Internet censorship The following article is from
Jens Scholz. A further spread of his article, he has expressly approved as long as he is known as an author.
I find it quite worth reading. Who wants
way draw the petition, however the Bundestag on the Internet, click the
here.
(fortunately, the server load right, so a little slow) wrote Jens Scholz:
Why it comes to censorship rub, since just as many hands that you should actually hear a constant noise . The idea of sending in the subject of child pornography as a bogeyman, now planned to introduce the Internet censorship system was also a really really good. Which I know has been the subject of terrorism and Internet crime is not executed hit really top notch here, you can wave the mallet and defame critics simply by ignoring the real criticism and accuses them, they wanted to protect the distribution of child pornography. How fast can cause even the allegation to the professional and social death, they showed only a few weeks ago, so clearly the schonmal Tauss example (which incidentally was of course not "caught" on the net, but on mobile phone contacts, and DVDs by mail). But I digress
again - as it is by the choice of this theme so well you want - from.
Because the problem that the critics is, yes of course, not that can block access to child pornography will, but the blocking instruments with which to build it. If you look at it, you realize quickly: It's not about child pornography and how to go about it. Was it ever.
It is about the installation of a general technical system and the general way in which it operates: the problem is that a real, legal bearing this name,
censorship is made possible. Although the first of blocked Web sites include only actual child pornography (which would keep the list actually extremely short), both the technology, management and even the psychology would be installed to immediately pursue an effective censorship can.
technology
The provider should reorganize their name server so that Web pages that the BKA chooses and calls them, are not available and instead the user when calling a blocking page will appear. At the same time, the BKA can access at any time that users want to access Web pages from the list and were led instead to the lock side.
A normal Internet user who is starting his non-name server to a free DNS server provides certain pages "and get the message, he would just look at child pornography. Whether that is true, he knows he can not verify this not also, since already searching for child pornography is punishable. The user still needs to be aware that he has just done something that the BKA considers to be illegal and may be regarded as a reason to act against him at this moment. The
alone caused technical risks for each Internet user are enormous, moreover, because one has to also incorporated an insidious reversal of proof: they must continue to prove their innocence, for example, that they have "accidentally" triggered the locked page. Have fun trying to judges TinyUrl, iFrames, rootkit attacks, Hidden scripting and so on to explain, if you even know what that is.
The first solution: the name server switch In order to avoid this risk completely. Go quickly and anyone can.
The technique, however, interestingly, the smallest problem in this whole story. There are states that are in their censorship efforts already much further. The people there can still both anonymous and uncensored use the Internet. The Internet was built by nerds . A State may require as much as he wants, he will be able to control the power at a technical level, never ever.
management
Here are the key points that make the whole thing on censorship tool:
first The blocked content is on a list that The BKA created directly and without review authority and the providers as possible without looking at it is to set up. It is not a judge decides on the content, it does not check on the legality of an independent institution, there is no regulation, such as addresses could ever be erased from the list. The police, the criminals prosecuted, determines which request is the kind of information a crime. to define in advance what is a crime and afterwards to decide whether a crime was committed but not for the police.
second The list is secret. As long as this list does not enter the public can stand in there and everything Nothing like this has to be justified. Who makes the question becomes suspect. Such as censorship in its purest form just works.
third The bill is vague enough that the BKA can put basically everything on the list. Since all content on the Web is just a click further away from the past and would like the law that even "indirect" pages can be locked, thus de facto each side will be blocked.
4th The system should allow direct access tracking. It is not only locked, but it can also be checked to see who will view the blocked sites. This can give rise to covert surveillance, house searches and be other life-threatening events.
The prosecutors of this country to practice so for some time been strong at the Vorverurteilungsfront by now like to give out press releases on proceedings brought and bring the press directly to most spectacular and effective publicity staged arrests (Zumwinkel, Tauss, Mrs. B. ).
psychology
Which brings us to the desired effect of censorship: the introduction of the scissors in the head. The effective self-censorship because you do not know what happened eventually, if you loud and clear criticism is expressed. The confidentiality of the CRL and their total non-binding by the absence of any check is introduced deliberately setting instrument to create uncertainty.
Another is to link the issue of child pornography, which brings us back to the beginning of this article. We know now that even the slightest Ruch, one could possibly have anything to do with child abuse and pedophiles, which can destroy existence, even if comes out afterwards that in fact nothing of the allegations turn came. As general almost nothing comes out . This is such an extremely strong and effective pressure, which of course recognize such as a Mr. Gorny immediately because his attempt to introduce this pair of scissors in the head (by the attempt to discriminate against file-sharing as a terrible crime), was ineffective and he is now on the better functioning trigger turn depends (by equating copyright infringement involving children).
The Minister of Justice is still tips in the right direction, of course, respond promptly . In general, the views along the way, I think it's always strange that Mrs. Zypries is repeatedly conveyed as a warning Erin. It was - as she says at least - they that made the bill worse compared to the prior agreement of Mrs. von der Leyen and now wants to pursue this even stop access to sites. answer
To the question why and when it can come in a society at all to that part says it having to make such an intervention and the other part (which I include myself) sees such a massive injustice that is to fight it, can you please read the article "Clash of Civilizations " over at netzpolitik.org.
