- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/54414754
In order to monitor encrypted communication, investigators will in future, according to the Senate draft and the Änderungen der Abgeordneten, not only be allowed to hack IT systems but also to secretly enter suspects’ apartments.
If remote installation of the spyware is technically not possible, paragraph 26 explicitly allows investigators to “secretly enter and search premises” in order to gain access to IT systems. In fact, Berlin is thus legalizing – as Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania did before – state intrusion into private apartments in order to physically install Trojans, for example via USB stick.
You must log in or register to comment.
You guys dont mind if the pigs install malware on your computer do you?
This is kinda silly. Most implants are installed by the NSA at the airport when you buy the device.
It’s much easier for them to install implants on devices at the time you order it than to break into your house.
The Stasi is back
That’s not a police job. Is german secret service entirely useless or what?
_
Something something european democracy something something bulwark against Russian Chinese authoritarianism, something something east german stasi
Such hollow, opportunistic rehtoric from people and governments who are doing the exact same things they accuse others of. Germany in particular, with it’s to-the-hilt support of Israel’s genocide, does not seem to have learned it’s lesson.
any site where I can download this cool spyware and run it so they don’t enter my home? Does it run on Arch Linux?
Wonder if they’d install it on all devices or only my desktop since I have all others with me at all times…
In the US it’s always been possible to do this with a proper warrant, though avoiding detection if the person expects something could be difficult. Security cameras and so on.
I’m not too bothered by this given how much work it is. They will only do it if there’s a criminal case or some other significant interest to work from. It’s not a tool of warrantless mass surveillance even though it’s been done abusively/illegally from time to time.
Think about what we did in Ireland in the 80s. It’s no different, and it only worked marginally. Although that cpuld be because opsec was pretty good among the provisional IRA active cells.
Idk how stuff was done in Ireland but there weren’t so many computers then. It’s probably easier to install audio bugs than conduct an “evil maid attack” (infosec term for surreptitiously messing with someone’s computer, traditionally in the person’s hotel room) if they have taken any precautions.
They will only do it if there’s a criminal case or some other significant interest to work from.
Significant interest has, just to name a few, lead to german SWAT storming the wrong appartment because somebody who used to live there called a politician a wiener on facebook. And also locking down entire main train stations for hours on account of some guy or at best a “super recognizer” saw what looked like the AI aged version of an RAF member. Or confiscating literally every electronic from someone because they used chalk spray on something (which is not vandalism as ruled by many judgements because it just washes off).
RAF is based
Feeling like this is a gliding scale though. What’s next, a surveillance state?
I think those are two different things. They might do 1000s of secret break-ins per year, maybe 10,000’s. But probably not millions. OTOH, mass surveillance is used against just about everyone, i.e. billions. So the scale is different.
Here in the US, I suspect secret break-ins are rare, because they are risky (armed occupants etc). So they do SWAT raids instead. Abusive and too often fatal, but not that secret.
Yes, the EU itself is working hard on the surveillance state separately.
Chat control being one of them
This has been happening in the US since 9/11 at least
I don’t have a problem with the police entering private homes and installing spyware when authorized by a court order supported by strong evidence. That’s narrowly focused on investigating crime.
What I’m very concerned about is attempts to perform surveillance without individualized suspicion or independent oversight.
I think installing spyware on someone’s device is two or three steps more drastic a measure than a simple search, which is about the extent of what a court order can authorize police to do right now. It feels conceptually close to tampering with evidence present at a (possible) crime scene. To add to this, spyware is not the same thing as installing a physical listening device in someone’s home. It requires far-reaching permissions on a system, and can influence lots of other software on the same system. You’d have to have an extreme level of confidence that this won’t lead to accidental or intentional planting of incriminating material. And, in my opinion that sort of load-bearing trust is not really something law enforcement has earned in the general case.
