Being a German, I would like to elaborate on this.
First of all, pension systems do not take criminal activity in account. A person might commit most heineous crimes and serve a life sentence. However, if s/he has acquired pension payment benefit rights, s/he will keep them. It's property, and you just cannot take it away. Even if it is most offending to see a murderer receive monthly payments while some victims will see nothing. That's how pension systems work.
The pension system for ex army and Waffen SS members we have now dates back to the fifties. It was part of a political deal. Germans were needed in the Cold War. The young democratic republic could need anything but opposition from former members of the armed forces, who counted by the millions. So prosecution of war crimes ceased in the beginning of the fifties (never totally, though). Jewish organisations received "compensation" (I know one cannot compensate mass murder). That was possible because the public coffers were full. Other victims were mostly behind the Iron Curtain. Nobody wanted to be remembered of the sordid past. This includes the Allies because they were busy with the Cold War, and, a fact which is nowadays mostly forgotten, the rule most in command played 33-45 was much less splendid than depicted nowadays.
However, the hope of ex Nazis that there will never be any prosecution never materialized. It re-started in 59 and goes on till then. But all participants are really old now. No smart SS officers but octogenarians limping along. Although today's judges are not no longer biased in favour of Nazi criminals (that was not the case in, for example, 1970), it is really hard to find the truth about events which took place 60 years back. The ex Nazi problem will thus very soon cease to exist. Just do some calculations. Hitler came to power in 1933. At that time, age of consent was 21. So the youngest person who is still alive and might have voted for him was born in 1912 and is 92. Then, to be in command in 33-45 a soldier was to be in his twenties. Having been 20 in '45 means being 84 now. Higher ranks were in their thirties or forties, usually. Which means they must be a hundred years old or more.
20-30 years ago, the generation which took part in 33-45 went into retirement. A few years later, the so-called flak generation: those who were drafted 43-45 at the age of 15-16 for flak duty. That's my father's generation. Even these guys are gradually passing away now.
Thus, you will find very few oldtimers in German pensioneer's homes who receive pensions as Waffen SS members. Not because justice has been done, but because they are almost all dead now. That's what our government is hoping for: when offenders die of old age, their victims will pass away, too.
I totally agree. Terrorism is not guided missiles & nuclear warheads. It's rifles, fertilizer, box cutters and chemicals from next door drugstores. If terrorism depended on nuclear technology or billion $ items hurled at targets by thousands of kilometres, we could get rid of them pretty quick. However, terrorism is a social engineering thing, not a technology thing.
The current US govt's demand of access to Galileo only reveals misconceptions and paranoias and lack of insight about how terrorism actually works.
If Hitler comes into a heated political debate, one can be pretty sure that most participants do not know what they are talking about. Comparing the Bushs or the current situation in the US with Hitler, that's comparing apples with dogshit.
Maybe there are people who wish to plunge the US in dictatorship. Maybe it is true that they apply dirty tricks for this purpose. What has this to do with Hitler ? Nothing. Can someone find any insight in contemporary politics by reading about Hitler's rise to power? No, except that being ruthless might pay in the short term. This is as insightful as stating that humans sometimes do evil things.
So please Americans, if you argue pro or con gun control [an issue, BTW, which is totally irrelevant for the rest of the world], or pro and con Bush, or abortion, or the Patriot Act: leave Hitler out of the way, and get real.
My wife runs a small business (40 employees) and I do the computing stuff (in my leisure time, basically). So I have some experience in SMB and Linux. 5 years ago I introduced Linux file + print servers, routers, and firewalls. Since I was a newbie in the beginning I had a steep learning curve to climb up. After that, everything was perfect. No problems with the 4 Linux and 1 FreeBSD servers, but there still is a NT machine, because some software the company (fashion business) needs runs only on windows. The maintenance costs for this machine are 10 times higher than the 5 other servers combined. I would be glad to get rid of it, but software we need is simply not avaliable in Linux. This is a big obstacle towards an MSfree life.
Then, the desktops. All these Win machines on the desktops require far too much attention. Many of them are > 5 years old and need to be replaced. So this is a good time to migrate towards OSS. So I gave a KDE desktop machine a try --> endless hassle with MS office formats, OpenOffice crawls, users dislike it because it's not Windows, 1 GHz + 256 MB RAM needed etc etc. My conclusion is that it is not the MS desktops which are the problem. Maybe some might be better off with Linux desktops but I think the gain will never be more than 10%, if at all. The real problem is that there is an overly complex machine at every desk capable of gazillion CPU cycles per sec and able to process GB of data, for what? Writing an invoice (3 kB data) or booking something into an accounting system (234 bytes data). That's what 80% of all workplaces are like. For these 80%, all these diskussions about which desktop is the best are regularly missing the point. That's why I will give thin clients a try. So my idea is: big server machine for those 80 %, old PCs as thin clients, typical desktop with 4 buttons: e-mail, web, write_a_letter, modify_database; Linux or MACs for the remaining 20% (mostly designers). This will take a long time to set up, because there are no off-the-shelf solutions. So the 2nd big obstacle is: there are no experts available to help SMBs. My wife's company would still be locked in Windows if I were not around. Businesses of this size cannot afford a full-time sysadmin. If Joe Fashion or Jill Plumber needs a network for their 5 employees business, they will always end up with MS, provided by the local we-sell-computers shop.
For SMBs, the break even for OSS is still far, far away.
The main reason for the large prison population in the US is how the US system deals with those who are poor.
US approach --> leave them at their fate, if they steal, lock them up. Be tough. European approach --> provide social benefits so they won't steal. Be friendly.
Results: - many prison inmates in the US - high sentences in the US - low taxes in the US - fewer prison inmates in Europe - low sentences in Europe - high taxes in Europe
Without doubt both systems have their pros and cons. What is your choice?
The German federal minstry for family affairs had wished to capitalize on the current political situation. Of course that's pointless. Moreover, the ministry can only *apply* that a play be banned. The decision is made by an independent commision.
The real problem is: should a government ban offensive material like violent films, porn, plays etc, and if yes, what must be tagged "offensive", and how should it be banned? This discussion goes on for decades now, in every Western country. In general, the European point of view tends to be more permissive with porn, the American, with violence. However, although sometimes stated, it has never been proven that consuming porn produces rapists, nor that playing war games harms innocent youngsters.
The German procedure it as follows: porn only for adults, no public advertising of genitals. The definition for pornography is "explicit display of genitals during intercourse". Compared to US standards, a rather liberal definition. For games and films, there is a list maintained by said commision. Games (and films) on the list must not be sold to juveniles, nor advertised.
Of course, these lists and bans will hardly have any effect at all. No bureaucrat will hinder people from having a good wank, or practicing how to become the Butcher of Baghdad. In Germany and elsewhere.
And finally: like most things happening in Germany, this affair has *nothing*, I repeat: **nothing** to do with Germany's past.
If it comes to terrorism, people/security agencies/governments always follow the same pattern: they phantasize about the most nightmarish dreadful attack imaginable, and demand that the most far-reaching measures should be taken. And this is going on ever since contemporary terrorism exists. To fight enemies, their motives, morales, strengths , shortcomings, must be examined first. Why are they fighting? for whom? who do they want to please? who are their supporters? what are they prepared for? what might be their next move? To assume a priori that an enemy is ready to use the most gruesome methods is clueless. If that be so, living on this planet would be impossible. After all, the most wicked terrorists are still humans and not alien killer robots from outa space. I remember well the seventies and eighties when we [Germany] had domestic (Marxist-Leninist) terrorism. What did these guys do? They murdered politician, high ranking officials, policemen, US soldiers etc. That was bad enough. But they were never close to something like: aiming a machine gun at children, poisoning drinking water, blowing up a government building etc. But this was what was printed in the papers. Speculations arose about exactly the same topics as now - on a much smaller scale, of course. Security agencies, governments, tabloids were eager to spread FUD and endorsed a "military solution" (so it was called). In the end, this terrorism dragged on until the early nineties (it had started in 1969) when it ended. Another point: the Nazi army never used poison gas in the battlefield, although they had plenty (mustard gas, Sarin, Tabun were all been invented in Germany). That proves that even the most wicked sometimes begin to have scruples (for whatever good or bad reasons).
So what I would like to know now is: - are there really terrorists who are ready to blow up a nuclear device? spread viruses? or use poison gas? If so, who are they, where are they, how many are they? - are bin Laden and his lot among these? Their supporters and friends obvioulsly like when buildings are blown up, as having been broadcasted on TV at 9/11. But do they similarly like pictures with people who spill out their lungs because of poison gas? - weapons of mass destruction are around for a long time now. However, nobody used them for terrorist purposes (ok, there was this sect in Japan). Instead, 9/11 saw pilot licenses, boxcutters, a few men ready for suicide. And this McVeigh - he used fertilizer and petrol. Sufficient measures might be: enhance security at airports, try to keep ex psycho soldiers in check etc. Introducing censorship for "sensitive" research results? Totally useless.
To fight terrorism, one must be *smart*. Use the brain, find motives, weaknesses, make allies, bribe, convince, undermine. Ask people. Talk to people. Use carrot and stick. And in the end, arrest or kill the remaining bunch. But above all: DONT PANIC.
Some experiences with ID cards in my country (Germany, that is):
We have ID cards since WWI (as far as I know). They are issued by the local authorities where you must register your residence.
Back in the seventies the ID was a little grey book with many pages. Every 10 years you had to renew it. If you moved, you had to walk to the town hall to have your new address manually entered. People in the crime business could do this by themselves with a potatoe and blue ink.
Blank IDs were kept in store at local authorities, whose remises where usually poorly protected against theft. This applied also to blank passports. Because this was how our local terrorists supposedly obtained forged IDs, it was decided at the beginning of the 80s to change procedures. Since then, ID and passport blanks are printed at the Federal Printery. The local autorities pass your personal data to the printery, and they send back the ID card with your photo and name on it.
They are made of bank note paper welded into plastic. It was stated that the new IDs are machine-readable, while the old ones were not.
I did not like the new cards so I did not apply for one. So I had none for 10 years or so. I did not run in any trouble. Now I have one because it is easier to open a bank account etc.
There remained one problem: the address. ID cards can not be reprinted every time you move. So your address is applied on the outside of the ID card with an adhesive sticker, which always goes off (at least in my wallet). This sticker is produced by the local autority. So when you have moved, you walk to the town hall and get a new sticker. Or, you get adhesive paper and a laser printer to forge one (for criminals only).
Local terrorism has ceased to exist, for various reasons, but not because of security measures of any sort. Our police autorities so far failed to intrude into terrorist networks of the seventies and eighties. Crime rate is still on the increase (although on a much lower level than in the US). The new IDs did not help a thing. Police have still no ID reading machines. Like in the old days with the little grey book, they use their radio equipment to communicate your name to somebody in headquarters, who checks if you are on the wanted list. This takes several minutes. The original idea was that one police officer could check the IDs of, for example, 100 train passengers in half an hour.
Did the IDs reduce civil liberties? I think not. I hardly ever have one with me. On average, I am asked to identify myself every 3 or 4 years (I live in a big city, white male with local accent). The police officer then tells me that I have to have my ID card with me. I tell him that this is wrong, the law only says that you have to identify yourself, by whatever means. So I display my gym member card, or something with my name on it. Either s/he believes me or not; but this applies also if I had the ID card, because they can be forged. So far I was always believed.
Years ago I had two appartments. One was my main residence, the other one for weekends. Then I gave up the main and moved into the other. I had to have it registered at town hall. I got a new sticker but they failed to enter me into the resident list: too complicated. This was revealed at the next election when they refused to allow me to vote: I were no resident of the area. I said I would object to the election result if I was not allowed to vote, and prevailed. Indeed there are estimates that up to 20% of citizen registry entries (which are kept by local authorities, there is no central [federal] citizen list) are outdated or wrong. Many people are registered where they do not live or vice versa.
When you move and trot obediently to town hall for your new sticker, they want a confirmation of your landlord (they have forms for that). Once I had a landlord who was not willing to give me one, so they refused to register me. Unfortunately I needed my passport renewed. So I insisted and argued that my relationship to the landlord was none of their business. The law actually says you are obliged to register where you live. Nothing is said about landlords. They refused nevertheless, and I went to a court and got a court order. I was back after 2 hours and got my registration and my passport renewed. That was cool.
Now they are about to introduce new ID cards with a finger print on it. The fed gvt says this would link the ID to its owner better than a portrait. One of the WTC terrorists lived in Hamburg and had several IDs. Ok, in the future he would have several IDs with his thumb print. - I wonder what they will do when I will refuse to have my prints taken.
Conclusion:
- ID cards do not increase security. The whole system of IDs and registration is full of flaws, one can easily overcome it.
- ID cards do not put civil liberties at risk. The whole system of IDs and registration is full of flaws, one can easily overcome it.
Slashdot Mirror
Being a German, I would like to elaborate on this.
First of all, pension systems do not take criminal activity in account. A person
might commit most heineous crimes and serve a life sentence. However, if s/he
has acquired pension payment benefit rights, s/he will keep them. It's property,
and you just cannot take it away. Even if it is most offending to see a murderer
receive monthly payments while some victims will see nothing. That's how pension
systems work.
The pension system for ex army and Waffen SS members we have now dates back to
the fifties. It was part of a political deal. Germans were needed in the Cold War.
The young democratic republic could need anything but opposition from former members
of the armed forces, who counted by the millions. So prosecution of war
crimes ceased in the beginning of the
fifties (never totally, though). Jewish organisations received
"compensation" (I know one cannot compensate mass murder). That was possible
because the public coffers were full. Other victims were mostly
behind the Iron Curtain. Nobody wanted to be remembered of the sordid past.
This includes the Allies because they were busy with the Cold War, and, a fact
which is nowadays mostly forgotten, the rule most in command played 33-45 was much less
splendid than depicted nowadays.
However, the hope of ex Nazis that there will never be any prosecution never
materialized. It re-started in 59 and goes on till then. But all participants
are really old now. No smart SS officers but octogenarians limping
along. Although today's judges are not no longer biased in favour of Nazi criminals
(that was not the case in, for example, 1970), it is really hard to find the
truth about events which took place 60 years back.
The ex Nazi problem will thus very soon cease to exist. Just do some calculations.
Hitler came to power in 1933. At that time, age of consent was 21. So the youngest
person who is still alive and might have voted for him was born in 1912 and is 92.
Then, to be in command in 33-45 a soldier was to be in his twenties. Having been 20 in
'45 means being 84 now. Higher ranks were in their thirties or forties, usually.
Which means they must be a hundred years old or more.
20-30 years ago, the generation which took part in 33-45 went into retirement. A few
years later, the so-called flak generation: those who were drafted 43-45 at the age
of 15-16 for flak duty. That's my father's generation. Even these guys are gradually passing
away now.
Thus, you will find very few oldtimers in German pensioneer's homes who receive pensions
as Waffen SS members. Not because justice has been done, but because they are almost
all dead now. That's what our government is hoping for: when offenders die
of old age, their victims will pass away, too.
I totally agree.
Terrorism is not guided missiles & nuclear warheads. It's rifles, fertilizer, box cutters and chemicals from next door drugstores.
If terrorism depended on nuclear technology or billion $ items hurled at targets by thousands of kilometres, we could get rid of them pretty quick. However, terrorism is a social engineering thing, not a technology thing.
The current US govt's demand of access to Galileo only reveals misconceptions and paranoias and lack of insight about how terrorism actually works.
If Hitler comes into a heated political debate, one can be pretty sure that most participants do not know what they are talking about. Comparing the Bushs or the current situation in the US with Hitler, that's comparing apples with dogshit.
Maybe there are people who wish to plunge the US in dictatorship. Maybe it is true that they apply dirty tricks for this purpose. What has this to do with Hitler ? Nothing. Can someone find any insight in contemporary politics by reading about Hitler's rise to power? No, except that being ruthless might pay in the short term. This is as insightful as stating that humans sometimes do evil things.
So please Americans, if you argue pro or con gun control [an issue, BTW, which is totally irrelevant for the rest of the world], or pro and con Bush, or abortion, or the Patriot Act: leave Hitler out of the way, and get real.
My wife runs a small business (40 employees) and I do the computing stuff (in my leisure time, basically). So I have some experience in SMB and Linux.
5 years ago I introduced Linux file + print servers, routers, and firewalls. Since I was a newbie in the beginning I had a steep learning curve to climb up. After that, everything was perfect. No problems with the 4 Linux and 1 FreeBSD servers, but there still is a NT machine, because some software the company (fashion business) needs runs only on windows. The maintenance costs for this machine are 10 times higher than the 5 other servers combined. I would be glad to get rid of it, but software we need is simply not avaliable in Linux. This is a big obstacle towards an MSfree life.
Then, the desktops. All these Win machines on the desktops require far too much attention. Many of them are > 5 years old and need to be replaced. So this is a good time to migrate towards OSS. So I gave a KDE desktop machine a try --> endless hassle with MS office formats, OpenOffice crawls, users dislike it because it's not Windows, 1 GHz + 256 MB RAM needed etc etc. My conclusion is that it is not the MS desktops which are the problem. Maybe some might be better off with Linux desktops but I think the gain will never be more than 10%, if at all.
The real problem is that there is an overly complex machine at every desk capable of gazillion CPU cycles per sec and able to process GB of data, for what? Writing an invoice (3 kB data) or booking something into an accounting system (234 bytes data). That's what 80% of all workplaces are like. For these 80%, all these diskussions about which desktop is the best are regularly missing the point. That's why I will give thin clients a try. So my idea is: big server machine for those 80 %, old PCs as thin clients, typical desktop with 4 buttons: e-mail, web, write_a_letter, modify_database; Linux or MACs for the remaining 20% (mostly designers). This will take a long time to set up, because there are no off-the-shelf solutions. So the 2nd big obstacle is: there are no experts available to help SMBs. My wife's company would still be locked in Windows if I were not around. Businesses of this size cannot afford a full-time sysadmin. If Joe Fashion or Jill Plumber needs a network for their 5 employees business, they will always end up with MS, provided by the local we-sell-computers shop.
For SMBs, the break even for OSS is still far, far away.
The main reason for the large prison population in the US is how the US system deals with those who are poor.
US approach --> leave them at their fate, if they steal, lock them up. Be tough.
European approach --> provide social benefits so they won't steal. Be friendly.
Results:
- many prison inmates in the US
- high sentences in the US
- low taxes in the US
- fewer prison inmates in Europe
- low sentences in Europe
- high taxes in Europe
Without doubt both systems have their pros and cons. What is your choice?
In a move taken by Berlin as to not seem hypocritical, all American icons on German televisions, newspapers and plastic lunchboxes have been banned.
Are you kidding? This is plain bullshit.
Germans love David Hasselhoff.
I don't
The German federal minstry for family affairs had wished to capitalize on the current political situation. Of course that's pointless. Moreover, the ministry can only *apply* that a play be banned. The decision is made by an independent commision.
The real problem is: should a government ban offensive material like violent films, porn, plays etc, and if yes, what must be tagged "offensive", and how should it be banned? This discussion goes on for decades now, in every Western country.
In general, the European point of view tends to be more permissive with porn, the American, with violence. However, although sometimes stated, it has never been proven that consuming porn produces rapists, nor that playing war games harms innocent youngsters.
The German procedure it as follows: porn only for adults, no public advertising of genitals. The definition for pornography is "explicit display of genitals during intercourse". Compared to US standards, a rather liberal definition. For games and films, there is a list maintained by said commision. Games (and films) on the list must not be sold to juveniles, nor advertised.
Of course, these lists and bans will hardly have any effect at all. No bureaucrat will hinder people from having a good wank, or practicing how to become the Butcher of Baghdad. In Germany and elsewhere.
And finally: like most things happening in Germany, this affair has *nothing*, I repeat: **nothing** to do with Germany's past.
If it comes to terrorism, people/security agencies/governments always follow the same pattern: they phantasize about the most nightmarish dreadful attack imaginable, and demand that the most far-reaching measures should be taken. And this is going on ever since contemporary terrorism exists.
To fight enemies, their motives, morales, strengths , shortcomings, must be examined first. Why are they fighting? for whom? who do they want to please? who are their supporters? what are they prepared for? what might be their next move?
To assume a priori that an enemy is ready to use the most gruesome methods is clueless. If that be so, living on this planet would be impossible. After all, the most wicked terrorists are still humans and not alien killer robots from outa space.
I remember well the seventies and eighties when we [Germany] had domestic (Marxist-Leninist) terrorism. What did these guys do? They murdered politician, high ranking officials, policemen, US soldiers etc. That was bad enough. But they were never close to something like: aiming a machine gun at children, poisoning drinking water, blowing up a government building etc. But this was what was printed in the papers. Speculations arose about exactly the same topics as now - on a much smaller scale, of course. Security agencies, governments, tabloids were eager to spread FUD and endorsed a "military solution" (so it was called). In the end, this terrorism dragged on until the early nineties (it had started in 1969) when it ended.
Another point: the Nazi army never used poison gas in the battlefield, although they had plenty (mustard gas, Sarin, Tabun were all been invented in Germany). That proves that even the most wicked sometimes begin to have scruples (for whatever good or bad reasons).
So what I would like to know now is:
- are there really terrorists who are ready to blow up a nuclear device? spread viruses? or use poison gas? If so, who are they, where are they, how many are they?
- are bin Laden and his lot among these? Their supporters and friends obvioulsly like when buildings are blown up, as having been broadcasted on TV at 9/11. But do they similarly like pictures with people who spill out their lungs because of poison gas?
- weapons of mass destruction are around for a long time now. However, nobody used them for terrorist purposes (ok, there was this sect in Japan). Instead, 9/11 saw pilot licenses, boxcutters, a few men ready for suicide. And this McVeigh - he used fertilizer and petrol. Sufficient measures might be: enhance security at airports, try to keep ex psycho soldiers in check etc. Introducing censorship for "sensitive" research results? Totally useless.
To fight terrorism, one must be *smart*. Use the brain, find motives, weaknesses, make allies, bribe, convince, undermine. Ask people. Talk to people. Use carrot and stick. And in the end, arrest or kill the remaining bunch. But above all: DONT PANIC.
But panic is exactly what is happening right now.
His name was Leibnitz, not Liebnitz. See http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Leibni z/RouseBall/RB_Leibnitz.html for his biography.
Some experiences with ID cards in my country (Germany, that is):
We have ID cards since WWI (as far as I know). They are issued by the local authorities where you must register your residence.
Back in the seventies the ID was a little grey book with many pages. Every 10 years you had to renew it. If you moved, you had to walk to the town hall to have your new address manually entered. People in the crime business could do this by themselves with a potatoe and blue ink.
Blank IDs were kept in store at local authorities, whose remises where usually poorly protected against theft. This applied also to blank passports. Because this was how our local terrorists supposedly obtained forged IDs, it was decided at the beginning of the 80s to change procedures. Since then, ID and passport blanks are printed at the Federal Printery. The local autorities pass your personal data to the printery, and they send back the ID card with your photo and name on it.
They are made of bank note paper welded into plastic. It was stated that the new IDs are machine-readable, while the old ones were not.
I did not like the new cards so I did not apply for one. So I had none for 10 years or so. I did not run in any trouble. Now I have one because it is easier to open a bank account etc.
There remained one problem: the address. ID cards can not be reprinted every time you move. So your address is applied on the outside of the ID card with an adhesive sticker, which always goes off (at least in my wallet). This sticker is produced by the local autority. So when you have moved, you walk to the town hall and get a new sticker. Or, you get adhesive paper and a laser printer to forge one (for criminals only).
Local terrorism has ceased to exist, for various reasons, but not because of security measures of any sort. Our police autorities so far failed to intrude into terrorist networks of the seventies and eighties. Crime rate is still on the increase (although on a much lower level than in the US). The new IDs did not help a thing. Police have still no ID reading machines. Like in the old days with the little grey book, they use their radio equipment to communicate your name to somebody in headquarters, who checks if you are on the wanted list. This takes several minutes. The original idea was that one police officer could check the IDs of, for example, 100 train passengers in half an hour.
Did the IDs reduce civil liberties? I think not. I hardly ever have one with me. On average, I am asked to identify myself every 3 or 4 years (I live in a big city, white male with local accent). The police officer then tells me that I have to have my ID card with me. I tell him that this is wrong, the law only says that you have to identify yourself, by whatever means. So I display my gym member card, or something with my name on it. Either s/he believes me or not; but this applies also if I had the ID card, because they can be forged. So far I was always believed.
Years ago I had two appartments. One was my main residence, the other one for weekends. Then I gave up the main and moved into the other. I had to have it registered at town hall. I got a new sticker but they failed to enter me into the resident list: too complicated. This was revealed at the next election when they refused to allow me to vote: I were no resident of the area. I said I would object to the election result if I was not allowed to vote, and prevailed. Indeed there are estimates that up to 20% of citizen registry entries (which are kept by local authorities, there is no central [federal] citizen list) are outdated or wrong. Many people are registered where they do not live or vice versa.
When you move and trot obediently to town hall for your new sticker, they want a confirmation of your landlord (they have forms for that). Once I had a landlord who was not willing to give me one, so they refused to register me. Unfortunately I needed my passport renewed. So I insisted and argued that my relationship to the landlord was none of their business. The law actually says you are obliged to register where you live. Nothing is said about landlords. They refused nevertheless, and I went to a court and got a court order. I was back after 2 hours and got my registration and my passport renewed. That was cool.
Now they are about to introduce new ID cards with a finger print on it. The fed gvt says this would link the ID to its owner better than a portrait. One of the WTC terrorists lived in Hamburg and had several IDs. Ok, in the future he would have several IDs with his thumb print. - I wonder what they will do when I will refuse to have my prints taken.
Conclusion:
- ID cards do not increase security. The whole system of IDs and registration is full of flaws, one can easily overcome it.
- ID cards do not put civil liberties at risk. The whole system of IDs and registration is full of flaws, one can easily overcome it.