit myself if my government appoints a minister of puppies, pink ponies and day old baby ducklings.

      Minister for the arts.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    8. Re:Minister for Family Affairs by Alsee · · Score: 1

      I will literally shit myself if my government appoints a minister of puppies, pink ponies and day old baby ducklings.

      Oh, it's not just minister titles. That happens with the titles of laws too.
      I will literally shit myself if my government ever passes some law with an OMGPUPPIES!-title like Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    9. Re:Minister for Family Affairs by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can read it here. But if you don't live in Australia then please ignore that link...

      However I never liked that book--its was boring and the main character is a total sap.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    10. Re:Minister for Family Affairs by xednieht · · Score: 1

      Because people are easily fooled and like the warm and fuzzy feeling of words, instead of realizing that 'actions speak louder than words'. One only needs to look to how easily Americans give up liberty to the Department of Homeland Stupidity.

      --

      Hope is the currency of fools
    11. Re:Minister for Family Affairs by intheshelter · · Score: 1

      I think we all know that Pink Ponies may be related to Revelations, thus I would be scared too!

    12. Re:Minister for Family Affairs by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yeah...you do realize Orwell was a right-wing nutbag, right? His 1984 was squarely aimed at...the commies! *shock* *horror* a world with no rich people, whatever are we to do?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    13. Re:Minister for Family Affairs by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Wait for it being renamed to MiniLuv.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    14. Re:Minister for Family Affairs by skaternum · · Score: 1

      OMG! Ponies!!

    15. Re:Minister for Family Affairs by Ihlosi · · Score: 3, Informative
      Yeah...you do realize Orwell was a right-wing nutbag, right?

      I hope you're joking. Orwell was a self-professed socialist. Well, nowadays we'd call him a social democrat, but still.

      His 1984 was squarely aimed at...the commies!

      It was aimed at Stalinism and totalitarinism, which he viewed as very much what socialism _shouldn't_ become. He was smart enough to see that no right-wing nutbag needed such a book.

    16. Re:Minister for Family Affairs by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      Those are some of the finest examples of actual Orwellian doublespeak in the real world. Read 1984 sometime, and perhaps you'll get a glimmer of understanding. The Ministry of Peace is engaged in making war, the Ministry of Truth falsifies history, the Ministry of Love tortures and punishes those who do not love Big Brother, and the Ministry of Plenty oversees poverty and shortages.

      There were some doozies under the Bush administration. If I recall correctly the Clear Skies Initiative was about loosening the air pollution standards, Healthy Forests Act was about expanding logging, and No Child Left Behind was about hurting education. Oh, and the Patriot Act was about taking away the freedoms and liberties the country was founded upon.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    17. Re:Minister for Family Affairs by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      However I never liked that book--its was boring and the main character is a total sap.

      This may sound strange, but I think you could argue that Winston being a sap is important to understanding at least one theme of the book. At the beginning, the main character is a total tool, doesn't think through his decisions, doesn't care about anything, hates his life, and has zero ambition. As long as he has his "victory gin" he's pretty much as satisfied as he's going to get. None of that is surprising given the setting, but what should be surprising is that it is him who tries to join/start the revolution. If he, of all people, is is one of the very rare rebels, think how low the rest of the population must be.

    18. Re:Minister for Family Affairs by tenco · · Score: 1

      Yeah...you do realize Orwell was a right-wing nutbag, right? His 1984 was squarely aimed at...the commies! *shock* *horror* a world with no rich people, whatever are we to do?

      So how could this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homage_to_Catalonia have happened?

    19. Re:Minister for Family Affairs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm surprised you missed Iraqi Freedom, an occupation of Iraqi.

    20. Re:Minister for Family Affairs by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Nonetheless this book gets misused by them all the time. 1984 is a total fabrication of what life was like, but people seem to think it was some sort of documentary.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  8. " I say Freedom " by testman123 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Citizens of the world, dark forces are at work in most of our democracies. They plans to get control of a power tool & medium: the internet. Their aim at restoring the "control on information and the oligopolies" of the previous millennium and extending it further any known limits.

    Most of them claim, it is to restore "good old values". But the real reason behind all those bigotries is the money my friend!
    The fight for freedom as started.

    But, the force of the cipher is among us ;-)
    Are you ready ?

    1. Re:" I say Freedom " by foobsr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But the real reason behind all those bigotries is the money my friend!

      My favourite pet theory is that it (restrictions&cameras everywhere etc.) boils down to preparing for a time when essential resources (water, probably energy) will be scarce indeed.

      The fight for freedom has started.

      No. The majority of those who will be affected is either struggling for food (so called 3rd world), a 'better' life (e.g. China) or is too stupid (decadent) to realize (eu, us).

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    2. Re:" I say Freedom " by raffnix · · Score: 1

      The same rule that applies to all things that bring joy and happiness to your life also applies to the internet: If something sounds too good to be true it usually is. So say bye-bye freedom now.

    3. Re:" I say Freedom " by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'majority' != 'all'

    4. Re:" I say Freedom " by umghhh · · Score: 1
      Well what a surprise - the struggle for freedom never ends.

      The world changes so do its laws and situation in which they are applied. Only by being vigilant citizens can prevent government taking too much powers and abusing them. Nobody says it is not dangerous thing to do. We should still be happy that they do not execute us like they do in NK or Iran. Still realizing how well our systems work we should keep an watchful eye on our representatives and fight them if need be.

    5. Re:" I say Freedom " by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      My favorite theory concerning the camera craze and total surveillance has to do with the riots in Paris a few years ago. Only weeks after the riots, cameras started popping out left and right, usually in places where you would expect such riots to form.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:" I say Freedom " by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      We should still be happy that they do not execute us like they do in NK or Iran.

      I should be happy that it ain't worse? "It could be worse", where did I hear that before... right, it was 1940 in a Jewish Ghetto.

      Why orient to something below my standards? Why not aspire to something above? Why not say "it could be better" and work on that goal? Yes, it is certainly not comfortable and it may (or rather, will) be dangerous. Freedom has never been cheap or even free.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:" I say Freedom " by Eil · · Score: 1

      They plans to get control of a power tool & medium: the internet.

      Power tool nothing. After the development of agriculture, the Internet is easily most important achievement that mankind has devised. We would do more than well to ensure that it remains an open and decentralized medium. Communication is what puts the people in control of the government. It's one of the cornerstones of democracy. This is why countries like Germany, Australia, and China are already censoring their citizens. I really really hope I'm wrong, but I think that within my daughter's lifetime, some entity or another will make a power grab (perhaps sudden, perhaps gradual) for the whole Internet. We should work now to make that goal less achievable.

    8. Re:" I say Freedom " by umghhh · · Score: 1

      you stopped reading when you got to nk part did you not? I did not propose to sit down and be happy - if you read on you would have known.

  9. The Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will always route around damage.

    But citizens of the internet must be willing to help it do so.

    1. Re:The Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A spanner in the internetworks?

  10. We need to lock everyone in their houses by FranTaylor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or else the great outdoors is in danger of turning into a lawless range of chaos, where you're allowed to bully, insult, and deceive limitlessly.

    1. Re:We need to lock everyone in their houses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My thoughts, exactly.

    2. Re:We need to lock everyone in their houses by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 1

      But then the small indoors is in danger. We need to move everybody to the moon, starting with the people who create laws like these.

    3. Re:We need to lock everyone in their houses by Ihlosi · · Score: 2, Funny

      But then the small indoors is in danger. We need to move everybody to the moon, starting with the people who create laws like these.

      The moon? The MOON ?! You're thinking way too short.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_Ark#Golgafrincham

    4. Re:We need to lock everyone in their houses by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Stop using common sense in politics. It doesn't belong there. As far as I know, two things can influence a regular politician : bribery and riots.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    5. Re:We need to lock everyone in their houses by selven · · Score: 1

      Isn't that what happened in the I, Robot movie, where robots were programmed with the need to maximize safety as an unbreakable law but with no understanding of freedom?

    6. Re:We need to lock everyone in their houses by muckracer · · Score: 1

      > Or else the great outdoors is in danger of turning into a lawless range of chaos,
      > where you're allowed to bully, insult, and deceive limitlessly.

      Please be patient, while we're working to implement this feature...

    7. Re:We need to lock everyone in their houses by 3247 · · Score: 1

      Well, everyone knows that common sense isn't. However, the people in whom it is not do make up the majority of voters. Go figure.

      --
      Claus
    8. Re:We need to lock everyone in their houses by tenco · · Score: 1

      Riots will only serve as a scarecrow.

  11. Time machine? by kheldan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This german woman must be viewing the internet through some sort of time portal; it's already a piece of crap!

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:Time machine? by Ihmhi · · Score: 4, Funny

      It'd have to be a machine that go could pretty far back. Way back, even.

    2. Re:Time machine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and I wouldn't have it any other way.

    3. Re:Time machine? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I would be very surprised if this German woman (knowing her from pics I'd say I want proof on that last one... then again, not really) never viewed the Internet altogether.

      It's no secret that our politician (not being German, but this is pretty much a general truth, at least in Europe) know next to nothing about the internet or any modern form of communication. Some already freely admitted that they can't even check their email (as much as it may be for old people, but this ain't Korea), they have their secretaries print it for them.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Time machine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This german woman must be viewing the internet through some sort of time portal; it's already a piece of crap!

      And we like it that way!! -- 2 girls with a cup

    5. Re:Time machine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She does have a slightly skewed perception of the internet. It indeed comes from viewing it through a strange mechanism that distorts everything it shows.

      However, it's called a printer.

    6. Re:Time machine? by he-sk · · Score: 1

      She's probably one of those Internetausdrucker. People who use the web by means of printouts handed to them by their staff.

      --
      Free Manning, jail Obama.
    7. Re:Time machine? by tenco · · Score: 1

      This german woman must be viewing the internet through some sort of time portal

      The term you are looking for may be "printer".

  12. This is not the US you know by aepervius · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We have around here in europe a lot of social politic. Not only in hand out, but also in infrastructure. This ministry shortened to family ministery (sorry german) actually do quite a bit more , senior, civil duty, family, kids etc... For example the previous ministry made law to enhance kindergarten infrastructure to allow much more (250K) young kids to have a kindergarten available. And I pass many other stuff. The problem is here they are doing stuff which displease us (censorship) and IMHO should not be in their porfolio. Mind you, at least they can show full breast or half breast on TV here around. Other culture, other taboo.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:This is not the US you know by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      Mind you, at least they can show full breast or half breast on TV here around

      Wait, which half?

  13. Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Restricting the access to a commit a crime would be like restricting one's ability to drive on a highway because one might decide to be using it for to rob a bank.

  14. Achtung Schweinhund! by Hognoxious · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Ich habe kein Versicherung für meinem Polenüberfallenmittelstoffshrankwagen!

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  15. Impedimented by thatkid_2002 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think their government might not only have an access impediment, but also a speech impediment with a name like "Zugangserschwerungsgesetz".

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

      What do you think of:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rinderkennzeichnungs-_und_Rindfleischetikettierungs%C3%BCberwachungsaufgaben%C3%BCbertragungsgesetz
      ?

    2. Re:Impedimented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pah, "Zugangserschwerungsgesetz" is a perfectly ordinary German word. A better example would be
      "Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz" (beef labeling regulation & delegation of supervision law). When trying to pronounce it in a parliamentary discussion, politicians found it funny themselves, though. I think they're hyphenating it now.

    3. Re:Impedimented by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe they should make a law against long words in the names of federal laws. They could call it Bundesgesetznamenswortlängenbeschränkungsgesetz.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    4. Re:Impedimented by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Also known as BGNWLBeschG (The short form).
      Available as a 150 pages paperback.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    5. Re:Impedimented by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Informative

      You mean, to make sure some law like the "Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz" could not become reality anymore? And yes, this law came into existance a decade ago.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Impedimented by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Order now and you get a 6x150 pages library with commentary, exclusions and process instructions FREE!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:Impedimented by Erikderzweite · · Score: 1

      "Grundstücksverkehrsgenehmigungszuständigkeitsübertragungsverordnung" is the new record holder -- 67 letters.

    8. Re:Impedimented by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Wow, that's a suitably impressive name. What's it for?

      Transmission Law of Task of Beef Labeling Monitoring

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    9. Re:Impedimented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    10. Re:Impedimented by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Hmm... judging from the name it's the law governing the transfer of the duty of monitoring the labelling of Ulm... erh, of Beef.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:Impedimented by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      ah yes, the german language. where word-wrapping is damned near impossible and books are 30% thicker than the english equivalent.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    12. Re:Impedimented by 3247 · · Score: 1

      There's alway hyphenation.

      --
      Claus
    13. Re:Impedimented by 3247 · · Score: 1

      Well, it takes three levels of government to create such monsters:

      • The EC made the "Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 of 21 April 1997 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products", in German: "Verordnung (EG) Nr. 820/97 des Rates vom 21. April 1997 zur Einführung eines Systems zur Kennzeichnung und Registrierung von Rindern und über die Etikettierung von Rindfleisch und Rindfleischerzeugnissen" or "Rindfleischetikettierungsverordnung" (beef labeling regulation).
      • Germany at the federal level has the "Rindfleischetikettierungsgesetz" (beef labelling act). They could have named it "Rindfleischetikettierungsverordnungsumsetzungsgesetz" (beef labeling regulation implementation act) but they didn't.
      • The German state of McPom created the "Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz". They could have named it "Rindfleischetikettierungsausführungsgesetz" (beef labeling implementation law) but they didn't. Fortunately, they could not name it "Rindfleischetikettierungsverodnungsumsetzungsgesetzesdurchführungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz" as the federal legislation already cut some of the parts. ;-)
      --
      Claus
  16. Against freedom of speech! For obsessive control! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Heil, German lawmakers!!! Über Alles!!!

    Everyone on 4chan understands 4chan. Don't worry about them.

  17. wrong by lordharsha · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the great Internet is in danger

    Pity she can't see that the threat is from people like her.

     

    turning into a lawless range of chaos

    In other words, a free and uncensored global platform for communication

    --
    I am, and that is sufficient.
    1. Re:wrong by janwedekind · · Score: 1

      turning into a lawless range of chaos

      In other words, a free and uncensored global platform for communication

      Or as Jörg Tauss said: It's about making the internet a civil-rights free zone.

    2. Re:wrong by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Pity she can't see that the threat is from people like her.

      No. You're still buying into her "reality" too much.
      There is no treat other than her, and she perfectly knows how things really are. But she *wants* to oppress people.
      Pay attention that these people are trained in twisting reality and rhetoric techniques.
      What they say basically *never* is what they want. It is what makes *you* *act* the way they want. I know because I looked into these techniques a bit myself.
      So basically the best thing you can do, is to never ever even listen to what they say. Not even the tonality. (There are tricks to forcibly speak very calm, stable, etc, to make people quiet down. And often it matters more *how* you say it. Which works especially well on women, because they are more emotionally receptive.)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  18. wait, what? by niteice · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "the great Internet is in danger of turning into a lawless range of chaos, where you're allowed to bully, insult, and deceive limitlessly."

    It's not already?

    --
    ROMANES EUNT DOMUS
    1. Re:wait, what? by mpoulton · · Score: 1

      "the great Internet is in danger of turning into a lawless range of chaos, where you're allowed to bully, insult, and deceive limitlessly."

      It's not already?

      Yeah, and isn't that what has made it so great? The lack of structure?

      --
      I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
    2. Re:wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't. At least in Germany where this law has been passed. In Germany the Internet is x-fold more regulated than "the real world", even before the passing of this law.

    3. Re:wait, what? by Aokisensei · · Score: 0

      It is, and that's what's good about it. The Internet is the last few if not the last lawless "wild-west" kind of setting.

    4. Re:wait, what? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      But you don't understand, you pedo-terrorist, that now families have access to the Internet !

      Of course you don't understand, like me you probably were already browsing before puberty. You have to understand that some ministers started browsing after menopause...

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    5. Re:wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the great Internet is in danger of turning into a lawless range of chaos, where you're allowed to bully, insult, and deceive limitlessly."

      It's not already?

      Yeah, and isn't that what has made it so great? The lack of structure?

      BUT THIS IS GERMANY!!! EVERYTHING MUST BE ORDERED AND PRECISE!!!!

    6. Re:wait, what? by JockTroll · · Score: 0

      "But you don't understand, you pedo-terrorist, that now families have access to the Internet !"

      Then they can get their family porn without being a pain in my ass.

      --
      Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
    7. Re:wait, what? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Then throw the families out of the 'net. Easy solution. What's next? Making a law demanding porn movies to be PG13?

      You have to understand that some ministers started browsing after menopause...

      And some don't altogether.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:wait, what? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It's not really a lack of structure. It's a lack of externally imposed and regulated structure that made the 'net great. The fact that there is no "you cannot do that" and the freedom to create and to experiment.

      You will notice that the biggest leaps ahead and the greatest breakthroughs always came in a time and in an area that was devoid of external regulation, be it from governments or from churches. Of course, it also always helped a lot that these fields of study were new and breakthroughs were easy to come by, but the more regulation set in, the smaller the steps ahead became because you couldn't do what was perceived as unethic or immoral.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:wait, what? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      You forgot to ask what she means with "$chaos", or you might have noticed, that this is a variable that changes at will.

      Basically it's everything that stops or slows her down from getting in totalitarian control over us all. And I'm not even half kidding. :/

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  19. Solution to this problem: Pirate party! by Sven+Jacobs · · Score: 4, Informative

    TYPICAL GERMAN politics, come up with a screwy law, and make it even more screwy! So I guess what I can take from this is that child porn is ok to see at a university, but not a corporation or large ISP... Yeah that makes sense, really does...

    I guess they introduced these exceptions because implementing the censorship infrastructure on the ISP side takes a great deal of time & money. Obviously only big ISPs can afford that ;)

    The big parties of the German government once again proved that they're just doing what they want and not what the citizens want! That's why I'm going to vote for the Piratenpartei (Pirate party) on September 27.

    1. Re:Solution to this problem: Pirate party! by umghhh · · Score: 1
      They did this because they love complicated laws that provide the loopholes for the needy. Now the question is who could be needy here and what could their need be.

      I like Germany but I think their problem is not even their complex law system that nobody really understands. The problem is that the majority of them either believe in it or are to lame to challenge it. Example: a colleague of mine sitting normally on the other side of our common desk claims that german courts never make mistakes. Now I talked with my other colleagues and they (majority of them being of German origin) claimed that I have a problem because I come from a communist country. The problem is not in lawmakers but in lame society that allows them to pass silly ineffective laws and then use these laws as they please. Admittedly it still works better than in NK but one could expect better from a democratic country that allegedly loves human rights and dislikes corruption of political system.

    2. Re:Solution to this problem: Pirate party! by SerpentMage · · Score: 1

      It was funny. About 2002 I was a conference and said that if the political parties don't correct things the right will rise. What I should have said is that extremism will rise. Though I was right in the overall in that people in Germany are getting fed up. With each election the mainstream parties are loosing more and more people.

      In this next election I think the neither the CDU nor the SPD will win. It will be a similar situation to the previous election, with the exception that this time the SPD will join forces with the left. And that folks will be the end of the beginning and beginning and new Germany. Granted as a German in Switzerland I really don't care and love to sit in fringes...

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    3. Re:Solution to this problem: Pirate party! by multi+io · · Score: 2, Insightful

      TYPICAL GERMAN politics, come up with a screwy law, and make it even more screwy! So I guess what I can take from this is that child porn is ok to see at a university, but not a corporation or large ISP... Yeah that makes sense, really does...

      I guess they introduced these exceptions because implementing the censorship infrastructure on the ISP side takes a great deal of time & money. Obviously only big ISPs can afford that ;)

      Maybe they did it because their totally secret list of sites to be blocked would no longer be secret enough if nerdy admins of 100-customers ISPs as well as unwashed leftist University datacenter operators would get to see it.

    4. Re:Solution to this problem: Pirate party! by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      "About 2002 I was a conference"

      Is that like being turned into a newt?

      Did you get better?

    5. Re:Solution to this problem: Pirate party! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The big parties of the German government once again proved that they're just doing what they want and not what the citizens want! That's why I'm going to vote for the Piratenpartei (Pirate party) on September 27.

      For what it's worth, the FDP (3rd/4th strongest political party) voted unanimously against the censorship law and has made digital freedom in general one of the major points of their campaign platform for the election this year.

    6. Re:Solution to this problem: Pirate party! by Sven+Jacobs · · Score: 1

      For what it's worth, the FDP (3rd/4th strongest political party) voted unanimously against the censorship law and has made digital freedom in general one of the major points of their campaign platform for the election this year.

      Maybe, but the FDP wants to form a coalition solely with the CDU (Schaeuble, von der Leyen & Co). Tell me how that will work out?

  20. Wikileaks = ISP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, it's a shame small providers don't have to block.
    I would like to see Wikileaks becoming an ISP for one person, just to get a fresh blocking list daily. :D

  21. Obligatory: ACHTUNG ALLES LOOKENSPEEPERS by adelgado · · Score: 5, Funny

    Das computenmachine is nicht fur gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Is easy schnappen der springwerk, blownfusen, und poppenoorken mit spittzensparken. Ist nicht fur gewerken by das dummkopfen. Das rubbernecken signtseeren keepen hands in das pockets--relaxen und watch das blinkenlights.

    1. Re:Obligatory: ACHTUNG ALLES LOOKENSPEEPERS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait a minute...is this very poor german or just swedish?

    2. Re:Obligatory: ACHTUNG ALLES LOOKENSPEEPERS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Hand in your geek card.

    3. Re:Obligatory: ACHTUNG ALLES LOOKENSPEEPERS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Du Lieber Gott!
      --
      AC

    4. Re:Obligatory: ACHTUNG ALLES LOOKENSPEEPERS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ATTENTION

      This room is fullfilled mit special electronische equippment. Fingergrabbing and pressing the cnoeppkes from the computers is allowed for die experts only! So all the "lefthanders" stay away and do not disturben the brainstorming von here working intelligencies. Otherwise you will be out thrown and kicked anderswhere! Also: please keep still and only watchen astaunished the blinkenlights.

    5. Re:Obligatory: ACHTUNG ALLES LOOKENSPEEPERS by dreamsofcaffeine · · Score: 1

      Halten Sie bitte ihre verfickte Fresse, bevor Sie die deutsche Sprache weiter vergewaltigen! Ansonsten werden Sie mit einem Duden gebuechert!

      Zum Thema: War ja klar, dass Zensursula so 'n Kack macht. Als naechstes dann die boesen Killerspiele, das gibt auch wieder Wahlkampfpunkte. Nur leider ist das der großen Mehrheit der Deutschen gerade eben recht, dass alles kontrolliert wird, da der Großteil der Presse (Ausnahmen etwa heise, golem) sich einen Dreck um sowas kuemmert und nur Schlagzeilen bringen moechte, was dann den Politikern prima Angriffsstellen fuer ihre verschissenen Gesetze bietet.

    6. Re:Obligatory: ACHTUNG ALLES LOOKENSPEEPERS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Halten Sie bitte ihre verfickte Fresse, bevor Sie die deutsche Sprache weiter vergewaltigen! Ansonsten werden Sie mit einem Duden gebuechert!

      ..whoosh?

      Meine Güte, man, komm' runter und reg' dich ab, bevor du noch 'nen Herzkasper kriegst. ;)

    7. Re:Obligatory: ACHTUNG ALLES LOOKENSPEEPERS by dreamsofcaffeine · · Score: 1

      Uebertreiben darf man nicht mehr? Daran ist bestimmt Schaeuble Schuld!!11einself

  22. Rain in KÃln by Carra · · Score: 1

    If it rains in KÃln, it drops in Brussels. I hope this won't come over to our regions as so often is the case.

  23. OMPQ by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Zugangserschwerungsgesetz...

    ...Gambolputty de von Ausfern- schplenden- schlitter- crasscrenbon- fried- digger- dingle- dangle- dongle- dungle- burstein- von- knacker- thrasher- apple- banger- horowitz- ticolensic- grander- knotty- spelltinkle- grandlich- grumblemeyer- spelterwasser- kurstlich- himbleeisen- bahnwagen- gutenabend- bitte- ein- nürnburger- bratwustle- gerspurten- mitz- weimache- luber- hundsfut- gumberaber- shönedanker- kalbsfleisch- mittler- aucher von Hautkopft of Ulm.

  24. Free advertising for the Pirate party. by Ihlosi · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Apparently, some people in the German government haven't realized yet that the Pirate party has made it on the ballots in some places, and that the next election is less than two months away.

    Just keep giving them some more free advertising.

    Completely unrelated, I'd also see some legislation allowing the Federal Constitutional Courts to hand out savage beatings with the clue stick to everyone involved in drafting and passing unconstitutional laws. And they should broadcast it on TV, too.

    1. Re:Free advertising for the Pirate party. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really think the German Pirate Party gets more votes in the general election than in the European Election? As much as I hope so, I don't believe it.

    2. Re:Free advertising for the Pirate party. by raffnix · · Score: 1

      Apparently, some people in the German government haven't realized yet that the Pirate party has made it on the ballots in some places, and that the next election is less than two months away.

      Good that the pirate party has already a member in the parliament.. sure he'll have plenty of TV time to comment on this in the next days.

    3. Re:Free advertising for the Pirate party. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      They probably will get more votes. If they also get a higher percentage of votes is a different question.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    4. Re:Free advertising for the Pirate party. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soon they will shout ... Zeek Argghhhhh

    5. Re:Free advertising for the Pirate party. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately that guy apparently fancies the CP, so I'm not so sure if it was such a great idea letting him join the pirate party.
      Before that I was certain that I would vote for them, now I really don't know.

    6. Re:Free advertising for the Pirate party. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I'd also see some legislation allowing the Federal Constitutional Courts to hand out savage beatings with the clue stick to everyone involved in drafting and passing unconstitutional laws.

      I'm absolutely against beating up cripples.

      But I'm willing to make an exception here.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:Free advertising for the Pirate party. by Alsee · · Score: 1

      People have been asking for legislation to decriminalize marijuana for ages, but it's only just now making real progress in California and in other legislatures because of the bad economy and the idea of using huge marijuana tax revenues to fix government budget problems.

      I'd also see some legislation allowing the Federal Constitutional Courts to hand out savage beatings with the clue stick to everyone involved in drafting and passing unconstitutional laws. And they should broadcast it on TV, too.

      No.
      If you want to see legislators get savagely beaten for drafting and passing unconstitutional laws, I propose selling tickets.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    8. Re:Free advertising for the Pirate party. by timq · · Score: 1

      -1, overenthusiastic

      You don't honestly believe the Pirate Party is going to make it past the 5% hurdle in Germany, are you?

    9. Re:Free advertising for the Pirate party. by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      You don't honestly believe the Pirate Party is going to make it past the 5% hurdle in Germany, are you?

      That would be nice, but it's not necessary. They'd cause quite a stir (and get a good shot at continued existence, due to getting campaign cost reimbursement) if they made it above the 0.5% hurdle. It's a bit much to hope for a direct mandate, but that'd be even more spectacular.

    10. Re:Free advertising for the Pirate party. by redcaboodle · · Score: 1

      Probably not fancied. He was studying it in his capacity as MdB and trying to break up a childporn ring lone cowboy style without CYA, the idiot.

      However, said Zensurula has also been charged with owning and disseminating child porn. She got some of the extremely heavy stuff from the federal police and showed it to journalists to make her point. However, the state attorney very quickly scraped that charge.

      --
      -- Put crudely, the world is an extremely large problem instance. (Russel/Norvig Artificial Intelligence)
    11. Re:Free advertising for the Pirate party. by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      *Some* places? According to their latest map, you can vote for them pretty much everywhere.

      And according to the German equivalent of Facebook (called StudiVZ), they have 37849 supporters. Which is more than any other party on the site (cdu/csu: 18639/3617, spd: 17956, fdp: 18117, linke: 18117, grüne: 16433), and nearly as much as the two biggest parties together. :)

      So right now, the only reason they are not the biggest Party in the country, is because we have way more old than young people here.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    12. Re:Free advertising for the Pirate party. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course he was studying it.
      I don't care either way. I trust an investigation will figure out what he was doing.
      My point is that it reflects poorly on the pirate party letting him join while he's still under investigation. Friends I had convinced to vote for them are rather looking at the FDP and others now.
      It doesn't really matter whether he had CP, likes it, doesn't like it or wipes his arse with it, the stigma remains.
      Don't get me wrong though, someone must have taken a huge shit in von der Leyen's head so she could come up with such an idiotic idea. It's even worse that others agree with her.
      What do the right-wingers say? "Deutschland muss sterben damit wir leben koennen" (Germany must die so we can live). I'm beginning to believe they're right (in this regard) and I don't like it one bit.
      The funniest part though is, sex crimes towards children have dramatically gone down in the last 20 years, but media coverage is at an all-time high.
      One is led to believe your neighbour is just waiting to rape your unborn child. It's pathetic.

    13. Re:Free advertising for the Pirate party. by Tom · · Score: 1

      Completely unrelated, I'd also see some legislation allowing the Federal Constitutional Courts to hand out savage beatings with the clue stick to everyone involved in drafting and passing unconstitutional laws. And they should broadcast it on TV, too.

      True. Like most problems with politics, the core reason is the lack of accountability. If you or me break a law, or violate the constitution, we will be imprisoned. If the lawmakers draft a clearly unconstitutional law then - nothing at all happens to them. And that's just wrong. They're trying to implement "three strikes" laws everywhere, how about a three strikes law for politicians? Vote "yes" for three laws that are found to be unconstitutional, and you are removed from politics and may not hold a political office for five years.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  25. You missed the important bit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We need a debate about the right level of freedom, democracy and human rights on the Internet" said von der Leyen.

    About time that the government decides what the right level of democracy and humans rights is. Too much of a good thing is very bad, as we all know.

    The German government already banned a couple of small parties from taking part in the upcoming elections, thus impeding the right to vote. But people are still free to bitch about the results. Freedom enough, don't you think?

    1. Re:You missed the important bit... by moronoxyd · · Score: 1

      The German government already banned a couple of small parties from taking part in the upcoming elections, thus impeding the right to vote. But people are still free to bitch about the results. Freedom enough, don't you think?

      First of, it's not the government that banned those parties but the comitee overseeing the election.

      And that's normal procedure.
      A party needs a certain number of supporters before it is allowed to participate in an election. All parties where aware of that fact, all parties hat time to collect signatures from supporters.
      Some didn't get enough signatures in time, so they are out.
      Some didn't manage to provide the paperwork in time.
      Some don't follow the rules there are for organising a party.

      If I tell you that parties who get less than 5% of the votes won't enter the Bundestag (parlament) at all, you''' probably see that too as a sing of the government fixing the result of the election. Even though that is part of the laws for elections for some 60 years.

      (And just in case you want to know why there is that 5% limit: Ever seen a parlament with lots of small parties in it? It's damn near impossible to get work done.)

    2. Re:You missed the important bit... by cpghost · · Score: 1

      A party needs a certain number of supporters before it is allowed to participate in an election. All parties where aware of that fact, all parties hat time to collect signatures from supporters.

      Absolutely! Actually, due to lack of experience, many new parties are not really aware of all regulations. For example, the Pirate Party in Northrhine-Westfalia had over 1,000 support signatures invalidated by the elections official (Wahlleiterin) because they modified the official PDF to include machine-fillable textfields, and many people downloaded and used those modified PDFs. Now, because support signatures are registered at the city hall of every supporter so a single individual doesn't support more than one party (don't worry: they don't register WHICH party you support, only THAT you support one), those signatures were effectively void, and the Pirates had to collect 1,000+ NEW signatures (i.e. from additional supporters) within 3-4 days after being notified by the Wahlleiterin. Well, they made it of course, even though it was hard to get those city-hall confirmed signatures in time. That's a typical example of what can get wrong when you're a rookie party. Let's hope the Pirates will make enough noise in the upcoming elections. Even if they won't reach the necessary 5% to get into the Bundestag (Parliament), if the press starts talking about them, that's already a good thing.

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    3. Re:You missed the important bit... by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      If I tell you that parties who get less than 5% of the votes won't enter the Bundestag (parlament) at all, you''' probably see that too as a sing of the government fixing the result of the election. Even though that is part of the laws for elections for some 60 years.

      The nature of it doesn't change just because it's been in place a long time. It's a way of silencing minority views.

      (And just in case you want to know why there is that 5% limit: Ever seen a parlament with lots of small parties in it? It's damn near impossible to get work done.)

      Government efficiency and liberty of the population could generally be considered mutually exclusive. Give me small inefficient governments any day.

    4. Re:You missed the important bit... by tenco · · Score: 1

      And I'm still shocked that they banned the APPD. Seriously.

    5. Re:You missed the important bit... by plastbox · · Score: 1

      The nature of it doesn't change just because it's been in place a long time. It's a way of silencing minority views.

      I fail to see your point. Isn't democracy in it self a way of silencing minority views? If less than 5% of the population agree with you enough to vote for your party, you shouldn't really be allowed to control anything at all. You're representing a pretty insignificant minority, not the general public.

      Government efficiency and liberty of the population could generally be considered mutually exclusive. Give me small inefficient governments any day.

      I'll probably be modded -1 Flamebait or something for this, but it's got to be said. People like you are gravel in the gears. Do you seriously think everyone with an opinion should have the right to directly influence things? Democracy is (or should be) "majority rules", not "majority tries to rule but tiny minority interest groups keep pissing on their parades and preventing them from getting any work done".

      Sorry if I completely failed to understand your point. I'd rather have a government that does it's very best to steer the country in the direction the general mass of the people is pushing, instead of a government that goes absolutely nowhere because it tries to cater to everyones needs at the same time!

    6. Re:You missed the important bit... by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      Isn't democracy in it self a way of silencing minority views?

      No. Minorities often don't get their way, which is ok. Only states aiming for totalitarianism require the minority view to be silenced.

      If less than 5% of the population agree with you enough to vote for your party, you shouldn't really be allowed to control anything at all. You're representing a pretty insignificant minority, not the general public.

      One person in every twenty probably don't consider themselves insignificant. The Bundestag has 611 members if wikipedia serves me well. If a party got 2% of the vote, why don't they get 12 seats? It's hardly putting them in control, what's the problem with hearing what they have got to say? Is a dissenting view really so threatening? If you don't allow any party with less than 5% to get a seat, you could have 10 minor parties at 4% and have 40% of your population unrepresented with that system.

      People like you are gravel in the gears.

      Well, I don't think that's flamebait, it's a pretty good representation of my intentions. Democracy itself as implemented was a bunch of people throwing gravel in the gears of the King. The whole system of government is based on making it difficult to get things done. So much quicker and more efficient when the King could just say "Off with his head" without need for those costly, time consuming trials and such. Getting a decision on a law? Used to be the King just issued an edict, if you spoke against it, the consequences were your own fault. None of this messy "parliamentary debate" and "media coverage of issues" that makes things so difficult now! What would Germany be like if Luther hadn't thrown gravel in the Catholic churches gears?

      What is really more disturbing, that I want to throw gravel in the gears of a machine that I believe will inevitably work to transform itself into a totalitarian state, or that you see society as a machine, are quite happy with that and presumably realise you are a part in that machine? Who engineered you, friend, who convinced you that you had a purpose in the machine and bolted you in there?

      Do you seriously think everyone with an opinion should have the right to directly influence things?

      I believe everyone with an opinion has a right to voice it. Naturally those who are unable to convince the majority will have limited success influencing society.

      Sorry if I completely failed to understand your point. I'd rather have a government that does it's very best to steer the country in the direction the general mass of the people is pushing, instead of a government that goes absolutely nowhere because it tries to cater to everyones needs at the same time!

      I think perhaps you understood my point, but not the reasoning behind it. I've been given very few reasons to trust authority in my life. I don't want the government steering me, I'll steer myself, thanks very much. If the rest of society doesn't want to go that way, I guess they'll end up somewhere different to me, but how will they know if my opinion is silenced? Perhaps more people would agree with minority views if they heard them. As for the government catering to needs, I'm ok if they don't cater to my needs, just also don't get in the way as I cater to the needs of my family and myself.

    7. Re:You missed the important bit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First of, it's not the government that banned those parties but the comitee overseeing the election.

      And that's normal procedure.
      A party needs a certain number of supporters before it is allowed to participate in an election. All parties where aware of that fact, all parties hat time to collect signatures from supporters.
      Some didn't get enough signatures in time, so they are out.
      Some didn't manage to provide the paperwork in time.
      Some don't follow the rules there are for organising a party.

      Wrong. The comitee that's overseeing the election is nominated by the minister of the interior. THE GOVERNMENT.
      There are parties that fulfilled the requirements but "are lacking sincerity, at least according to the officer in charge. So people don't get a chance to make that decision on their own.

      As for errecting a percentage limit to enter a parliament, I'm mostly for it. But denying me the right to vote for a registered party is just not right.

    8. Re:You missed the important bit... by plastbox · · Score: 1

      One person in every twenty probably don't consider themselves insignificant. The Bundestag has 611 members if wikipedia serves me well. If a party got 2% of the vote, why don't they get 12 seats? It's hardly putting them in control, what's the problem with hearing what they have got to say? Is a dissenting view really so threatening? If you don't allow any party with less than 5% to get a seat, you could have 10 minor parties at 4% and have 40% of your population unrepresented with that system.

      You make my point for me quite elegantly! What is the point of any governing instance if it cannot agree with itself for 5 minutes and actually, you know.. govern things? Last election here in Norway, FrP (if memory serves me right) got more than 33% of the votes. That is pretty damn significant considering the number of big political parties we have here. Still, they were beat by a three-party union because FrP didn't want to comprimize their views to cooperate with someone with whom they don't really agree that much.

      The result is that this last decade has seen Norway controlled by smaller parties, none of which represent the majority of us voters and who can't agree with each other enough to get anything done.

      Of course, not every election can be a land slide with the winner crushing the stragglers by miles. If we follow your example (using my limited knowledge of smaller Norwegian parties), you'd have 40% of the government consisting of pot-heads who's only champaign is legalization, the reds who are (excuse my french) complete idiots who claim anarchy is a valid form of government, and people like the Norwegian Democrats who think children should be seen, not heard, women should wash and cook and anyone with a tan is automatically a criminal.

      I don't know about you, but I sure as hell don't want to live in a country where morons like the above are actually given a fist-full of gravel and pointed at the "machine". People who most likely will for the most part just vote the opposite of "The MAN!" because A) They only have their one champaign issue and B) They're not big enough to do what they want, so they'd use their votes to screw up whatever anyone else tried to do.

      I believe everyone with an opinion has a right to voice it. Naturally those who are unable to convince the majority will have limited success influencing society.

      I couldn't agree more, on your first point there at least. Everyone has their right to mean what they want and speak their minds freely. However! If you're "pro life", pro racism, pro anarchy or think religion has any place in science class or in the government... well, you can find yourself a box to stand on while you share your drunken rage-rants with the unsuspecting public just like all the other nut cases who will hopefully never rule my country! ;)

      "Majority rules" means just that. If me and 9 friends are having a movie night and 6 of us want to watch The Matrix and the other 4 want to watch 4 other movies, what do you expect we'd end up watching, hm?

    9. Re:You missed the important bit... by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      You make my point for me quite elegantly!

      That's because we agree on the effects, but not the desirability of them, of allowing representative government even for minorities. You seem happy to be a part in the machine, manufactured by the state and bolted into place. Imagine for a moment that you are a living being instead of a part of a machine. That you grow in an environment rather than perform a function in a machine. How much greater are the possibilities?

      What is the point of any governing instance if it cannot agree with itself for 5 minutes and actually, you know.. govern things?

      There are a multitude of laws that no political party with any representation in my country disagrees on. Go wild then, government, prohibit murder, theft, etc. If it is hard to implement controversial laws, they are more likely to be thoroughly debated rather than forced through. That's a good thing, by the way, it is a way of killing bad ideas.

      Last election here in Norway, FrP (if memory serves me right) got more than 33% of the votes. That is pretty damn significant considering the number of big political parties we have here. Still, they were beat by a three-party union because FrP didn't want to comprimize their views to cooperate with someone with whom they don't really agree that much.

      So the truth emerges, you don't really want majority rule, you want your minority to rule. Yes, 33% is a minority, even if it is the biggest one.

      The result is that this last decade has seen Norway controlled by smaller parties, none of which represent the majority of us voters and who can't agree with each other enough to get anything done.

      Apparently none of your politicians has any ideas compelling enough in their logic and benefits to convince the majority. Why do you want a system that makes the implementation of mediocre ideas easier?

      I don't know about you, but I sure as hell don't want to live in a country where morons like the above are actually given a fist-full of gravel and pointed at the "machine".

      That's one reason to limit government: to lessen the impact the morons have on your life. That said, if you have enough morons to undo your government, your voting rules are probably the least of your problems.

      "Majority rules" means just that. If me and 9 friends are having a movie night and 6 of us want to watch The Matrix and the other 4 want to watch 4 other movies, what do you expect we'd end up watching, hm?

      Yet you don't want real majority rules, you want 33% to rule the rest. In any case, a group of friends choosing to watch a movie together is a voluntary activity. If the other 4 really don't want to watch the Matrix, I suppose they could do something else. In such a situation the majority are not "ruling" in a way comparable to having others political ideas forced on you.

    10. Re:You missed the important bit... by plastbox · · Score: 1

      There are a multitude of laws that no political party with any representation in my country disagrees on. Go wild then, government, prohibit murder, theft, etc. If it is hard to implement controversial laws, they are more likely to be thoroughly debated rather than forced through. That's a good thing, by the way, it is a way of killing bad ideas.

      Have you ever been anywhere where there are more than two more-or-less equal parties? Believe me, it's not just the more controversial issues they can't agree on. They can't agree on anything (well, except for the kinds of things you propose)! The result isn't just that bad ideas are killed, all ideas are, because noone has the weight to shift anything in any direction.

      Apparently none of your politicians has any ideas compelling enough in their logic and benefits to convince the majority. Why do you want a system that makes the implementation of mediocre ideas easier?

      Or, all of them have ideas that are compelling and provide benefints to some part of the majority. It is impossible to please everybody (unfortunate, but no less true), thus the point of democracy is to cater to as big a chunk of the population as possible. If everyone voted for whoever they felt would change the country for the better and one party got 33% of the votes, a few others got 10-20% and the rest was distributed pretty evenly across the smaller parties, I find it rather obvious who ought to be in charge that 4-year period. If they do a great job, chances are they will get even more votes next election. If not, someone else will step ut and try to do a better job.

      Yet you don't want real majority rules, you want 33% to rule the rest. In any case, a group of friends choosing to watch a movie together is a voluntary activity. If the other 4 really don't want to watch the Matrix, I suppose they could do something else. In such a situation the majority are not "ruling" in a way comparable to having others political ideas forced on you.

      You fail to see my point. Imagine then, that the 10 of us were at a remote cabin for easter and replace the movies with board games. No one could just up and leave, unless they wanted to sit in the neighbouring room and pout. Do we:

      • Discuss what to do all evening, instead of doing something.
      • Play whatever the majority wants that evening, and vote again the next evening (election period) and see if people are fed up with last night's game or perhaps the game won over some of the doubters.

      You will probably find some flaw in that metaphore but if the democracy is occupied with discussing how to please everyone (which is impossible) to the exclution of acting (because they can't agree how to act), then democracy is flawed. The only way to not have others political ideas "forced" on you is to live someplace where everyone agrees with you which, let's face it, means living alone on an island somewhere.

      So the truth emerges, you don't really want majority rule, you want your minority to rule. Yes, 33% is a minority, even if it is the biggest one.

      What, to you, constitutes a majority? You would be right that 33% isn't a majority in a 2 or 3 party system, but we are talking about 20 parties here. One party getting 33%, while of the remaining parties the biggest 6 share 55% and the rest get next to nothing.. I think that means the people have spoken, and done so quite clearly. That two or three lesser parties can freely form a coalition government, eventhough they mostly don't agree on anything, or the few things they do manage to agree on might not be what won either party the votes they got.. It's just wrong, that's what it is! The party that gets the most votes is the party that best represents the public, because it represents the biggest chunk of the public! Didn't win? QQ MOAR PLOX! Go door-to-door, start campaigns, win votes for your party so you can get a chance to rule and make things better.

  26. Please forgive that woman by MemoryDragon · · Score: 4, Informative

    She has been recently discovering the internet, before she was living happily in Barbieland playing with her Disney ponies.
    The wakeup call was simply too hard for her.

    Seriously, if you read interviews with her, that woman is the german equivalent to Sarah Palin. Stupid dangerous outrigt arrogant and does not even listen one second to anyone!

    1. Re:Please forgive that woman by hughk · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately using platforms such as "protecting the children" is something that a number of minor politicians and fading celebrities have done to boost their careers. The lady may be an idiot, but so are a significant number of people, who are concerned about things they don't understand. However, this is all academic as I have no vote in Lander or Bundes elections.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    2. Re:Please forgive that woman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She has been recently discovering the internet, before she was living happily in Barbieland playing with her Disney ponies.
      The wakeup call was simply too hard for her.

      Seriously, if you read interviews with her, that woman is the german equivalent to Sarah Palin. Stupid dangerous outrigt arrogant and does not even listen one second to anyone!

      I bet I know what part she discovered...

      Here's a preliminary translation of her statement:

      "My God! His asshole was gaping as if he'd just shat out a football.
      And his... his... *thing* was dangling like a sausage... It was horrible, just horrible."

    3. Re:Please forgive that woman by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      Jepp that is exactly the agenda she tries to follow.. the main problem is that both big german parties have such people Leyen being SPD and Zypris and SchÃuble being CDU and the german voting behavior is too rigid to change the situation.
      But at least it is highly questionable that von Leyen will be in the next cabinet with the SPD definitely getting a severe smack on the head.

    4. Re:Please forgive that woman by moronoxyd · · Score: 1

      But at least it is highly questionable that von Leyen will be in the next cabinet with the SPD definitely getting a severe smack on the head.

      I hate to correct you (na, I'm loving it *g*), but Frau [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursula_von_der_Leyen]von der Leyen[/url] is a member of the CDU.

      That doesn't mean that the SPD doesn't have members that are similary out of check with reality.

    5. Re:Please forgive that woman by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      That's the role she *plays*. But she is pretty intelligent. The point is that you still assume her goals to be something at least half-good.
      Also you assume that what she says has anything to do with what her goals are. Which is a shame, because by now, you should know that this is never ever true for professional politicians.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    6. Re:Please forgive that woman by he-sk · · Score: 1

      Von der Leyen is CDU (along with SchÃuble), Zypries is SPD.

      And the way things are going, with the SPD doing everything they can to lose the election*, von der Leyen will most certainly be part of the next cabinet. She's way to popular to be dropped.

      (*) Just yesterday, Steinmeyer, the leading SPD candidate, announced has plan for full employment in 2020. Seriously?! SchrÃder tried to pull this stunt 10 years ago and we all know how that turned out.

      --
      Free Manning, jail Obama.
    7. Re:Please forgive that woman by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      Sorry my fault I am not german and dont even live there.

    8. Re:Please forgive that woman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of interviews, what was her response to the 140,000 signatures opposing her ill conceived legislation? "Well, 140,000 is just a tiny percentage of *all* internet users, so most will be ok." And this was printed in a reputable newspaper ("Die Zeit")...

  27. Re:So...Let Me Get This Straight by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

    Just making sure I'm not misinformed here.

    You are misinformed here. The law the scope of which von der Leyen wants to extend currently is about blocking child porn, and

    middle-aged men having sex with 15-year olds

    certainly fits that description exactly.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  28. Top right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm on OSX, you insensitive clod.

    1. Re:Top right? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      so that law is your fault?

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  29. Is it really that time again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps the US should preemptively kick Germany's ass again. You know, just in case.

    1. Re:Is it really that time again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember that the US was in WW2
      - Very late to the Party
      - part of the Allies
          - UK
          - Canada
          - Austrailia
          - New Zealand
          - South Africa
          - Poles(espeically in the RAF)
          - France (under DeGaulle)
          - Plus many other nations

      So you will just have to join the queue (at the back please)

  30. "despite over 140,000 signatures..." ? by KlaymenDK · · Score: 1

    Oh, you mean the politicians should have paid more attention to that 0,17% of the population? They have a job to do, it's called democracy.

    For the record, anything that limits, tracks, or controls public access to information and the Internet is Bad in my book.

    If anything, I would lament that only a mere fraction of a percent give enough of a damn to sign their name against it.

    1. Re:"despite over 140,000 signatures..." ? by am+2k · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's a rule in software support: "For every customer who complains about a bug, there are a hundred that are also experiencing it, but don't bother to complain." I propose that the same can be said about signatures like these.

    2. Re:"despite over 140,000 signatures..." ? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      This wasn't an election where people go, out of habit. This was a petition. In other words, people had to go out of their way to find out first of all that something like this exists (unlike elections, there isn't any public announcement that a petition is going on), then they have to go out of their way to go and sign it.

      140,000 is a stunning number for a "simple" petition, when you take a look at other petitions, often sponsored by large media outlets or even parties, and their turnout.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:"despite over 140,000 signatures..." ? by swilver · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's only 139.000 more than the number of politicians voted into office.

  31. Stop signs to prevent access by firefarter · · Score: 1

    Is this that stupid bill where they wanted to display stop signs before you access pornographiic websites?

    As if a stop sign would prevent anybody. This is so very, very brain dead.

    1. Re:Stop signs to prevent access by lukas84 · · Score: 1

      Not pornographic websites, just websites that contain child pornography.

      You know - instead of taking them down by putting those responsible for creating and publishing the child porn in jail.

      Much cheaper this way. And less work for the police, too! Saves taxes!

    2. Re:Stop signs to prevent access by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      A German comedian commented it very aptly: It's a stop sign. Not a "no trespassing" sign. Thus people do what they do on the street when they encounter a stop sign: They stop, they look around to make sure nobody's coming, then they go on.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  32. Freedom != freedom by jandersen · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Freedom means different to different people. To a lot of people in the world "freedom" is not a religion, but just something that is nice to have, sometimes. I don't expect the Freedom Fanatics to understand this, let alone accept it, but it is true none the less. I also expect to get modded down for saying so - by those very "Freedom Fighters".

    So, to a majority of Germans it makes sense - it seems very clear that the internet has indeed already become a cesspit with a very few gems floating around in it. To a lot of people the rather abstract benefits of "freedom of speech" are simply not important enough to outweigh more mundane concerns, like not being harrassed by the idiots that seem to dominate everything on the internet.

    The internet is indeed a powerful tool for communication and it can be used to promote freedom and bring valuable information to everybody and so on. But there is a huge difference between the freedom you enjoy in a society where people treat each other with respect and dignity, and the freedom you have in a lawless wilderness, where you can expect every person you meet to be an enemy. I know which one I'd choose.

    1. Re:Freedom != freedom by Mascot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      To a lot of people the rather abstract benefits of "freedom of speech" are simply not important enough to outweigh more mundane concerns, like not being harrassed by the idiots that seem to dominate everything on the internet.

      Here's a thought: Don't go there

      Nobody's forcing them to surf around the Internet at random. It's perfectly possible to only use it for their country's major newspapers and online banking, if their psyche is so tender they cannot handle anonymous people writing stupid things.

      If the Internet was invasive, I might concede you have a point. But, as the nickname for the law shows, this is about limiting _your_ access, not preventing the idiots out there from doing their thing. It's like instating a curfew to protect you from criminals.

      For the record, I have nothing against child porn filters, which was the original notion of this law apparently. My country's ISPs all have one. The difference is the police decide what goes on that list after they manually check the sites, there's no political agenda. And it's not even a block, it's a warning you can click through.

    2. Re:Freedom != freedom by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

      The difference is the police decide what goes on that list after they manually check the sites, there's no political agenda.

      There's always a problem if the police can just do stuff without a judge being able to review their decisions.

    3. Re:Freedom != freedom by Sparx139 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem for me isn't censoring the internet per se, but rather that censorship often branches into the realms of legal (but not necessarily attractive to the majority of people - think fetish sites for example) activity and can crush freedom of speech.

      So, what do you want? A lawless place with its inherent risks and joys, or a gated community that forces you to leave the toilet seat down, always say please and thankyou, and kicks you out if you walk on the grass? Give me the lawless any day.

      --
      Our culture doesn't get smarter, it just finds new ways of being retarded.
    4. Re:Freedom != freedom by gaderael · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of a quote. I may be paraphrasing though.

      "If Firefighters fight fire, and Crime fighters fight crime, what do Freedom fighters fight?"

      --
      Anyone got a light for my sig?
    5. Re:Freedom != freedom by Mascot · · Score: 1

      I didn't say a judge was not able to review their decisions. If the police starts going nuts with it you better believe you can drag them to court over it.

      But the odds are rather slim. For one, the content of the filter is an international cooperation (it's the organized crime unit that's handling it here, not some traffic cop), so odds are it would take some doing to pollute it without somebody noticing. The criteria to end up on it is also rather narrow, the site has to contain explicit sexual abuse of children.

      And, it is voluntary. If an ISP starts getting a horde of complaints, they'll just disable it.

    6. Re:Freedom != freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The problem for me isn't that some sites are blocked. It is the way they do it. The mechanism that is installed here can easily be misused. A hand full of people just can decide what gets blocked. Reporting about blocked sites is a crime. And even if somehow it is published that the blocking of a site was unjustified nobody will get fired for this.

      This is just way too much power in way too less hands without any responsibility. This is begging to be exploited.

      It is not about the freedom to access crap on the internet. It is about the freedom to access information the ones in power don't want you to see.

      Additionally I don't really see how this is helping anyone. If someone commits a crime he should be punished, no matter whether he did it on the internet or in real life. I can't see how forcing others to look away is helping anyone. I lived in the GDR and we had a system like that established. There just weren't any reports about serial killers, rape or child molesting. That didn't prevent that from happening. It just prevented people from knowing.

    7. Re:Freedom != freedom by jesset77 · · Score: 1

      Freedom means different things to different people. To a lot of people in the world "freedom" is not a religion, but just something we take for granted as long as we are kept safe from exposure to ideas we don't like or understand.

      Just, you know, noticed a grammar error or two. Nothing to see here, move along! ;D

      --
      People willing to trade their freedom of expression for temporary entertainment deserve neither and will lose both.
    8. Re:Freedom != freedom by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Freedom is the freedom of the other.

      The internet isn't like TV, where you're "force fed" what you're watching. Sure, you can switch the channel, but you have to actively do something if you do not want to see what's currently on. That's not the case with the internet. If you want to see something, you, and only you, have to do something to watch it. It's not like /. pops up at random or at some externally determined time and I have to see it if I don't close it in time.

      The internet also needn't be a place where you have to watch your back constantly. Again, don't go there. Yes, places exist where everyone's out to get you. If you hang out in the SA forums, be prepared to be backstabbed. If you don't like that, guess what? Avoid them. Go to a forum that is heavily moderated, or where your participation is dependent on a background check and real name registration. Yes, those boards exist too.

      I don't feel entitled to tell people what to do. That the internet can be a dangerous place is no secret. That there are people out there trying to con you ain't either. My solution would be simple: Learn to handle it or pay the price. Learn that you, and only you, are responsible for your actions and your believing someone who promises to send you bags of riches for a copy of your passport, or learn that you'll soon find your account being overdrawn by a con artist.

      I don't really see why I should suffer to protect people who are unable to rub two brain cells together. If you feel the internet is a too dangerous place to be, don't use it. If you feel certain boards or pages are too dangerous for you, don't visit them. If you don't want to see things like goatse, don't open the page. Oh, you could be conned into clicking a link that shows you the gapping rear of goatse? You just learned a valuable lesson: Don't be a clickmonkey.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:Freedom != freedom by jandersen · · Score: 1

      Here's a thought: Don't go there

      Not much though went into that one, eh? So, by the same token, if you are too feeble to stand getting mugged or raped, just don't on the high street after dark.

      I'm not saying that I want censorship all over the network. But I think it is pretty clear that the majority of people in many if not most countries are more than willing to give up a little freedom in order to avoid the torrent of shite that meets you all too often on the internet. And being democratically minded, I don't think one can justify saying that this is fundamentally wrong; if the people (ie the majority) wants it, is it not reasonable that they get it? And don't start hairsplitting about "the 50.01% majority that oppresses 49.99%" or there abouts - you know it doesn't work like that, and in any case, I think it is a very significant majority that are in favour.

      The internet in much of the world is paid for by public funds, at least to some extent; universities and telecoms have traditionally been state owned in much of Europe, and they are the one supplying much of the infrastructure. Is it right that something paid for by the public should be a no-go area for much of the public?

      For the record, I have nothing against child porn filters

      On the other hand, you felt the need to state so. Yes, I know, I'm just being obnoxious.

    10. Re:Freedom != freedom by Mascot · · Score: 1

      So, by the same token, if you are too feeble to stand getting mugged or raped, just don't on the high street after dark.

      That's the point I was making in my other post. They're not proposing "cleaning up the net", they're proposing a curfew to reduce the risk you stumble upon a criminal. Exactly as you describe.

      If I type www.mybank.com, my browser doesn't get mugged along the way and force me to hand over my wallet before it allows me access to the bank's web page.

      But I think it is pretty clear that the majority of people in many if not most countries are more than willing to give up a little freedom in order to avoid the torrent of shite that meets you all too often on the internet.

      I disagree. If the objective is to prevent people from running across objectionable content by accident, you accomplish your goal with a warning page you need to click through. There's no need to block.

      I doubt the majority of the German population feels a need to be "protected" from ending up on a site for Counter Strike enthusiasts by accident, but by all means add a warning page to protect the ones that feel they need it, while not restraining those that do not.

      Is it right that something paid for by the public should be a no-go area for much of the public?

      But that's exactly what the law does. It makes areas no-go by blocking them for everybody. As I mentioned, they're not proposing the removal of content from the Internet, their intent is to block the parts of it they decide you don't want to see.

    11. Re:Freedom != freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a thought: Don't go there

      Not much though went into that one, eh? So, by the same token, if you are too feeble to stand getting mugged or raped, just don't on the high street after dark.

      Maybe you should give it a second thought.
      He is suggesting: If you think that area is dangerous don't go there.
      What he is arguing against: If the government thinks the area is dangerous they don't allow going there.

    12. Re:Freedom != freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But there is a huge difference between the freedom you enjoy in a society where people treat each other with respect and dignity, and the freedom you have in a lawless wilderness, where you can expect every person you meet to be an enemy.

      I agree with the statement, but how this society is supposed to come about is where we differ. I don't think the state has the right to force its citizens to treat each other with dignity.

    13. Re:Freedom != freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's even worse. I've heard there are Jews on the Internet.

    14. Re:Freedom != freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But there is a huge difference between the freedom you enjoy in a society where people treat each other with respect and dignity, and the freedom you have in a lawless wilderness, where you can expect every person you meet to be an enemy. I know which one I'd choose.

      So are you saying that government-run oversight and censorship will create a "society where people treat each other with respect and dignity"? That's an interesting idea. I wonder how it stands up historically...

    15. Re:Freedom != freedom by plastbox · · Score: 1

      The problem for me isn't censoring the internet per se, but rather that censorship often branches into the realms of legal (but not necessarily attractive to the majority of people - think fetish sites for example) activity and can crush freedom of speech.

      All too true, I'm afraid. Not that I'd cry over a few blocked fetish sites in particular but if I want to learn how to make a hydrogen fuel cell, or hell, how to make a bomb, I want that info to be online and as easily accessible as any cookie recipe. Yes, bombs are bad. Does that mean that all us geeky MacGyver fans are terrorists who should be surveilled and controlled?

      So, what do you want? A lawless place with its inherent risks and joys, or a gated community that forces you to leave the toilet seat down, always say please and thankyou, and kicks you out if you walk on the grass? Give me the lawless any day.

      Slashdotters seem to be under the impression that it's one or the other, dictatorship or anarchy. Well it's not! Speeding or driving while intoxicated is hardly more legal than watching child porn and yet we don't have special tire-slashing patrols ensuring that no drunk driving or speeding can happen. Ok, car-related analogy (or whatever that was) done. My point is, rules can be enforced in cyberspace as much as in meatspace (yes, I know we all hate that word). In meatspace though, there are strict rules on how rules can and should be enforced. The law doesn't allow cops to go around giving people preemptive beatings to remind us they are there. Similarly, howstuffworks.com, textfiles.com, freakforum.nu (norwegian, retarded), /. and other such pages should never be blocked because I might find info there that I might use to build a bomb.

      If I do, however, build a bomb and blow up a school and the police make a lawful arrest and get a by-the-book, fair warrant for my computer gear (and logs, where possible).. Sure, my computer can count as evidence (if I'm dumb enough to leave traces on it) every bit as much as if I had planned the attack with pen-and-paper and the cops found that. What they absolutely can't do is regulate and moderate the entire net so I can't find info that isn't in itself illegal but might help me make something that actually is. That would be like out-lawing toothbrushes because one could use them to make a shiv.

  33. Language barrier already achieves this! by Anachragnome · · Score: 2, Funny

    In all honesty, I couldn't understand any of them (the germans) anyways.

    Hell, Google can barely understand them...

    1. Re:Language barrier already achieves this! by am+2k · · Score: 1

      Hell, I can't understand them either, and German is my mother tongue (although I'm not from Germany).

    2. Re:Language barrier already achieves this! by 32771 · · Score: 1

      Good point, even though some regard it only as funny.

      Will our silly government limit itself to censoring German language sites only or will they prevent me from posting inflammatory comments to foreign language forums? I will not test this lest I spoil my Karma.

      I have my doubts though that our politicians are totally unaware of American politics as they are essentially using an emotionally loaded issue to foist censorship of a rather complex medium to a target audience that has age-wise passed beyond the capability to understand the subtleties of DNS redirection. Age may not be the only issue here but I just had to put all the problems into one sentence. Framing has been all the rage in the US,

      http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2631940

      http://www.neurosciencemarketing.com/blog/?p=83

      and I guess our politicians advisers are smart enough to read those papers too.

      So now we frame the internet as a "lawless chaos space" as Ms. von der Leyen puts it. The poor little internet has been framed as something worse than the space that surrounds us with all those chaotic n-body systems, it is even lawless - Gasp!

      I suppose there are laws against all the nastiness worth policing on the internet but I guess it is cheaper to just close your eyes and pretend it is not there, even cheaper (just in time for the next election to prove they have done "something") than going ahead and forming some international consensus on what is objectionable and what not. I guess the world hasn't come far enough yet, for us not to pull an Iran, i.e. to fence ourself off rather than some few misfits out.

      --
      Je me souviens.
  34. So just in case you missed it... by vorlich · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you are reading Slashdot from outside Germany in English, then don't come to live here. Well, okay you can live in Berlin but you are forbidden to travel any further south and stay off of my snowboard turf!

    --
    Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
  35. Is this correct or lost in translation? by DanJ_UK · · Score: 1

    Google translate on wiki page - http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zugangserschwerungsgesetz

    The law on obstruction of access to child pornographic content in communication networks (access aggravation Act - ZugErschwG) aims to provide access to Web sites with depictions of sexual activity by and against children...

    --
    - Dan
    1. Re:Is this correct or lost in translation? by kju · · Score: 1

      It's a translation error. Please notice that the translated sentence goes "provide access [...] difficult". The german says it shall make it more difficult to access said sites.

    2. Re:Is this correct or lost in translation? by DanJ_UK · · Score: 1

      Cool. I find it interesting that there seems to a certain amount of opposition to this then; surely making it more difficult to access child pornography is a good thing?

      --
      - Dan
    3. Re:Is this correct or lost in translation? by wildemar · · Score: 0

      Cool. I find it interesting that there seems to a certain amount of opposition to this then; surely making it more difficult to access child pornography is a good thing?

      See, this is exactly why there is so little opposition to this: People only see that part of the argument and don't get the implications (can't say I blame you though).

      What makes this so outrageous is that this filtering is done directly by the BKA (basically the German FBI), without any other instance (uhm, some judge perhaps?) reviewing them. Up until now we used to have this thing called "separation of power", but it seems that this is way too crazy a concept to base a government on.

      Also, the list is secret. Good call. Otherwise people might see how these lists pretty much always contain false positives (Finnland and Australia come to mind).

      All these things are rather abstract, especially for the average Joe. Which makes this all the more dangerous.

    4. Re:Is this correct or lost in translation? by moronoxyd · · Score: 1

      I'm not against the protection of children and I'm all for hunting down child molesters, but I am against the way this law is supposed to happen:

      - secret block list
      - no oversight by judges
      - sites are blocked using technology that can be easyly circumvented (hell, as I'm using OpenDNS I *already* went around it, before there where any talks about this law)
      - paedophils still get access to blocked sites
      - as those illegal sites are "blocked" the police has litte reason to actually do something to take them down
      - similar lists in Australia, Denmark and Sweden have shown that those lists tend to contain many sites that aren't illegal
      - the systems used to block pages containing child pornography can easyly be used to censor other content (the German RIAA already said they would like to use it to block torrent trackers and such, others talked about censoring other kind of information)

      So: This system is not effective, it does nothing to protect the children, but it creates a system that is a first step to censoring the internet.

  36. Competition sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "or else the great Internet is in danger of turning into a lawless range of chaos, where you're allowed to bully, insult, and deceive limitlessly."

    And clearly the government doesn't want it's monopoly on all of the above jeopardised.

  37. There's worse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's called 12chan, and it's more not-worksafe than 4chan. Far, far more not-worksafe.

    1. Re:There's worse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Not Safe For Work?
      Most of the time it falls under Not Safe For Home.... or anywhere.

    2. Re:There's worse. by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes, some people though 4chan was too restrictive and begat 7chan, which some people felt was too restrictive and begat 12chan. Think about what that says about 12chan...if you can't, let be straightforward. There is a line that if you cross, your servers get raided by assorted police forces and you get arrested. Anything that doesn't blatantly cross that line is permissible on 12chan.

      The real question is this: Can you name worse than 12chan?

    3. Re:There's worse. by Ihlosi · · Score: 2, Funny
      The real question is this: Can you name worse than 12chan?

      pichan. Now even more irrational.

    4. Re:There's worse. by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      freenet

    5. Re:There's worse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      404chan. so named because it does get taken down, often, and so you see the 404 error 95% of the time. But they keep popping up from time to time.

    6. Re:There's worse. by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't forget 666chan.... I suppose the devil's in the details, though.

      --

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

    7. Re:There's worse. by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      The real question is this: Can you name worse than 12chan?
      Not4chan.

      --
      Not a sentence!
  38. this is to be expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is what you have to expect from a party which is mostly elected by over 60 year old http://stat.tagesschau.de/wahlarchiv/eu/waehler-nach-altersgruppen.html pensioners http://stat.tagesschau.de/wahlarchiv/eu/waehler-nach-taetigkeit.html

  39. Spam is invasive by TheLink · · Score: 1

    > Nobody's forcing them to surf around the Internet at random

    Spam is invasive though.

    I'm fine with them jailing fraudsters.

    --
    1. Re:Spam is invasive by Mascot · · Score: 1

      How does a law blocking where you can surf prevent spam from reaching you?

      This law isn't about protecting you, it's about limiting you.

    2. Re:Spam is invasive by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Yeah it's a bad law.

      --
  40. Nomen Omen by orzetto · · Score: 1

    Curiously, "von der Leyen" sounds surprisingly similar to "von den Laien", or "of the laymen". A trademark of incompetence!

    --
    Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    1. Re:Nomen Omen by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      With her name I'm tempted to read it as "von der Leine" ("off the leash") or "voll der Leiden" (full of suffering). The jury is still out on which fits better.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  41. Suing for insults by Saint+Fnordius · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It happens in most countries, though it's referred to as "libel". German laws are somewhat more stringent, but it's the same concept. Germans also have been bombarded with tales of cyber-bullying in the media, so the public perception is at the moment skewed.

    I think the media conglomerates have played a major role, in first hyping tales of online child pornography to create a feeling of crisis, now in pushing stories of online addiction and cyber-bullying. I have a sneaking suspicion that they see the internet as competition, as breaking the grip they had on media, that they see censorship laws as helping them retain their role as gatekeepers.

    I think most Germans haven't really considered what they are getting into by allowing the government decide what you can see or not. They don't realise how this places them in the same boat as the Iranians and the Chinese, trusting too much that the government won't accidentally block legitimate content. Others who don't have an online connection (like my in-laws) think the internet is a big scary threat anyways, so any sort of censorship is a Good Thing. They still have the "as long as it doesn't affect me" mentality.

  42. This is why I will vote for the Pirate Party by Skylinux · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is exactly why I will vote for the Pirate Party at the next election.
    I don't agree with some of the stuff the Pirate Party stands for but I absolutely don't agree with anything the CDU, SPD or any of the other major political parties stand for.

    --
    Everyone who buys Wild Hunt will receive 16 specially prepared DLCs absolutely for free, regardless of platform.
  43. Re:I have always wondered.. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Umm... Germans technically gifted? Trains running on time? Cops respected by thugs?

    Where's that magical land you're talking about and how comes it's named like that really existing country called Germany? Isn't it hard to keep those two apart when they have the same name?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  44. Germans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In my German view, the people over here like the law, because they do not understand it. The propaganda that 'something is done to protect the children' works. People have been convinced by repeating lies over and over again, that (a) on the Internet, you stumble across filth everywhere, so the children must be protected, (b) the new law helps protect the children. Obviously (to the people on /. at least) both (a) and (b) are plain lies. But this is what people think and, therefore, they like this law. They have no idea of the implications, let alone the technical problems if the implementation. The internet is not part of their lives, it's still more like a misty, dangerous dungeon to most, so they do not understand how bad this is.

    So I think this is not about Germans and the WWII or anything that deep, but simply the propaganda of modern populist politicians who influenced public opinion.

  45. and your safe word is by Col.+Panic · · Score: 1

    Zugangserschwerungsgesetz

    1. Re:and your safe word is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or better yet:

      • Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz (passed in 1999)
      • Grundstücksverkehrsgenehmigungszuständigkeitsübertragungsverordnung
  46. reminder from history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This eerily and shockingly reminds me of a poem about nazi regime I hears years ago (in german !!) that went something like this:

    - when they came for the jews, I did not protest for I was no jew
    - when they came for the gypsies, I did not protest for I was no gypsy
    - when they came for the mentally diseased, I did not protest for I was not mentally diseased
    - now they are coming for me, but there is no-one left to protest

    let me try to adapt this to the current situation:

    - when they closed down the child pornography sites, I did not bother for I did not care
    - when they closed down the right wing extremists sites, I did not bother because I am not a right wing extremist
    - when they closed down the web sites of the opposition, I did not bother, because I am not of the opposition
    - when they closed down all my sites, the general public could not be bothered

    we are quickly and frighteningly descending to an orwellian state where the gouvernment dictates what we are allowed to see.

    note: I do not have any sites, but hat is irrelevant

  47. gesundheit by visible.frylock · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's only been a few weeks since the law dubbed Zugangserschwerungsgesetz (access impediment law)

    Consistently separating words by spaces became a general custom about the tenth century A.D., and lasted until about 2009, when Germans abandoned the practice.

    --
    Billy Brown rides on. Yolanda Green bypasses Gary White.
  48. Re:Crabwalk by Bakkster · · Score: 1

    An interesting book exploring this topic is Crabwalk (Im Krebsgang, in German) by Gunter Grass. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crabwalk

    While written in the early years of the internet, it revolves around an anti-semetic website and two chat room visiters arguing in the persona of Nazi and Jew. It's a very interesting examination into this haunting piece of their past that the Germans seem to be trapped in. No matter how much I have studied it, I don't think I'll ever be able to (as an American) understand how this cycle keeps repeating. However, there's no doubt that it's there, and that the German people will be haunted by it for some time, if not forever.

    --
    Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
  49. Why bother by adewolf · · Score: 1

    Just make the Internet illegal or too expensive for the the regular folks. We all know it's only populated by consumers of child porn and pirates.

    --
    "The Brady Bunch is back...working homicide"
  50. internet is different by bad2790 · · Score: 1

    The internet is different than all information media we had until now (books, newspapers, tv):
    1. the information remains there for a very long time
    2. it's very easy to search and to share the the information
    3. usually the information is not edited by a group with some social responsibilities

    So, I think that we need some new rules for publishing information on the internet.

    1. Re:internet is different by tenco · · Score: 1
      4. It's many to many communication on a bigger scale than your local bridge club.

      And my guess is, this scares the shit out of large media conglomerates and politicians. So they want to shut it down.

  51. Summer theater by jolorant · · Score: 1

    This is just summer theater. Other news of the day were a guy who's been put in a train while sleeping on his bed and the fact that Steve Jobs walks to work.

    Many constitutional law experts, including some former Bundesverfassungsrichter (supreme court judges) have said on several occasions that this law will not pass the constitutional assessment of the Bundesverfassungsgericht (supreme court), for many reasons (being not formally correct, being uneffective, abridging basic rights etc.) Everyone is waiting for the law to come into force, since only then everyone is allowed to appeal against it. At first, it should be August 1st, but then the government noticed they needed to show it to the EU commission first. Now it's November 1st. Funny thing is, that since the law did not pass the first of three required parliamentary readings, it most likely will never come into effect; right now, it hasn't even been signed by the president. If it will ever come into force, you can expect a mass legal dispute. Long story short: we got this one under control.

    1. Re:Summer theater by RoboRay · · Score: 1

      But... but... but... Think of the CHILDREN!!!

    2. Re:Summer theater by Bambi+Dee · · Score: 1

      So what's a "Spezl"?

  52. Re:I have always wondered.. by he-sk · · Score: 1

    Hahaha, trains running on time. So funny!

    Tell that to the citizen of Berlin, where 2/3 of the S-Bahn trains had to be pulled for safety concerns, because the company saved money on safety procedures in an effort to make the mother corporation ready for the stock market.

    You should question your stereotypes.

    --
    Free Manning, jail Obama.
  53. We are all criminals these days... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is costly and difficult to police things, especially the Internet. Treating everyone like a criminal is the easy solution, in theory. You can see this in action in many forms, including child support and drm...

  54. If he were still alive... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hitler would be proud.

  55. Government by jimmy_dean · · Score: 1

    So, for those who put great faith in government as the solution to just about anything, I submit to you that government needs to be in check all of the time. It needs to be restricted and it needs to submit to the people of a country, not the other way around. This type of censorship is just the opposite. Life without freedom is no life at all. As they say in the great state of New Hampshire, "Live free or die!"

    --
    -> Sometimes, you just gotta break free from the shackles of proprietary code.
  56. GERMANS "ACHTUNG": Way to beat it, easily... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For those of you that may have heard of "A Black Day for Internet Freedom in Germany" from this /. article -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/06/16/1657255/A-Black-Day-For-Internet-Freedom-In-Germany ?

    I have a way around your "woes", & one that will not get you DNS port 53 udp logged either, & it's VERY SIMPLE to do, using a custom HOSTS file!

    1.) Find the IP addresses (ping'ing them will get you this usually) of your favorite websites (even IF they are "banned/restricted" by your ISP/BSP & their DNS servers)

    2.) Enter their "IP Address-to-URL" equation/resolution into your local HOSTS file (typically located under %WinDi5%\system32\drivers\etc )

    This will stop your making requests to ANY DNS server, having YOU act as your OWN DNS SERVER (more-or-less)!

    (AND, thus, it first "proofs you" vs. DNS request logging over port 53 udp... plus, this SECONDLY actually makes you F A S T E R online, since you do not "burn time" calling out to remote DNS servers for URL-to-IP Address resolutions (which take between 30-60ns roundtrip to complete - this is what you dispense with, & it makes you THAT MUCH FASTER online))

    OH, & "nice part also", is that IF a remote DNS server "goes down" (or is dns poisoned etc. et al)? YOU STILL CAN REACH THOSE FAV. SITES OF YOURS!

    APK

    P.S.=> Entries like these go into your HOSTS files for this (you'd be advised to "ping" each URL from YOUR END, as your values may not come out the same as mine do here in example HOSTS files entries for "hardcoded favorite sites" in a HOSTS file):

    128.103.64.79 stopbadware.org
    128.121.95.55 whois.net
    206.171.41.22 www.borland.com
    207.46.19.190 www.microsoft.com
    207.46.196.125 technet2.microsoft.com
    207.46.199.248 technet.microsoft.com
    207.46.225.250 support.microsoft.com
    208.48.161.101 www.tomshardware.com
    208.48.161.102 tomshardware.com
    208.67.217.231 www.google.com
    209.123.109.175 dslreports.com
    213.150.41.226 secunia.com
    213.150.41.226 www.secunia.com
    4.79.142.200 grc.com
    63.175.76.152 borland.com
    64.233.187.99 google.com
    65.214.39.56 ask.com
    65.214.39.56 www.ask.com
    66.35.45.201 sans.org
    66.51.119.83 www.multiproxy.org
    66.94.229.254 altavista.com
    66.94.229.254 www.altavista.com
    67.208.32.199 windowsitpro.com
    67.208.32.199 www.windowsitpro.com
    69.64.185.84 www.siteadvisor.com
    72.3.254.86 eset.com
    72.3.254.86 www.eset.com
    74.125.93.191 ddanchev.blogspot.com
    75.125.82.140 dnsstuff.com
    75.126.23.34 publicproxyservers.com
    76.74.9.19 packetstormsecurity.org
    87.106.2.233 spybotupdates.com
    87.106.2.233 www.spybotupdates.com
    89.238.64.39 safer-networking.org
    89.238.64.39 www.safer-networking.org

    Enjoy - it works (especially for German Folks that have been getting restricted online as of late)! apk

  57. Lol, Howard Stern? by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Read up on the guy and just WHY he is hosting his current show the way he is. BECAUSE HE WAS CENSORED OF THE AIRWAVES.

    No country that throws a hissy fit over a nipple has the right to lecture anyone else on free speech.

    American TV is the most bleeped tv in the western world and you critize others? Hypocrasy, you are doing it right.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Lol, Howard Stern? by purpledinoz · · Score: 1

      Howard Stern is on Siruis/XM to escape the FCC. However, in Germany, he still wouldn't be allowed on any type of radio calling Oprah a fat cow without the fear of getting sued.

      On a side note, the FCC is completely assbackwards. The big problem Stern had was that the FCC refused to give specific rules on what could not be said. So of course the radio station over-reacted and censored everything to avoid fines. I'm glad to see his old radio stations tanking. They should have defended Stern against the FCC's vague, made-up rules.

  58. GERMANS: "ACHTUNG" (how to beat this)... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For those of you that may have heard of "A Black Day for Internet Freedom in Germany" from this /. article -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/06/16/1657255/A-Black-Day-For-Internet-Freedom-In-Germany ?

    I have a way around your "woes", & one that will not get you DNS port 53 udp logged either, in case your ISP/BSP (or gov't./police even) blocks out your fav. sites online, & it's VERY SIMPLE to do, using a custom HOSTS file & a text editor (like notepad.exe, but pay attention below to notepad.exe .txt extension warning I note below though)!

    ----

    1.) Find the IP addresses (ping'ing them will get you this usually) of your favorite websites (even IF they are "banned/restricted" by your ISP/BSP & their DNS servers)

    2.) Enter their "IP Address-to-URL" equation/resolution into your local HOSTS file (typically located under %WinDi5%\system32\drivers\etc ), using notepad.exe (be sure to save it as type ALL FILES though, because notepad.exe defaults to a .txt extension, & the HOSTS file HAS NO EXTENSION like .txt in its name)...

    ----

    This will stop your making requests to ANY DNS server, having YOU act as your OWN DNS SERVER (more-or-less)!

    (AND, thus, it first "proofs you" vs. DNS request logging over port 53 udp... plus, this SECONDLY actually makes you F A S T E R online, since you do not "burn time" calling out to remote DNS servers for URL-to-IP Address resolutions (which take between 30-60ns roundtrip to complete - this is what you dispense with, & it makes you THAT MUCH FASTER online))

    OH, & "nice part also", is that IF a remote DNS server "goes down" (or is dns poisoned, OR BLOCKED OUT (per this article & the url I posted above), etc. et al)? YOU STILL CAN REACH THOSE FAV. SITES OF YOURS!

    You MAY have to alter this in your registry though, but not always needed:

    HOW TO ALTER NAME RESOLUTION ORDER IN WINDOWS:

    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/139270/EN-US

    ----

    Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

    [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\ServiceProvider]
    "LocalPriority"=dword:00000005
    "HostsPriority"=dword:00000006
    "DnsPriority"=dword:00000007
    "NetbtPriority"=dword:00000008

    (LOWER NUMBERS HERE = GREATER PRIORITY)

    ----

    As you can see, I give my LOCAL DNS Cache the greatest priority (because it has my HOSTS file loaded into it @ system startup (IP stack startup, actually)), & THEN, my custom adbanner blocking/speedup fav sites (which this post is showing folks how to do, & yes, it works) is next, & then my ISP/BSP's DNS servers, & lastly NetBios/WINS stuff (which I just plain do NOT use, because I have no LanManager style network running here, ONLY Tcp/IP)

    APK

    P.S.=> Entries like these go into your HOSTS files for this (you'd be advised to "ping" each URL from YOUR END, as your IP Address values MAY NOT COME OUT THE SAME AS MINE HAVE HERE, in ny example HOSTS files entries below, for "hardcoded favorite sites" in a HOSTS file, in the format of IPAddress(single space)URL, & cr+lf means an ENTER keypress, as shown below):

    128.103.64.79 stopbadware.org
    128.121.95.55 whois.net
    206.171.41.22 www.borland.com
    207.46.19.190 www.microsoft.com
    207.46.196.125 technet2.microsoft.com
    207.46.199.248 technet.microsoft.com
    207.46.225.250 support.microsoft.com
    208.48.161.101 www.tomshardware.com
    208.48.161.102 tomshardware.com
    208.67.217.231 www.google.com
    209.123.109.175 dslreports.com
    213.150.41.226 secunia.com
    213.150.41.226 www.secunia.com
    4.79.142.200 grc.com
    63.175.76.152 borland.com
    64.233.187.99 google.com
    65.214.39.56 ask.com
    65.214.39.56 www.ask.com
    66.35.45.201 sans.org
    66.51.119.83 w

  59. GERMANS: "ACHTUNG" (how to beat this)... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For those of you that may have heard of "A Black Day for Internet Freedom in Germany" from this /. article here recently of -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/06/16/1657255/A-Black-Day-For-Internet-Freedom-In-Germany ?

    I have a way around your "woes", & one that will not get you DNS port 53 udp logged either, in case your ISP/BSP (or gov't./police even) blocks out your fav. sites online, & it's VERY SIMPLE to do, using a custom HOSTS file & a text editor (like notepad.exe, but pay attention below to notepad.exe .txt extension warning I note below though)!

    ----

    1.) Find the IP addresses (ping'ing them will get you this usually) of your favorite websites (even IF they are "banned/restricted" by your ISP/BSP & their DNS servers)

    2.) Enter their "IP Address-to-URL" equation/resolution into your local HOSTS file (typically located under %WinDi5%\system32\drivers\etc ), using notepad.exe (be sure to save it as type ALL FILES though, because notepad.exe defaults to a .txt extension, & the HOSTS file HAS NO EXTENSION like .txt in its name)...

    ----

    This will stop your making requests to ANY DNS server, having YOU act as your OWN DNS SERVER (more-or-less)!

    (AND, thus, it first "proofs you" vs. DNS request logging over port 53 udp... plus, this SECONDLY actually makes you F A S T E R online, since you do not "burn time" calling out to remote DNS servers for URL-to-IP Address resolutions (which take between 30-60ns roundtrip to complete - this is what you dispense with, & it makes you THAT MUCH FASTER online))

    OH, & "nice part also", is that IF a remote DNS server "goes down" (or is dns poisoned, OR BLOCKED OUT (per this article & the url I posted above), etc. et al)? YOU STILL CAN REACH THOSE FAV. SITES OF YOURS!

    You MAY have to alter this in your registry though, but not always needed:

    HOW TO ALTER NAME RESOLUTION ORDER IN WINDOWS:

    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/139270/EN-US

    ----

    Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

    [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\ServiceProvider]
    "LocalPriority"=dword:00000005
    "HostsPriority"=dword:00000006
    "DnsPriority"=dword:00000007
    "NetbtPriority"=dword:00000008

    (LOWER NUMBERS HERE = GREATER PRIORITY)

    ----

    As you can see, I give my LOCAL DNS Cache the greatest priority (because it has my HOSTS file loaded into it @ system startup (IP stack startup, actually)), & THEN, my custom adbanner blocking/speedup fav sites (which this post is showing folks how to do, & yes, it works) is next, & then my ISP/BSP's DNS servers, & lastly NetBios/WINS stuff (which I just plain do NOT use, because I have no LanManager style network running here, ONLY Tcp/IP)

    APK

    P.S.=> Entries like these go into your HOSTS files for this (you'd be advised to "ping" each URL from YOUR END, as your IP Address values MAY NOT COME OUT THE SAME AS MINE HAVE HERE, in ny example HOSTS files entries below, for "hardcoded favorite sites" in a HOSTS file, in the format of IPAddress(single space)URL(cr+lf), & cr+lf means an ENTER keypress @ the end of each line, as shown below):

    128.103.64.79 stopbadware.org
    128.121.95.55 whois.net
    206.171.41.22 www.borland.com
    207.46.19.190 www.microsoft.com
    207.46.196.125 technet2.microsoft.com
    207.46.199.248 technet.microsoft.com
    207.46.225.250 support.microsoft.com
    208.48.161.101 www.tomshardware.com
    208.48.161.102 tomshardware.com
    208.67.217.231 www.google.com
    209.123.109.175 dslreports.com
    213.150.41.226 secunia.com
    213.150.41.226 www.secunia.com
    4.79.142.200 grc.com
    63.175.76.152 borland.com
    64.233.187.99 google.com
    65.214.39.56 ask.com
    65.214.39.56 www.ask

  60. GERMANS - "ACHTUNG!!!" (how to get around it all) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For those of you that may have heard of "A Black Day for Internet Freedom in Germany" from this /. article -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/06/16/1657255/A-Black-Day-For-Internet-Freedom-In-Germany ?

    I have a way around your "woes", & one that will not get you DNS port 53 udp logged either, in case your ISP/BSP (or gov't./police even) blocks out your fav. sites online, & it's VERY SIMPLE to do, using a custom HOSTS file & a text editor (like notepad.exe, but pay attention below to notepad.exe .txt extension warning I note below though)!

    ----

    1.) Find the IP addresses (ping'ing them will get you this usually) of your favorite websites (even IF they are "banned/restricted" by your ISP/BSP & their DNS servers)

    2.) Enter their "IP Address-to-URL" equation/resolution into your local HOSTS file (typically located under %WinDi5%\system32\drivers\etc ), using notepad.exe (be sure to save it as type ALL FILES though, because notepad.exe defaults to a .txt extension, & the HOSTS file HAS NO EXTENSION like .txt in its name)...

    ----

    This will stop your making requests to ANY DNS server, having YOU act as your OWN DNS SERVER (more-or-less)!

    (AND, thus, it first "proofs you" vs. DNS request logging over port 53 udp... plus, this SECONDLY actually makes you F A S T E R online, since you do not "burn time" calling out to remote DNS servers for URL-to-IP Address resolutions (which take between 30-60ns roundtrip to complete - this is what you dispense with, & it makes you THAT MUCH FASTER online))

    OH, & "nice part also", is that IF a remote DNS server "goes down" (or is dns poisoned, OR BLOCKED OUT (per this article & the url I posted above), etc. et al)? YOU STILL CAN REACH THOSE FAV. SITES OF YOURS!

    You MAY have to alter this in your registry though, but not always needed:

    HOW TO ALTER NAME RESOLUTION ORDER IN WINDOWS:

    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/139270/EN-US

    ----

    Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

    [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\ServiceProvider]
    "LocalPriority"=dword:00000005
    "HostsPriority"=dword:00000006
    "DnsPriority"=dword:00000007
    "NetbtPriority"=dword:00000008

    (LOWER NUMBERS HERE = GREATER PRIORITY)

    ----

    As you can see, I give my LOCAL DNS Cache the greatest priority (because it has my HOSTS file loaded into it @ system startup (IP stack startup, actually)), & THEN, my custom adbanner blocking/speedup fav sites (which this post is showing folks how to do, & yes, it works) is next, & then my ISP/BSP's DNS servers, & lastly NetBios/WINS stuff (which I just plain do NOT use, because I have no LanManager style network running here, ONLY Tcp/IP)

    APK

    P.S.=> Entries like these go into your HOSTS files for this (you'd be advised to "ping" each URL from YOUR END, as your IP Address values MAY NOT COME OUT THE SAME AS MINE HAVE HERE, in ny example HOSTS files entries below, for "hardcoded favorite sites" in a HOSTS file, in the format of IPAddress(single space)URL(cr+lf), & cr+lf means an ENTER keypress @ the end of each line, as shown below):

    128.103.64.79 stopbadware.org
    128.121.95.55 whois.net
    206.171.41.22 www.borland.com
    207.46.19.190 www.microsoft.com
    207.46.196.125 technet2.microsoft.com
    207.46.199.248 technet.microsoft.com
    207.46.225.250 support.microsoft.com
    208.48.161.101 www.tomshardware.com
    208.48.161.102 tomshardware.com
    208.67.217.231 www.google.com
    209.123.109.175 dslreports.com
    213.150.41.226 secunia.com
    213.150.41.226 www.secunia.com
    4.79.142.200 grc.com
    63.175.76.152 borland.com
    64.233.187.99 google.com
    65.214.39.56 ask.com
    65.214.39.56 www.ask.com
    66.35.45.

  61. Re: Idiocracy by mujadaddy · · Score: 1

    Give it 500 years, and it will be.

    --
    Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
    "Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
  62. Re:not Zensurulla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    first corrections:
      - the nickname is Zensursula Zensur + Ursulla
      - Miss Education misleading Head of Ministry of Education is Ms. Annette Schavan

    Both are Members of Christian Democratic Party , which have things in common with the American Republicans
    (those guys don't retreat upon caught lying if it's grounded on some kind "white lie according to party line")

    Opinion on restrictions of free speech:
          Laws here are mostly about style use no swear words and you are mostly out of trouble;
          example: there are the special stricter laws dealing with insulting officers: A policeman lost his case wanting to sue because he was being called
                                      forester (the uniform was still the green one (:- )

          better example (melody no better than daily soup intro)
          about protest against our Zernsursula with text lines like: Did you purchase your Minister chair on ebay? Or your law from summer clearance sale?
          So one example how to through nonsense at even politicians without being fee' d.

    In the end it makes no substantial difference to the US
          for example the Minister of the Interior (Wolgang Schäuble) tries constantly to both undermine and change our constitution,
          but you won' t see any tv station airing someone saying he should be prosecuted by Verfassungsschutz (which is headed by the Minister of the interior).

  63. The cost of Liberty by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

    It is sad that you see Freedom of Expression, one of the Human Rights, as a privilege that can be taken away instead of an inalienable right.

    But Freedom of Expression clearly can be taken away (or not conceded in the first place). Try going to China and publically advocating for the rights of Tibetans and Urghurs.

    The very concept of an 'inalienable right' is an ahistorical fairytale. 'Rights' are concessions that, for the most part, have had to be pried out of the hands of those who hold power. To consider them natural and inaliable, though it can be inspiring, can also be to take them for granted and to invite complacency in holding power to account.

    --
    Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
  64. i dont' get it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sorry, i don't get it ... nothing of it!

    imho we don't need no additional law's for the internet, because everything needed is already there, isn't it?

    we have law's against cp, fraud, bad talking about other persons ... and all these law's apply to the things you do in the internet.

    i don't like von der leyen ... i don't like scheuble (head of internal affairs) ... am i the only one who does not vote for them or what

  65. The US Versus Europe (Germany) by pebear · · Score: 1

    Being that most of my descendants came from Europe and some of them came from Germany. All I have to say is that If my ancestors wanted to be European they would have stayed but laws like this remind me of why they left such a God Forsaken Land

    --
    Paul E. Bahre
  66. Screw 4chan and Encyclopedia Dramatica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck 4chan and fuck encyclopedia dramatica, somethingawful, and all those members of "Anonymous". I hope they DO get their asses kicked somehow. They are just Internet bullies who think the exact same way as the new Russian right-wing fascists: racism, sexism, ageism, antisemitism, hate against the weak and suffering. They all suck and should be fucking locked up, and have the shit beat out of them.