Good day ladies and gentlemen of the Federal Ministry
I invite you to hereby, on your website, the FAQ page to access barriers ( http://www.bmfsfj.de/bmfsfj/ generator / BMFSFJ / child-and youth-, did = 119244.html )
to correct it immediately or to remove false statements. It is a federal authority is not worthy to publicly publish falsehoods and misinformation. It is the citizens can not be expected to be deliberately deceived by such publications. Also, a ministry must correct mistakes. Particularly to the offending passages I highlighted. Red are the excerpts that are published by the BMFSFJ, blue is my reason for referring to and green to the inquiry made by the FDP. Orange are answers to the FDP inquiry, which the government itself even admits that there are shortcomings.
It is highly disingenuous to make such an error-prone document citizens with publicly available. I refrain, links to the research and figures indicate clearly justify my objection. If necessary I can hand them happy, but I am convinced that you already know the best sources.
questions and answers about blocking access to the Internet (Access Blocking)
: show (as of 28 July 2009)
The issue effectively blocking access to Internet pages, the images of the sexual abuse of children, concerns many citizens. The most important questions and answers on this subject can be found in the overview.
How exactly is child pornography is defined and how it has developed the offer on the Internet?
child pornography is the depiction of the sexual abuse of children. In Germany, the dissemination of hardcore pornography is prohibited. According to § 184b StGB dissemination, acquisition and possession of pornographic magazines be that sexual activity by, or from children in approach, punishable by imprisonment up to five years. However increases the distribution of child pornography over the Internet: A significant increase in case numbers can be registered in the police crime statistics 2008 in the dissemination of pornographic writings (articles) (+14.5 percent to 18 264 cases). However, the possession and the delivery of child pornography under § 184b para 2 and 4 of the Criminal Code by 24.1 percent has decreased to 6707 cases. From the investigations we know that individual pages can be downloaded 50,000 times a month.
to the inquiry made by the FDP was the federal government of any substantiated evidence of these allegations . Submit The answer to the question of what lessons the Federal Government in connection with the distribution has on the Internet, was: The federal government has no own scientific discoveries. However, there are studies in other countries ...
The Federal Government relies on the annual report by the Internet Watch Foundation in 2008 and on estimates of domestic law enforcement authorities. The figures, which are considered as well, and even published publicly, include no traceable evidence. It cites a report from the National High Tech Crime Unit in 2004, according to an account validation a recorded turnover of 1.3 million dollars was, which was apparently generated by commercial child pornography websites. A clear indication in this regard can not be provided, are estimates, since a clear separation of child pornography legal pornography and other benefits can not be differentiated. Among other things, to juggle with figures from the Child Victim Identification Program, which is, in general to missing persons, but simply transfers these numbers appropriately to child pornography. The police crime statistics includes not only actual crimes and offenses, a lot of ads and cases that later did not lead to prosecution or even no conviction is subject to. Nevertheless, the complete number of bold material is used, without subtracting the irrelevant cases, which would have reduced the actual number of genuine cases. The currently presented crime statistics is even talk of significantly declining numbers, which is not least due to the fact that the argument relied on crime statistics and extensive raids were included, which distorts the average natural.
The majority of child pornography is now being distributed worldwide on commercial websites, the operator shall monthly millions. The Federal Criminal assumes that world every day about 1,000 sites containing child pornography are active. Photos and videos showing increasing violence against small and tiny children.
to the inquiry made by the FDP, which data base supports the federal government in assessing the commercial market, following response was given:
The federal government has no detailed assessment of the commercial market for child pornography in Germany ...
The Internet currently offers a simple and low-threshold access to child pornography. Many of the perpetrators will find the Started. Then the barriers fall further.
These statements are based on pure speculation ...
The offer in the network continues to increase. 1998 in the U.S. "Child Victim Identification Program of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children", 100,000 "child abusive images" (images of child pornography exploitation) registered, this number is the end of 2008 increased to 15 million.
This nonsense was already puts a few lines before ...
What governs the planned fight against child pornography law, exactly?
This law is the difficulty of Internet access to child pornography through the access provider in Germany. The Federal
created block lists, the child pornography within the meaning of Penal Code § 184 b contain or reference and is updated every day they are available. The principle "Delete before Lock. The Federal Criminal Police Office is only appropriate messages to list, if other measures prove to be unsuccessful. Personal data that arise because of the stop message may not be used for law enforcement purposes. A the Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information appointed panel of experts at any time inspect the block list and check the entries.
If any personal data should be used, how can we reduce the barrier method of procuring child pornography? Internet censorship on the basis of DNA Access Blocking have proven no benefit in the fight against child pornography on the Internet. It is installed with excessively high costs, a temporary screen that can be overcome in just a few seconds of outspoken lay on demand. The cost-benefit ratio is out of proportion.
The application of control by the Supervisor is also not defined transparent. Even if a member of that body would make the effort to completely block list and check daily to do, how can it be ensured that this controller also checks the real, actual active block list and not an outdated or even manipulated replacement document for consideration receives? Are these inspections without prior notice take? Find the checks at the BKA? Commission has taken action to exclude the manipulation of the block list just before the inspection? Those who work in the IT field know what I'm talking about and understands that there are plenty of ways to manipulate and could really only see IT professionals to manipulate the data, if at all. On the
other hand, the law requires all private service providers to the access impediments that allow access to the use of information over a communication network for at least 10 000 participants. It is formulated technology-neutral. The access must be aggravating but at least at the DNA level includes, but also going deeper blocking techniques. This can mean an intervention in the secrecy of telecommunications, so explicitly in this case the possible restriction of fundamental rights by law and the law cited to this end.
Which sites should be blocked by the proposed law against child pornography?
It is only therefore, to make access to child pornography and encourage reporting of illegal content. The access barriers do not affect the individual communication, but serve to prevent the activation of aimed at the general child pornography. The locks block access to known child porn sites - no matter where you're sitting on the world, the content provider. pages that are put online in the power of Germany, are already blocked. Experience in other countries shows that every day tens of thousands of hits to prevent (such as 15000-18000 in Norway). Transferred to Germany that would mean that 300000-450000 page views could be prevented. Closures have been many years with success in Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands, Italy, Switzerland, New Zealand, United Kingdom, South Korea, Canada and Taiwan.
This statement is demonstrably a lie. Even the law enforcement authorities in the Scandinavian countries have confirmed the opposite. In addition, it has been found by analyzing different blocklists that the contents go far beyond mere child pornography and that the proportion of actual child pornography is even the slightest part. Projections can at best give in elections relatively accurate predictions in this appropriately to traffic child pornography use the internet to do is evidence of absolute ignorance of the IT environment. Apart from this, but to "delete prior barriers" be the principle, why is noted here, that would already be pages that are made by Germany from the web, already blocked? The Internet locks but were not yet officially implemented, or should it be possible to fully erase in Germany?
What is a stop message?
When attempting to access sites containing child pornography, the stop message warns the user that his Internet browser tries to make contact to a Web page in connection with the Distribution of child pornography is used. The operation of this stop message made by the respective access providers. The Federal is a standardized design for layout and content of the Stop message is available. This report emphasizes, and also reinforce the social ostracism of abuse and gives the user the opportunity to inform themselves at the Federal Criminal further on the measure. that the system works, shows the many years of experience of other countries that already have access impediments.
As already mentioned, this is a lie ...
What works up, the DNS Access Blocking, as such, with all the known shortcomings. Child pornography, however, limiting it in any way. The published results are based solely on conjecture. Clicking figures provide no evidence of forecasts. Steadily increasing numbers of users as well as automated bot searches of search engine providers, and more increasingly distort the result. Since apparently no personal data are used, one can logically create any statistics that would be meaningful ...
It therefore should not make such statements, a poster campaign would certainly have the same effect is achieved.
What happens at the access barriers to the data of the Internet user?
The blocking technique on DNA-based and requires the diversion of the message does not stop collecting data, which do not occur anyway as part of the technical process in the business of the access provider.
The independent in the stop message redirection to the resulting traffic and usage data can not be used for law enforcement purposes. should be addressed this concern that the measures have difficulty to access impact on Internet use, because of the fear of cost, to be suspended, even accidental access to the restricted sites list an investigation for child pornography. This includes measures to combat child pornography, made on the basis of other evidence not explicitly. The amendment also addressed a concern of the Federal Council.
In other words, this means nothing other than that personal data that is generated by the corresponding call to banned sites find no use for now, but thanks to a half year data retention are available and can be requested if needed after all. Since it can be assumed that actually Pädokriminelle around the Internet anyway locks can therefore only be available traffic data from random surfers. I do not it opens up the wisdom of using this knowledge, the traffic data of these random users use as needed for law enforcement to do. The entire barrier strategy is anyway only from a few random surfers to save the sight of this child pornographic images. What law enforcement purpose can possibly occur at all realistic?
How are the controls available on the restricted list? to increase the transparency of the
list-based method, is appointed to the Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information, an independent panel of experts. In view of the predominantly legal tasks, namely to assess whether they meet the content requirements of § 184 b StGB, the majority of the members the five-member committee have the ability to be a judge. At least once a quarter is based on a relevant number of sampling, a test of whether the records meet on the block list for the connection. If the majority of the board come to the conclusion that this was not the case, the Federal Criminal Police Office to delete the entry in the next update of the list. Why
follows the conclusion of the contract nor a statutory scheme?
The agreement with five major access providers, 75 percent of the market covered. A legal regulation at the federal level in Germany is all active Internet provider necessarily to the same Rules of a consistent barrier to access to undertake. The security guarantees and a cover of over 97 percent of the market, even in the event that occur later new entrants to the German market.
If not, blocking access to the internet censorship? Threaten Chinese relations?
The blocking access to websites containing child pornography does not touch in the Basic Law guaranteed information and freedom of communication : It's not about limiting freedom, but rather sites where widespread abuse and rape of children and the world in a simple way made available, to block . It's about human rights and the dignity of the individual, namely to protect children and to outlaw serious bodily injury. The restriction of access to strafbewehrtem material and the prevention of new crimes do not violate civil liberties.
This fact is to be treated with caution. An eventual decision was to remain subject to the Federal Constitutional Court, so it is unacceptable that the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs the suspicion here denies censorship. Undisputed, however, the possibility of operating by means of the installed barrier technology, censorship. It makes little difference that censorship is not the intention, as in the other countries that already use block lists, have been shown to Internet sites blocked, vorwiesen not related to child pornography. So that access to these Internet content to Internet users were denied. Whether we want to describe as censorship or not, there remains a risk factor that can not be underestimated.
can prevent access barriers among providers, the proliferation of images and videos that document the sexual abuse of children to 100 percent?
Technically savvy Internet users will always find ways to circumvent the locks. is crucial, however, that making access to the great mass of the average internet savvy user is successfully blocked. findings According to the Federal Criminal are 20 percent of users of child pornography offers (n) hard Pädokriminelle, 80 percent against occasional surfers who stumbled, however, by the increasing use of child pornography ever deeper into the scene. Access barriers make the provider of child pornography sensitive, because they earn less money and thus the widespread development of organized Internet crime will be disturbed.
These statements are completely absurd, and sometimes so are all branded as IT'ler Pädokriminelle. Although I consider this rather awkward formulations, should still be the least BMFSSJ seek a clarification. It has been demonstrated that any average internet user can handle in a few seconds with the appropriate procedure for the locks. Estimates of the Federal are just ridiculous and can not be confirmed in practice. The theory of the so-called "Anfixens" is on very shaky legs. There are quite scientific findings that do not share that view. can not over the loss of commercial operators of child pornography web sites will even philosophize, since already the assumption of a mass market can be demonstrated in any way.
A very large majority of the total population aged 16 years, greeted by 91 percent the new Federal Government measures against the dissemination of child pornography on the Internet. Only 6 percent think these measures are not the appropriate way to combat child pornography, 3 percent remain undecided.
Even under the strong internet users the project by a very large majority is welcomed (89 percent). Only 3 percent are under the impression that would be limited by the stop signs on the Internet's fundamental right to freedom of information too much, say 90 percent: I do not think. 7 percent remain undecided.
The survey results were significantly influenced by the type of questions. A survey on the same subject with other Questions led to a completely opposite conclusion. Personally, I believe that this is for manipulation by deliberate concealment of various background information, thereby leading to achieve the desired result. This approach is deeply dishonest and not worthy of a federal authority.
access barriers are not easy to get around by the providers keep changing the addresses?
why are the lists of banned sites, which are used for example in England (an average of 1,500 active current provider) and Scandinavia, dynamically. ie, the revocation list is updated daily. Updating takes only seconds and works worldwide. instead of resigning from the options on the World Wide Web are used every means against the spread of child pornography. That in a country like Norway for years after the introduction of an Internet lock be blocked up to 15,000 attempts to access child pornographic material shows that the technology is durable.
The answer to the question itself is factually incorrect. Of course, the access locks are easy to get around and it also changes the dynamics of a non-defined block lists nothing. One has to do with the other anything. Personally, I would be interested anyway, as in the update seconds world works? An automated creation and modification of the relevant block list would be irresponsible. It requires very responsible work of the BKA staff in the preparation and updating of the blocking list, which also takes the needed time to complete. If you understand the upgrade the balance of the block lists with other countries, this would be expressed here have been very understandable and would also have to do with the question nothing.
Who is liable for it, when it affects the locks also acceptable offers on the Internet?
access providers can now accurately dangerous content block. The examples show from abroad such as Scandinavia. Also can distinguish very well what is pornography and what is not. In the Scandinavian countries have since 2004 no major complaints . Access provider to block only those pages that are encrypted by the Federal Criminal Police Office to constantly updated lists provided. What is locked shall alone determine the Federal . The access provider to set the block only. If they do this properly, the responsibility lies solely with the Federal Criminal Office. The access provider must not fear any compensation.
access provider to block all content however, either did not accurately or ineffective by DNS Access Blocking, collateral damage can not be excluded. Since only the BKA is responsible for creating the list and the list is kept "secret", a falsely affected content providers can hardly tell if his offer is partially inaccessible. Since only foreign bids are blocked, these providers would have access to free German provider to find out that their sites are advised to list. The fact that someone from Germany to the provider indicating the fact, because this gets presented in the call to the site a stop sign sounds rather unlikely. It is therefore not surprising that received no complaints ...
Assuming that the web site of the BMFSFJ would be on the blacklist in Iran, you would notice this? Even if you would find this now anyway, who you would contact you to complain because your offer is indeed from our own point of view perfectly legal?
If the access lock a replacement for the often tedious prosecution of offenders at home and abroad?
It is not an either-or but a both / and. Closures are part of an overall strategy against the sexual abuse of children and its representation on the web. They are designed to Identification of the perpetrators and the closing of child pornography Web sites, not replace, but effectively complement . The Federal and State Criminal Police Offices (LKA) provide excellent work at home - as the success of the excavated child pornography rings. Investigators will continue to work hard to identify the offender in the country and close to the sources abroad. But in half the countries in possession and distribution of child pornography is punishable either not available or is not punished sufficiently rich, in many cases of police resources is not enough. Then will also be used as a building block of the block of pages as a means to the to prevent access and interfere with the criminal business-sensitive.
Either there was insufficient research, reckless handling of information or simply a lie of the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, for research by IT professionals have shown that deletions of child pornography can be done quite quickly and effectively. Likewise, it is simply not what is being communicated by the BMFSFJ. Again and again, the issue of 95 so-called rogue states, where child pornography was not or poorly tracked. This was refuted impressive and the number could be reduced from 95 to at least 12. Examples such as India and Kazakhstan, which argument in the discussions introduced were put out to be embarrassing faux pas. "Complement
but effective " - assumed I would, by definition, illegal offers spread on the Internet and get a corresponding revocation list, would this work as an early warning system and I would seek to transfer the contents. From an IT perspective favors the introduction of block lists that redirect to stop sites, the response time of the perpetrators. I think the prohibition rather counterproductive.
With so many sources of external involvement, we will not need international agreements and networks?
We already have good functioning networks. In CIRCAMP (COSPOL Internet Related Child Abusive Material Project) 13 European countries organized by the police: Norway, Britain, Denmark, Belgium, France, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Poland, Sweden, Netherlands and Spain. Norway operates this network active. Germany will join. And eight countries - Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Switzerland, New Zealand, Italy - use the CSAADF (Child Sexual Abuse Anti Distribution Filter) in order to block websites. The lists of pages to be replaced in those countries within seconds. The closure is adapted to the respective national legislation.
The Federal Government relies on these existing networks, and further agreements. It has the III. World Congress Against the Sexual Exploitation of Children in Rio de Janeiro in November 2008 used to advance the issue of international cooperation. do is respect it was an initiative with Germany Statement by 16 European countries set up the blocking lists and introduce or have introduced access blockages.
We also have this issue at the European follow-up conference "Protection from sexual violence against children and adolescents with a focus on new media: Perspectives for Europe" on 30 June 2009 in Berlin continued. A final document of the conference, the undersigned have 16 points to the common fight against sexual violence and exploitation of children and young people agreed on all levels.
© Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth
work Obviously, the international cooperation in relation to the fight against child pornography is not so great as I want to believe. If one claims that deletion abroad is often not possible and therefore would require a lock, you have to put up with questions can, why you do not work out to optimize this international cooperation and would rather flee in unreasonable restrictions applied? As confirmed by the respective consulates, deletion of child pornography in countries such as India and Kazakhstan is no problem what so obviously the BMFSFJ seemed impossible in this form. The BMFSFJ can perform like other states do not outlaw child pornography, and provide adequate server for the dissemination of this disgusting material. Then we can create a new discussion about the meaning and purpose to open this Internet blocking ...
These lines I sent to the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs. Whether one reacts to it, it will recognize whether the FAQ of the BMFSSJ be changed. Personally, I can hardly the Imagine ...
Click here for previous articles: As I stand now, poor fool, and I'm so smart, than I was before!
0 comments:
Post a Comment