-
Maser19, today at 07:06 am CEST
-
Daniel1988, today at 12:35 am CEST
-
BonusMoney, yesterday at 08:08 pm CEST
-
Macke, today at 07:16 am CEST
-
JJepsa96, today at 07:01 am CEST
-
JJepsa96, today at 06:56 am CEST
-
Leon030, today at 12:07 am CEST
-
frapi07, yesterday at 10:29 pm CEST
-
Olli_Eule, yesterday at 10:12 pm CEST
-
Daniel1988, yesterday at 08:09 pm CEST
-
roccoammo11, yesterday at 07:00 pm CEST
-
roccoammo11, yesterday at 06:58 pm CEST
-
roccoammo11, yesterday at 06:51 pm CEST
-
S1X1312, yesterday at 10:21 am CEST
-
roccoammo11, on 16th Apr. 2025 at 10:53 pm CEST
-
Sam000, on 16th Apr. 2025 at 09:57 pm CEST
-
frapi07, on 16th Apr. 2025 at 06:33 pm CEST
-
Max_Bet, on 16th Apr. 2025 at 05:56 pm CEST
-
tapsi, on 16th Apr. 2025 at 11:29 am CEST
-
olum29, on 16th Apr. 2025 at 12:31 am CEST
-
roccoammo11, on 15th Apr. 2025 at 03:34 pm CEST
-
Langhans_innen, on 14th Apr. 2025 at 06:31 pm CEST
-
taylor3733, on 14th Apr. 2025 at 04:41 pm CEST
-
streetworksusi, on 14th Apr. 2025 at 07:46 am CEST
Cash Your Opinion
Liked this post: J****r
Then you can read it also still at the German economic news, whereby here unfortunately not completely exactly on it is dealt with what everything becomes possible thereby and with which offences. At the Süddeutsche it is more precise, I can read it after deactivating the adblocker.
And your video has nothing to do with the surveillance law.
https://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de/2017/06/23/bundestag-beschliesst-im-eilverfahren-spionage-auf-private-computer/
This post has been translated automatically
Cash Your Opinion
Nobody has liked this post so far
Already the first sentence says that suspects can be investigated. I don't like that either and it leaves room for interpretation, but suspects are not everyone.
So I guess not without a court order after all? You said so.
I also heard about this law at the time, but I did not directly associate it with what you have described here because of the deviations. One should remain objective and with the facts.
This post has been translated automatically
Cash Your Opinion
Liked this post: J****r
This post has been translated automatically
Cash Your Opinion
Liked this post: J****r
This post has been translated automatically
Cash Your Opinion
Liked this post: J****r
Here is an excerpt from the Süddeutsche: In the penultimate paragraph is evident that one may apply it because of any nullity or let's say so because of any suspicious moment which is subject to the arbitrariness of the authorities and these decide what is a sufficient suspicious moment.
In the last paragraph it is clear that until now, based on the 2008 law, strict judicial supervision was necessary.
The penultimate paragraph already implies that this new law is based on the opinion of the investigators and not on the opinion of a judge.
If you still research exactly then you will find the paragraphs and can read yourself.
This gives the investigating authorities the possibility to secretly play malware on private computers, laptops, cell phones and tablets - to monitor the communication directly at the source and to read the ongoing communication. One can also use these methods to access messenger services like Whatsapp.
At the same time, the planned law allows online searches; malware must also be installed on the device for this; it is then possible to access not only ongoing communication, but all stored content. It is therefore possible to read out the entire hard drive.
The law on new methods "in the clandestine infiltration of an information technology system" (according to the explanatory memorandum to the law) was introduced as a Trojan horse, so to speak: a few weeks ago, the Legal Affairs Committee latched the planned permission for state hacking into a legislative procedure that was already underway and that dealt, among other things, with the revocation of driver's licenses for non-traffic offenses. That's where the bill introducing the state Trojan and state computer surveillance was hidden.
The catalog of crimes for which state infiltration of private computers should be possible is very long, ranging from terrorism to bribery to "inducement to improperly apply for asylum." Not only may an accused's devices be searched, but also those of others if, in the opinion of the investigators, there is no other way.
The Federal Constitutional Court had 2008 allowed online searches only in special cases of concrete danger, under strict judicial control. At the time, it derived the basic computer right from the basic right to the free development of personality - which is intended to protect the "integrity of information technology systems".
This post has been translated automatically
Cash Your Opinion
Nobody has liked this post so far
All in all, I can't really see why a court order should no longer be necessary? The other medium linked by you even writes that it requires a court order.
I have neither the word fear citizens nor anything of NWO ever written? I also find it quite rational not to believe any claims but to check sources first. I also do not deny that there are laws for surveillance but I can not imagine with the best will in the world that this should look arbitrary.
This post has been translated automatically
Cash Your Opinion
Nobody has liked this post so far
This post has been translated automatically
Cash Your Opinion
Liked this post: J****r
If you have watched the video then you have all the relevant and correct facts. If you want to check them then you have to go through the jungle of the media to gather the information piece by piece.
However, it is really tedious to discuss with you because you always pick out little things that do not reflect the overall context.
You find in every little thing something that justifies it in your opinion, and the law is not so bad.
I suspect almost that you do it on purpose. I don't want to explain everything to you in detail.
What falls under bribery? What falls under the suspicion of bribery? In addition, it was mentioned that many crimes fall under it, of course, you mentioned the extra where people like you then sitting nodding their heads in front of the computer and say to themselves: it's okay.
If your neighbor has dirt on the plug, you are also monitored as an innocent "suspect".
Everyone who has understood the law sees immediately that you can actually monitor every citizen, without any actual justification, which you can easily conjure up out of a hat with this law.
It is not about the fact that the state will not do that with every citizen, it is about the fact that the state may do that with this law with every citizen .
And that leads us back to the topic of cash:
Imagine a state that has the right to monitor you completely, your account movements, your every move, may listen to you and read your private messages, you can theoretically freeze the money at any time and thus makes you unable to act.
And if you then say we live in a constitutional state, then I ask you, for what needs a constitutional state then such laws?
Probably only to be able to fall back on such laws in case of need. Or do you think they make such laws and do not apply them?
Would be a rather strange legislator.
A constitutional state does not draft such laws in the first place.
And these are just a few of those that already exist without most people knowing about it.
Look times which is in Bavaria in planning:
Depressed people will have to register and can be forcibly committed. They can be forced to take pills that they may not even want and are completely deprived of their civil rights and treated like criminals.
Bavaria plans not only the controversial, super sharp new police law , in order to proceed massively against genuine and alleged Gefährder. Bavaria is also planning a kind of police law against mentally ill people. The draft for a "mentally ill assistance law" leads to the mollathization of the law: depressed people are to be able to be detained in hospitals in the future according to rules that previously applied only to criminals - without (as in the case of Gustl Mollath) the existence of a criminal offense. That's what the bill passed by Söder's cabinet says.
The new regulations on forced placement in hospitals are taken from the regulations on placement in criminal law: Visits will be severely restricted and controlled, telephone calls monitored, the sick searched - this includes the control of intimate body orifices.
The data, including diagnosis and findings, are passed on to a central office, stored for five years, and are available for access by state organs. Is this all legal? According to the new law, yes.
35 paragraphs of the law deal with placement for purposes of - attention - danger prevention. Depressed and mentally ill people are thus given a stigma, branded as a Risk to public safety. Apart from the fact that many of them pose a danger, if any, to themselves and not to others, this comes dangerously close to social ostracism.
This post has been translated automatically
Cash Your Opinion
Liked this post: J****r
For example, they take away someone who only had a critical opinion, which the officials also have, but are not allowed to say. In order to be able to sleep at night, they have to swallow pills, otherwise they can't rest mentally.
Police officers are only human, and they feel that what they do is not right and inhumane.
This post has been translated automatically
Cash Your Opinion
Liked this post: J****r
There are also already in Austria cases where with people in their dwelling things were confiscated, because they committed a Meinungsverbechen.
This also goes back to a recently passed law.
One must look already times into which direction the whole goes.
You can now be put on trial because you represent an opinion that the politicians do not like.
This post has been translated automatically