Unbelievable but true. As if they had agreed, I have yesterday and today, the answers given by Mrs Bruning (CDU, MP) and Ms Marks (SPD, MBB) to my mail regarding the "Act Zensursula " get.
And fortunately, both ladies have probably read my mail, because they both complain about the "tone" of my mail. The arguments are ultimately the same, were a thousand times - written down like a mantra. However, I will kundun the answers here now.
Today the first of Mrs. Marks, I have also answered the same again below. Mrs. Bruning, I will answer as soon as it again:
Mr Rump
despite the polemical undertone of your comments on the Act to combat child pornography in communication networks, on 18 was decided by the Bundestag in June 2009, I want your allegations Taking a stand.
I can not understand your assertion that we had in the conception of the law "not to use expert advice" given or the online petition. Rather, just the expert opinions are included in the modification imposed by the SPD of the Bill. The SPD parliamentary group has always been the arguments of the online petition in view and be taken seriously.
The fight against the proliferation of child pornography on the Internet is an important issue. This should be largely undisputed. Also, the Internet is not above the law. Unlawful conduct there can be a normal criminal or civil penalties.
By now decided law was the original bill quite significantly revised and improved, with the SPD parliamentary group its main changes proposed in the negotiations could succeed with the Union Group. We have therefore also the major criticisms that have arisen from the federal hearing and the opinion of the Bundesrat well received.
The final decision has particularly brought the following changes.
first "Delete before locking":
The scheme codifies the principle of "Delete Prior Lock. Then a block is due to the irresponsible Internet connectivity only be considered, when a prevention of the proliferation of child pornographic content through measures against the responsible person is not possible or not within a reasonable time is promising.
second Control of the BKA list: The new rules will
to the desire for more transparency and to establish an independent panel of experts at the Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information. 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 of the five-member committee have the ability to be a judge. The members are entitled to see the blocked list at any time and check. At least once a quarter is also additionally on the basis of a relevant number of sampling, a test of whether the records meet the conditions on the restricted list of section 1, sentence 1. 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. The expert panel by the Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and freedom of information for the duration of the validity of the law (December 31, 2012) ordered.
third Privacy:
The law is exclusively on prevention. Traffic and usage data, the difficulty of access due to the redirection to the incurred stop message must not be used for purposes of prosecution. This also ruled out that could see through spam misguided users of suspended an investigation. Moreover, no storage of personal data in Internet providers is more planned.
4th Special Legislation: The
in the bill so far for the Telemedia Act proposed arrangements for the access difficulty be transferred to a special legal regulation. Exclusive aim of the law is the difficulty of Internet access to child pornography. With the new scheme based in a special law will still be clear that an access difficulty should be excluded on other content. The amendment is one of the so many fears, difficulty of access could be extended to medium term.
5th Limitation:
The validity of the law is limited until 31.12.2012. On the basis of the assessment after two years of evaluation, the legislature is in a position to examine and evaluate whether the intervention was successful, to reach a definitive conclusion.
fight with the new legislation we are not only the distribution of child pornography on the Internet, but also protect Internet users, enabling secure constitutional principles and a transparent process. "Play through a couple of nights"
to your suggestion that I should, that I may the subject of "killer games" "a little about the subject matter get," I would note that I have succeeded me otherwise fully engaged in this matter to incorporate.
Sincerely
Caren Marks MP
--------------------------------------- -------------------------------
And here's my response to Ms. Marks:
Dear Mark,
thanks for your reply. I am not a political professional, so I ask my polemical tone of the last Mail to apologize. The whole subject, I am a little emotionally involved, so this has probably also affected my writing style.
I fear though that it does not help, but I would nevertheless not a few of your answers can be left unchallenged and you briefly my views on this, as neutral as possible to tell:
locks before deleting
Sounds good at first, but what is a "reasonable effort"? If an officer once on the page looks, the deletion is too expensive? The law is too lax, and tempted to block rather than to delete. How easy it is nowadays provider to delete this to move illegal content, was last shown clear on many occasions.
control of the list
The Panel checked every few months at random. These tests are still secret. Is this an effective control? Do you really? Do you not also, that the holders of blocked sites as soon as the stop sign on it, move your site again and will not be at hand?
Special Legislation
Yeah, this law can not be used for other locks. But the infrastructure is in place. Some sentences in the area of copyright referred to the last significant effort to block sites. When the infrastructure Now where is that claimants will fail in such processes even more on a lock - and the old argument any more. What do you believe what happened then? Furthermore, in the CDU have already talked about it openly censor other side to lock / - to everyone's favorite killer games. Then when the pages come with unwanted opinions?
All experts agree that the law or these locks that can really handle easily, no protection of the abused children brings with it effectively discourages anyone from the use of these horrific images - but the infrastructure established for censorship. That's the problem. Furthermore, the objections were
of 134 000 voters who signed the petition against Suppose this note in any way. Why else would the law was before the hearing of the Petitions Committee in virtually no time "thoroughly beaten"?
And I would also like to add more: The Internet is already today a legal vacuum. This polemical phrase is really just hollow. Existing laws allow for prosecution of all crimes on the Internet - and instead choose kamp fit a little of the symptoms of certain problems herumzudoktorn, the money could perhaps invest in a better equipped police, so that really happens. That would be my opinion the better solution.
Current Approaches of German politics these days usually begin with the word "prohibition". Whether it comes to computer games, paintball, movies, websites, flatrate parties or other things. Knee-jerk and ask your colleagues bans on this and that. Here, too, the short-term symptoms instead of once arrived at rumfrickeln-term solutions to pursue.
Dear Mrs. Marks, which is very frustrating and raises for me and many other citizens of my generation feel misunderstood and not well represented in politics has become. I am glad to hear that you have incorporated into the subject of computer games - if the so, they have many other members of the Bundestag, in my opinion, far ahead.
Sincerely
Thorben Rump
0 comments:
Post a Comment