> While searching the premises of the board members in Augsburg, Jena, Dresden, and Berlin, the police – on their own accord –decided to extend the search to premises also used by members of the CCC: the OpenLab in Augsburg. Here the officers were confronted with hackers in their natural habitat: substances to clean and etch circuit boards as well as hair bleach. After interpreting the contents of a whiteboard as a bomb making manual, the officers then went on to accuse random people present at the hackerspace of plotting a bombing attack. Three people were arrested on the spot and the hackerspace was subsequently searched without a court order and without any witnesses.
So working on circuit boards is being construed as plotting a bombing attack? Really?
So claims the police. I don't know about you but I don't think the average police officer is going to be able to distinguish between any old chemistry and explosive chemistry.
The police aren’t THAT dumb. They where likely given marching orders to provide plausible dinability and cease as much or hardware as possible with the belief that they can find something after the fact that justifies their actions in public oppinion.
You've re-written another comment so that it follows all standard rules for spelling. But to what end? Certainly not to make it intelligible, as the original comment was intelligible regardless of spelling errors.
If not to make it intelligible, then perhaps to engage in one-up-man-ship? But since feeding the ego tends to be a zero sum game, at what cost? Perhaps the original poster has one of a whole host of conditions which make it difficult to reproduce spellings as per a standard. Perhaps the original poster learned the language primarily through hearing, rather than reading. Who knows?
So what did your one-up-man-ship gain us, the community? Nothing of value (since good spelling is merely indicative of background, rather than capability), but perhaps something of harm, since you might have hurt an otherwise valuable contributor who may not have control over how they spell.
In short, your comment is a net detriment to the community.
Someone did something probably illegal and put a @riseup mail in as the contact info. Police looked at riseup (Not-in-Germany) and found some people (In-Germany) forwarding donation money to riseup. Police and state prosecutor somehow conclude that these donations might be relevant and seizes them (and the usual bycatch).
--
Now my commentary: On the face of it this seems overblown and rather out of proportion. To me it looks like some AG was looking for an excuse to raid these left-wing organizations. It doesn't have to be that way, but I have a hard time imagining how some leftist hateblog I've never heard of before justifies such a large scale raid of (presumably) at best tangentially related entities. It's a somewhat different story of course if it turns out that the backers of the blog have actually been raided as well as part of these raids.
I'm sure, as the article says, if they search every @gmail user because of one @gmail criminal they will eventually search the criminal too. How is that a different story?
They didn't search every @gmail user, they searched what would be roughly equal to (in gmail's commercial case) a payment provider for gmail, and people loosely related to such a provider. It's a flawed comparison, obviously.
Yeah. The proper analogy is: Somebody doing something they didn't like had a gmail address, and they raided the internal servers of Google's German sales office.
Not just protests, violent protests. While I think the police’ action was overblown, I have little sympathy for violent politic groups (if it turns out to be correct).
I used to feel very much the same way about no sympathy for violent groups, but then I realise that some people feel (rightly or wrongly, is up for you to decide) that the democratic process does not or even cannot accomodate the kind of change they want to see - not because they see democracy as unable to acheive emancipatory goals, but because they see democracy as having been brought under the rule of capital and media rather than by an informed and active demos.
As my favourite social critic Marcuse wrote, when the democratic process is blocked, apparently undemocratic means may be required to unblock it.
Cool. Do you feel the same about the folks in the Western US who now and then seize federal property, or elsewhere who hold menacing protests when somebody takes down a Confederate statue?
I'm not sure what events you're referring to regarding the Western US, but I was specifically referring to emancipatory (even in a symbolic way) radical politics, rather than reactionary protests that are mostly uncritical of the history they claim to represent.
I'm referring to the blog which is said to be the reason for all this. The blog is named "AUGSBURG für Krawalltouristen" and has the tagline "Den AfD-Bundesparteitag am 30.06./01.07.2018 angreifen!". Translated: "Augsburg for Hooligans: Attacking the AfD party conference on the 30.06/01.07.2018".
"Krawalltouristen" specifically is a term that came up for the first time, I think, with the G20 protests last year. Hooligans might not be the most accurate translation; it essentially means people who travel somewhere specifically to participate in riots/vandalism/looting under a political pretence.
If you know a more fitting description for a blog like this, please do comment.
"Krawalltouristen" (riot-tourists) has been a term for a long time before G20. Sometimes it is applied to radical left wing antifa groups, sometime for right wing exremist groups, but more often than not to moderate groups, who achieved to mobilize lots of people for a demonstration like "Attac".
So the purpose of the blog is to inform about a political protest. I still think it's misleading to refer to it as
hateblog, even if the organisers are militant or radical.
The blog doesn't just "inform about political protest", it explicitly advocates for violence. Their primary motivation seems to be hate of the political right. As a leftist myself, I think that "leftist hateblog" is a pretty accurate description.
We can get into word definition games here, but “hate” generally refers to a desire for the extermination or oppression of a group of people based on personal characteristics like race or ancestry. Conflating “hate” with any call for political violence is disingenuous and a sloppy attempt at bad faith rhetoric.
Do you consider the New York Times a “hateblog” for their endorsement of political violence against the former government of Iraq?
I don't know if somebody is going to say that this is edgy triple-layer sarcasm, but its pretty clear to me that at least some readers of the site will take this as an endorsement of potentially lethal violence against political opponents.
If you throw rocks at political opponents, you don't think they're just misguided and their policies unfortunate, you hate their guts.
EDIT: The paragraph is explicitly about breaking windows, and say to be careful not to risk hitting people. So it's not about violence against individual people, but it's still violence, and illegal. And you don't break people's windows if you merely disagree with them.
I'd also like to point out that I'm not defending the police (or anyone else) just trying to correct a misunderstanding before it spreads even further.
Fun fact: the police found a "3d printed, bomb shaped object" and put it into an evidence bag with the label "offence: causing an explosive blast". The object can be seen in action here:
Incredible. It is obvious that they will not be able to show intent beyond reasonable doubt as to this "crime" (they even acknowledge it is just a model), proceeding regardless is just farcical.
Amusingly enough, they labeled it "mutmaßliches Modell einer Atombombe" (presumptive model of an atomic bomb) with the crime being "Herbeiführen einer Sprengstoffexplosion" (causing an explosion), but the relevant norm [1] explicitly excludes nuclear explosions.
Yeah, good luck explaining that to the German police. They also found PCBs and other "bomb making material". When you're trained to see bomb threats, everything will look like a potential bomb threat.
Its especially chilling, because in germany, we dont have the food of the poisonous tree doctrine.
So even if the police searches those places illegaly, if they find something else while conducting the search, lets say small amount of drugs, they will prosecute you for that.
After my initial outrage, I calmed down and looked at this dryly. What if the main issue is that the prosecutors just do not have appropriate mental models of hackers?
The crucial step is that they wanted to get ahold of Riseup, a mail provider (and hence, in their view, a commercial entity). Then they find those German people (whom they can get ahold of) who collect money for Riseup. I find it very likely that they just could not imagine someone collecting money for a commercial entity without being financially and personally intertwined with said entity.
For example, if you see someone collecting money for Coca-Cola, wouldn't you think that they're paid by Coca-Cola, no matter how much they insisted they're "just fans"?
(Note: This argument only concerns the original warrant. What the policemen did at the hackerspachackerspace was just preposterous.)
If you are directly or indirectly paid by a company, then it is unlikely that you have sufficient amount of operational information at home to warrant searching your home.
Worse, if you suspect that somebody's role is related to fund raising then it very unlikely that that person has detailed operational information.
To the extent that the police is aware that riseup is a US-based organisation, then any kind of forced cooperation the German police would get from the people outside the US would unlikely to have any effect, because a US-based organisation is likely to only respond to requests from a US police organisation.
So this kind of action can only be explained by criminal carelessness or a goal to intimidate.
Additionally, while Coca-Cola is a company, Riseup is a non-profit, Openlab / onionfriends are also non-profits. They have volunteers, with a mindset shared by both groups. I assume volunteers will often help at multiple non-profits (spin-offs, etc.). Starting with the people that already have a connection and shared mindset is logical.
A bit of perspective for non-Germans: The raid was ordered from Bavaria, a state in Germany which is traditionally governed by the conservative CSU party, which is currently also in the (international) headlines for the ongoing immigration fight, since they are part of the federal government with Merkel (they are taking a very though standpoint on immigration).
Just recently this party introduced a new police law in Bavaria which is considered to be the toughest in Germany, making it considerably more easy for Police to read your mail, block your bank account, to surveil you etc.
While this is not directly related to the CCC raid, the raid was ordered by the Munich Attorney General. For Germans, it is not surprising that such an act comes from the Bavarian justice system.
I understand some of the searches took place outside of Bavaria, though (Berlin, etc.)? How does the German legal system work in this case, does police in other German states automatically cooperate with requests from Bavaria even when there's potentially a discrepancy between the laws used to provide the legal justification for the actions in question?
I've seen a general sentiment in HN and other tech circles over the years that Germany is much less of a police state than the U.S. or the UK, for instance, and generally has greater respect for privacy and other rights many of us care about. Do you feel that perception is still broadly accurate?
The basics of house searches are regulated in federal law. Criminal law itself is federal only (i.e. everything that is a crime in Bavaria is also one in Berlin). In a criminal investigation any German judge can order a search wherever they seem fit. The police responsible for that place
is then required to execute the search. The details of the search are regulated in state law which the police then follows.
I can't think of a relevant legal discrepancy that may exist between the laws for ordering searches (there are very tight rules set by the Federal Constitutional Court) but I presume the judge has to take into account the laws where the search takes place. On the other hand my knowledge on criminal investigation law is very rusty.
I don't know how far you want to define "police state", but in general, SWATting won't be terribly successful here, the only police units with near-military equipment are special units like the GSG9, and while there's certainly racism, and also at least one probable murder (Oury Jalloh), our police doesn't regurlarly murder minorities.
If you limit it to surveillance etc., you will find better countries.
The militarization of police is largely a U.S. problem among first world countries. As a practical matter I'm more concerned about things like investigations with poor judicial oversight, poorly justified police searches, warrantless or rubber stamped surveillance, frivolous information requests, general lack of respect for privacy rights, etc.
France, for instance, unfortunately seems to have moved quite a bit in that direction after the terrorist attacks of recent years. I've not heard of a similar trend in Germany, but it's always nice to hear an informed perspective from people who actually live there.
The militarization of U.S. police was mostly enabled by the large amount of surplus equipment they had after the invasion of Iraq wound down, which was sold to municipal police at discount. I am sure Germany's collective memory would cause even the CDU/CSU to balk at doing something similar, but in any rate they don't have such surplus equipment.
Militarization of police is happening in Germany, as well:
* Police special forces (SEK which are organized on the state level unlike GSG9 which are state police) have switched from blue to military-like green/brown uniforms (which have no tactical value, but that's another discussion).
* Police in e.g. Berlin are changing their fully automatic weapons by phasing out the 9mm MP-5 and replacing it with 5.56x45 G36 assault rifles for "anti-terror defense" purposes.
* More and more police units are equipped with armored wheeled tanks.
* Peaceful left-wing demonstrations in some states are regularly "secured" by special forces equipped with tactical equipment including assault rifles, a clear intimidation tactic. SEK units aren't even being trained to handle demos.
* Crime statistics are recorded in bizarre ways to artificially inflate anti-police violence, which in turn forms the basis for police unions to demand stricter laws. For example, any attack on a single police man is counted as an attack against their whole unit, and suddenly one victim becomes 10 victims in the statistics.
What the grandparent meant, I'd think, is the difference in the round. H&K MP5 uses 9mm Luger, pistol ammunition with significantly lower energy, range and penetration than 5.56x45mm NATO. One of those is suitable for police work too, one is only suitable for military or hunting.
This matters in urban areas, in police work, in use by inexperienced shooters (pretty much any policeman except for specialized units by definition, unless they train in their spare time, which is… somewhat difficult in Germany).
5.56x45 absolutely is "military" and equipping 5.56x45 riffles to regular police units doing patrol duty in cities absolutely is "militarization".
> 3. I doubt that. Yes, there are water throwers that are highly armored, but that's nothing new, nor bad.
The emphasis of that statement was on "more". While such hardware is sometimes needed, and so are "militarized" police units, the scope is limited. If (I don't know, nor the scale of it; but neither seem you) more of such equipment is used, "militarization" certainly would seem appropriate term for it.
I feel that civil rights are still strong and well respected and generally these things shouldn't happen – so that perceptions is still accurate. Maybe not that much in Bavaria, but natinolly still, yes.
About the more technical legal question: I think – as some other commenter pointed out – the legal basis for the search should be the same. The searches themselves should be governed by the respective police law – in other states the police would be a little more restricted in how to handle the searches.
They also recently passed a law that allows the police to indefinitely detain you. Also the prosecutor there has a long history of scandals accumulating on their wikipedia page: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staatsanwaltschaft_Augsburg
This law is unconstitutional very likely. As being relatively new, it hasn't been challenged yet. Afaik several organizations have already set up a complaint with the German constitutional court (Bundesverfassungsgericht).
But now that some other german states took over the unconstitutional interpretation of federal law from Bavarian judges it became a state issue. There should be some oversight, when judges and police plot against constitutional rights.
Other experts travel warnings to Bavaria are for pregnant women, because they will have a hard time to find someone to deliver the baby. There's critical shortage.
> it doesn't mean that the independent judiciary is just the same.
In theory.
In practice, many entities which work even in judiciary are influenced by party politics.
The current 2nd mayor of Munich is from the CSU -- so the winds have changed. The CSU is (since the last election) much more important than before and it seems that the SPD is massively weakened in Munich. This is also the reason for throwing out Linux It systems of Munich.
In germany the ministry of justice (state, not city) is authorized to give orders to the prosecutors, allowing for a very direct influence of party politics onto the judiciary system.
That's correct, but it happens extremely rarely (the well-publicized! incident with netzpolitik.org and the Mollath case are the only ones that comes immediately to mind) and leads to massive criticism in the press.
Call them what they are: a right-wing populist law-and-order party that is only active in the state of Bavaria, but terrorises the rest of Germany with their reactionary and regressive policies.
Authorities can search and seize property of any civilian without a warrant if said civilian is just a witness? If yes, then who decides and how is it decided that someone is a witness?
If for example I happen to stand in front of my window and witness a crime being committed in the street, they could search my house without any consent or warrant?
>> If for example I happen to stand in front of my window and witness a crime being committed in the street,
That is probably not an instance, where a search warrant would be reasonable. But if for example you denounce someone for embezzlement, and during the investigation it comes to light that you have profited from this act of embezzlement yourself, a search warrant would be given (against you) despite of you beeing a witness.
>> they could search my house without any consent or warrant?
They do need a warrant, handed out by a judge. The idea is, that a judge gets a request for a warrant and decides if it is reasonable or not. The problem is, that the judiciary is so overwrought, that almost any judge will decide in favor of a warrant, even if its not reasonable.
I am almost certain, that this warrant would not be reasonable if a judge with time had thought about what actually happens here.
Given that searching somebody's house is a serious invasion of privacy, there should a very good reason why this search is required. I.e., if somebody is a witness only very loosely connected to a case, then it is better just ask that person to provide the required testimony.
So a judge who makes mistakes like this, should be kicked out. Of course, that will never happen. I'm not sure if there is even a reasonable procedure to file a complaint and get such a judge kicked out.
But that discussion is pretty useless, since our version of the exclusionary rule is more toothless than an American could possibly imagine. Basically, everything found can be used in court.
But for raids there needs to be reason. I think something like the second Iraq war cannot happen inside a legal system without repercussion, at least as long as the legal system still functions.
Is there an Electronic Frontier Foundation equivalent in Germany? If not, what stops police from conducting searches like this in future? (If this can even be shown as illegal in a court.) I doubt individuals or even small organization can properly fight legal battles.
>Is there an Electronic Frontier Foundation equivalent in Germany?
The CCC is a bit like that. And in this raid they searched offices that where also used by CCC. And they do have the resources and willingness to fight this.
Like said it is the CCC (Chaos Computer Club). I am pretty sure they will bring this to court. They have the resources and the will to do so. The CCC won already much bigger cases.
Ugh. That confiscated equipment... much of it that gets returned (eventually) won't be suitable for using on Tor/Tails development. There's no telling what changes will have been done to it. :(
There were additional police raids carried out in Dortmund, Germany last night. They were targeting a server hosted at Wissenschaftsladen (free.de) but ended up searching other unrelated offices, including the rooms of CCC Dortmund.
>Oh, you are the one with the flagged comment in this thread.
Which perfectly illustrates my point. I haven't said anything offensive. People are treating extremism differently depending on which side they're on and that's stupid. HN is very far left, so this opinion is unpopular.
Did you forget that this board is literally run by a venture capital firm? It's not exactly about to rise up and seize the institutions of the capitalist hegemony.
German Antifa are about as extremist as it gets and they are rightly watched by the state police. They threaten and attack citizens and police for political reasons and do about everything else that's considered extremist.
tl;dr: Left extremism is openly accepted by the CCC.
Now you can downvote this post too, but these are verifiable facts.
Calling every conservative or even people who share some conservative ideas Nazis is an entry requirement for the Antifa. The talks I mentioned, which you'll easily find on Google, are painting the same picture.
Don't bother replying. I'll repost this, because I want the CCC's political affliction to be more visible. It's important to understand the context of their post.
> I want the CCC's political affliction to be more visible
I'm really surprised that many people seem to not know the CCC is explicitly politically aligned.
Also, at least in Europe, many of the hacklabs/hackerspaces from the 80s and 90s used to be politically aligned. The less aligned hackerspaces we see today are a recent phenomenon.
The CCC are in no position to complain. They have become too political and openly support left extremist groups. They allow talks by Antifa members and they have Antifa flags in their centers [1]. These are people who threaten and practice violence for political reasons and are watched by state police.
There are also a ton of websites from german nazis (I mean common folk nazis, not institutional nazis like the CSU) that use webhosting in the USA to circumvent the more restrictive free-speech in germany. Not like thats pursued of course.
Unfortunately a common sentiment in germany is that left and right extremism is equally pernicious, or even worse people tend to be more annoyed by the left burning luxury cars than they are with nazis burning refugees.
> While searching the premises of the board members in Augsburg, Jena, Dresden, and Berlin, the police – on their own accord –decided to extend the search to premises also used by members of the CCC: the OpenLab in Augsburg. Here the officers were confronted with hackers in their natural habitat: substances to clean and etch circuit boards as well as hair bleach. After interpreting the contents of a whiteboard as a bomb making manual, the officers then went on to accuse random people present at the hackerspace of plotting a bombing attack. Three people were arrested on the spot and the hackerspace was subsequently searched without a court order and without any witnesses.
So working on circuit boards is being construed as plotting a bombing attack? Really?