OPUS - Zivilrechtliche Ansprüche gegen unerwünschte Mitbenutzer von privaten Funknetzen - even with unprotected networks, there are claims for the operator against unwanted users.
recht - 20.3.2004 - 6.3.2006
Data greed is awesome?
One can almost see the drool dripping from the corners of the mouths of the police officials and the minister when reading the article about the Federal Constitutional Court ruling on the seizure of computers and emails. Funny, how the politicians only mention in passing that the seizure itself was absolutely not in order - instead, they immediately start screaming for legal extensions so that even more can be collected.
The restriction of the Federal Constitutional Court - that seizures must be proportional and appropriate - can certainly be forgotten, because no one will take that into account. And with the constant change in communication structures towards electronic means, one can then safely consider the secrecy of telecommunications as a done deal.
Censorship by Lawyer
The expected abuse of the - not yet final and legally specialized - judgment against Heise for use as a censorship hammer. And no, not even the judge himself meant that his judgment could be generally applied to forums, but what do lawyers care. Somehow, threatening, intimidating, and extorting money from people used to be considered a sign of the mafia ...
Wasabi Systems has a quite useful analysis of what the GPL actually means for companies. Furthermore, there is also a chapter that deals with binary kernel modules - and why these represent a GPL violation.
Firewall providers, sharpen the fillers!
Since Basel II becomes law - and thus it may be that the banks will ask your customers for documentation of IT security before a loan is granted (since IT security is part of the risk assessments in credit scoring):
The operational risks of a company also include the risks arising from the use of information technology in business processes. An active IT risk management is required, which deals with all aspects of IT security for the respective company. Important IT systems must be redundantly available, availability must be ensured, attacks on IT systems from inside and outside must be effectively repelled, contingency plans should be developed, and so on.
And since customers usually do not create their own documentation (which always fascinates me, because actually they should take care of security themselves, so they should also maintain their own documentation), they then demand such documentation from the service provider. Usually one day after they have been asked about the topic (e.g. when the auditor is about to refuse them the seal of approval because the documentation is missing).
Hey, that's a whole new form of corporate extortion: be cooperative, or your next IT security audit for the new loan will go down the drain.
Karlsruhe overturns Aviation Security Act
Karlsruhe slaps down the government:
The legislator would not have been allowed to pass this far-reaching provision in the Aviation Security Act at all, the constitutional judges further criticized. Article 35 of the Basic Law only authorizes the deployment of the Bundeswehr in the event of disasters and accidents, the court clarified.
Fortunately, this absurd law is now off the table - provided the government follows the directive. At least its harshest representative - Schily - is no longer in office, hopefully his successors have more sense (what am I telling myself - now the wheelchair user is in charge ...)
Domain-Engel becomes cheeky
When alleged domain angels threaten blog hosts with a lawyer, there's usually a sorehead behind it. In this case, it's probably a bird unknown to me so far, but who has apparently already been noticed before - and this time wants to get at Lanu (from DotComTod and BooCompany) presumably because of their postings about him - and, due to the lack of an imprint, now thinks he can force Dirk Olbertz (the one from blogger.de) to disclose the data.
It will certainly be exciting to see what happens next - another attempt to suppress opinions with a lawyer. Whether the noise spreading through the blogs will improve his already spoiled reputation of the domain grabber again is rather questionable.
But when you then see that a legal counsel is also involved, nothing surprises you anymore.
We still struggle
implementing equal rights for homosexuals:
Gay civil servants with a registered partnership do not receive a supplement like married couples. This was decided by the Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig. The registered partnership is not a marriage, but an independent marital status, the judges decided. The legislator can favor marriage over other communities in terms of remuneration. This does not violate the principle of equality nor the anti-discrimination prohibition under European law. (Case No.: BVerwG 2 C 43.04).
Rarely have I read such a far-fetched justification. We simply define everything as we please, which saves the state money and to hell with the equal rights of homosexuals. Discrimination does not only occur when one group is treated worse than others, but also when one group is treated better than others. It is absurd that the legislator may favor a heterosexual marriage over a homosexual marriage - and exactly the reason why the registered partnership is not a full equivalent to marriage, even if some politicians claim otherwise.
T-Online is not allowed to store usage data
Let's see how long the ruling against T-Online's data storage will last:
The effect of the Darmstadt ruling may be short-lived. Because the EU Parliament decided in December to log all internet and telephone connections in advance, there will also be a corresponding law in Germany. However, it is questionable whether the so-called data retention is compatible with the Basic Law.
Basic Law? What Basic Law? Does that still matter to any politician? We don't have a constitutionally compliant budget, the customs authority's surveillance activities have been extended despite a contrary ruling, and what else has undermined the Basic Law recently. What is a little data retention in comparison?
Wikipedia.de currently offline
The Wikipedia.de is currently shut down:
According to an article from Wikinews, which also belongs to Wikimedia, the reason is that the parents of the deceased computer hacker Tron from Berlin did not want the full name of their son to be published in a Wikipedia article, not just his pseudonym. However, this is still the case, even after the interim injunction.
As much as I understand that they do not want this - it is a bit late for that. Because the name is not only found on Wikipedia, it is scattered all over the net. Moreover - whether they like it or not - he is a person of contemporary history. After all, there is even a whole film about him.
The blocking of the entire German Wikipedia domain as ordered by the court is then already quite strange - because the German Wikipedia is just a redirect page.
In some way, this is once again another proof of why you cannot operate websites in Germany - here, almost fundamentally, cannons are used to shoot sparrows. However, the consequences of the whole action are not considered - because the fact that the redirect page is no longer allowed to be operated does not mean that the page is now offline. And the only result is that his civilian name becomes even more widely known.
All that is missing is that a block like Büssow is demanded for the entire Wikipedia. And enforced. Because we are in Germany.
Some Cease and Desist Madness Becomes Understandable ...
... if you look at the discussion in the law blog about the registration of "Law Blog" as a trademark for Udo Vetter's weblog. And especially the arguments from Robert Basic and Udo's reactions to them. Robert's argument that it seems a bit odd to register a term that has become quite common in general blogging usage is met by Udo with the argument that it's an English term and therefore not a generic term, and that trademark law doesn't even apply in the English-speaking world. Therefore, he wants to claim "law blog" as a title for legal weblogs for himself.
Sorry, but exactly this argument is constantly brought up by some trademark guys from companies - Microsoft tries to argue that Windows is a general term. The story about the Explorer trademark - same nonsense. If even lawyers who are quite familiar with the internet have such strange ideas, you shouldn't be surprised if other lawyers see a way to make money there.
By the way, I am by no means accusing Udo Vetter of wanting to make money with the trademark - especially since it would only affect his colleagues, and as is known, one crow does not peck out the other's eye - it's just about the very strange argumentation past the criticism. About the total inability of a lawyer to understand exactly where the legally untarnished blogger has a problem.
Lawyers and normal people definitely think differently. And I mean that absolutely not in a positive sense.
How to Shirk Responsibility
In all cases known to heise online so far, the criminal complaints have been about the offer of a single file. According to the new regulation, these suspects will therefore probably no longer face any criminal consequences in most cases. However, since the public prosecutors are advised to determine the personal details of the suspect in each case, the Karlsruhe law firm will also continue to receive the desired information upon inspection of the files in order to be able to proceed civilly.
Means in German: the public prosecutor does nothing more than request the provider to identify the user - probably a form letter in which only the specific data is entered. The providers still have to look up the data - even if it's just about a trivial file. The users are still identified and entered into the record - and then have trouble with the law firm because of the warning. The law firm continues to make a fortune.
Great solution.
If a procedure is to be closed directly, there is also no reason to determine personal details and play into the hands of the law firm. But here it was not about the citizens, it was only about avoiding work for the public prosecutors.
More Warnings for the New Year
This time it's the advertising blogger who got caught - the father of the advertising goose (who married this pseudo-musician) warns him that he is advertising with the name of his daughter. Somehow it seems to be spreading - first the Bremen Social Court, now the Klums ...
Well, I think this will be a similar shot in the dark for the Klums as it was for the Bremen Social Court - from whom you can find almost only reports about their rather strange action on the first pages of Google. Very sensible, the action - anyone who wants to inform themselves about the Bremen Social Court now gets the right impression.
What the lawyers expect from such actions is clear: they are paid by their clients for this. However, to what extent such nonsensical actions against name mentions are really in the interest of clients - how does this actually fit with the self-image of lawyers? Shouldn't they advise and represent their clients to the best of their ability? And not mess with them?
However, it is worrying that lawyers now seem to be targeting URL components - it's no longer just the domain that seems to bother them, but also the URLs. Which naturally fits quite often with blogs and good CMS - because a good CMS packs the title into the URL so that it has a meaningful name. Could therefore become quite unpleasant if this plague spreads and possibly a court is found that supports this nonsense.
And the legal protection insurance mentioned several times in this context: I don't know if that's a solution - the insurers are currently regularly excluding these areas, for good reason. An insurance only insures something when the income exceeds the risks to such an extent that they play it safe with their profits - don't believe that insurances are fair insurances - even if some call themselves that.
A bit more about the risks can be found in the Weblawg by Sascha Kremer.
Constitutional Complaint Against Customs' Eavesdropping Powers
We hope that the constitutional complaint against unrestricted customs sniffing in Karlsruhe is successful:
The Humanist Union, a journalist from the Berliner Zeitung and a lawyer with procedural authority before the Federal Constitutional Court have filed a lawsuit in Karlsruhe against the controversial Customs Investigation Service Act. The Bundestag had extended the associated powers of the Federal Customs Criminal Office for the preventive monitoring of mail and telecommunications for 18 months in mid-December despite strong objections from the opposition and civil rights organizations with the votes of the grand coalition. It could thus initially come into force again on December 31, 2005. At the same time as the constitutional complaint was filed, the civil rights activists also applied to declare the law unenforceable until a decision by the Federal Constitutional Court.
It is already quite absurd how the federal government - and the Bundestag through its approval - simply ignores the demands from Karlsruhe. One really starts to wonder what the point of a Basic Law is if any gathering of prolethikers can just trample over it ...
Whinnying Bureaucratic Horses
Send official mail to Shopblogger - the Social Court of Bremen thinks you are not allowed to have websites with "Social Court of Bremen" in the title. There is more information at LawBlog.
One thing is clear - as long as civil servants at courts can waste time with such nonsense, they cannot expect anyone to take their "we are overloaded" seriously.
Throw the boys to the dogs!
Federal Court of Justice overturns acquittals in the Mannesmann trial
The 3rd Criminal Senate of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) thus followed the application of the Federal Prosecutor's Office, which had already demanded the overturning of the acquittals in May. The judgments would not "withstand legal scrutiny," it was said at the time. The controversial bonus payments had involved "criminally relevant offenses." The money payments had been justified solely "in the interest of the recipients." The defendants had violated their "duty of care for assets" so "seriously" that the offense of breach of trust was indeed fulfilled.
Yes!
Bundestag extends customs powers
How the Bundestag continues to trample on the decisions from Karlsruhe:
Sharp protests also come from the Humanist Union (HU): "The majority of the Bundestag has once again duped the Federal Constitutional Court," indignant is their deputy federal chairman Fredrik Roggan. The argumentation of the Black-Red coalition is an affront: "First, parliament and government let an entire year pass idly by, in which they could have created a constitutionally compliant regulation, only to then refer to time constraints just before the deadline." It is scandalous that Karlsruhe increasingly has to stop the lawmaker who has gotten out of control. The HU announced that it will file a constitutional complaint against the law and apply for interim legal protection to prevent the regulations on customs powers from taking effect.
It is already highly absurd how meanwhile even the clearly understandable judgments from Karlsruhe apparently do not find their way into the minds of the proletarians. As a result, the restriction of the large-scale eavesdropping has now been reduced to absurdity - one can simply have the customs listen in, instead of the somewhat restricted police ...
Defeat for the Complaint Machine Against P2P Users
The Flensburg Regional Court strengthens the position of providers against surveillance demands - but how long will this last, given the activities of the EU and our federal justice incompetence?
"Under no legal aspect" can an access provider be required to "store any data or information," the court from the far north makes clear.
Oh Man, with such judges we don't need criminals anymore ...
I'm sorry, but the judge at the Hamburg Regional Court apparently interpreted the current legal situation in a very strange way:
The panel explained that it was convinced that the publisher could be held liable for the contents expressed in the forum solely through dissemination, even without knowledge. After all, he could check the texts automatically or manually beforehand. The way the publisher operates the forum so far even potentially incites infringements, emphasized a judge. It was unacceptable that "those whose rights are violated have to chase after you". The publisher's objection that automatic filtering had proven not to work and that manual checking of each contribution was simply not feasible given over 200,000 postings per month was not accepted by the panel.
It's strange that the legislator wrote something completely different into the law - which explicitly only requires knowledge for action. And this absurd belief in technology, that something like this can be automatically filtered out - the judge certainly did not demonstrate technical competence.
Hopefully Heise will defend itself appropriately against this and hopefully fare better than, for example, in the "Link to Brenner Software" story ...
Court hears case of "Bremer Taliban" right to stay - it's absurd that a foreign office actually believes that an absence due to (detention in Guantanamo, which is questionable even under US law and definitely far outside any German jurisdiction) can be considered a reason to terminate a residence permit.
EU Advocate General against Data Sharing
Transfer of air passenger data is unlawful says the EU Advocate General:
The Advocate General at the European Court of Justice (ECJ), Philippe Léger, recommends that the agreement between the EU and the USA on the transfer of air passenger data should be annulled.
It's strange when data protection has to be saved by the ECJ because it is simply thrown overboard in Germany out of overzealous obedience ...
Finally, the dialer value chain is being tackled
BGH ruling breaks dialer resale chain:
The "average informed and understanding telephone and internet user" is "not aware of the service chain between the network operator and the value-added service provider". Therefore, the "call to the value-added service cannot be interpreted as the user's intention to conclude a contract with the number administrator". The provider is "from the customer's perspective an agent of a third party".
Very good. This will finally make it more difficult for the dialer mafia to operate their money-making machines. It's about time. Yes, I understand that the intermediaries are not necessarily involved with the dialer scammers - but they have at least tacitly accepted that such businesses are conducted through them. And the constant hide-and-seek game of the dialer operators behind shell companies was really absurd.
Chancellors can commit perjury and maintain secret accounts, getting away with a mere threatening finger-wagging. But football fraud is severely punished in Germany.
The EU Commission Again
That they want to introduce software patents through the back door is not new - but still concerning. But if you look at such excesses of their ideas about the possibilities of reacting to copyright and patent infringements:
If the controversial enforcement directive is approved by the European Parliament and the Council, the police would, according to FIPR, "have more powers against copyright infringers than against terrorists". Thus, law enforcement authorities would in future be able to freeze the accounts of parents whose children might have illegally downloaded music on the Internet, in coordination with lawyers.
Freeze the accounts of parents because their children have downloaded music? Hello, are you still there? What kind of idiots are actually assigned to the EU Commission?
Court strengthens old spelling
Already quite cute: a student is granted the right to the old spelling in court, but:
An interim order to the Lower Saxony Minister of Education to maintain the old spelling, however, the Lüneburg judges did not want to issue. The student would have to wait for a judgment, but this is not to be expected before the end of the applicant's school time.
Somehow, one can only explain such things with a very twisted sense of humor. It almost has a Kohlhaas-like quality to it.
Shoot-to-Kill Directives - and the World Becomes a First-Person Shooter
Bruce Schneier on Shoot-to-Kill and specifically a proposal by the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Translated from the proposal:
... such a person exhibits "various unusual behaviors" such as wearing a heavy coat or thick jacket in warm weather, carrying a suitcase, shoulder bag, or backpack with bulges or visible wires. The person shows nervousness, avoids eye contact, or sweats profusely. There may be chemical residues on the clothing or hands. The person may be mumbling prayers or rocking back and forth.
Note what is to be done with such persons is clear to the Chiefs of Police: shoot them in the head. Final killing shot. And of course, no further reason is needed for this:
... the threat to the officer does not need to be immediate, as taught in normal procedure. Officers do not need to wait until a person suspected of being an attacker makes a move, as would be necessary in the normal use of firearms. An officer only needs to have a reasonable suspicion that the suspect could detonate a bomb.
Bruce Schneier rightly asks if we would really feel safe if such a directive were implemented. Every pickpocket shows enough characteristics to be shot down at some point if such a dehumanizing directive were actually implemented.
We know how quickly dehumanizing ideas suddenly make it onto the agenda here ...
Liability for Links after the Heise Judgment
After this interview with WDR, the following applies: "Anyone who sets such a link is in trouble":
You really have to be very careful. Due to these new rulings, you have to think: Who am I linking to? In the past, as a private individual, you would say: 'Come on, I'll put a hundred links one after the other' and be quite proud. Today, you really have to consider whether the person you are linking to is really trustworthy. You also have to check these links at regular intervals and see what is happening on the linked page.
Which - if it were actually the case - would factually mean the end of privately operated information offerings in the short or long term, as no one can check all their links. I have almost 5000 articles in my blog, which I certainly won't be able to check to see if there is something somewhere that offends someone.
And thus, this ruling has driven another nail into the coffin of the Internet, simply because judges repeatedly rate the alleged rights of rights extortionists higher than free speech and free reporting.
Internet pillory of US law enforcement agencies
Shame on privacy rights, in the land of the brave and the free the US Department of Justice puts a sex offender database online. And who believes that wouldn't be so bad, it only affects rapists and pedophiles:
The online activities of US law enforcement are not only directed against convicted criminals. The police of Chicago recently launched a site where individuals are depicted and published by name who are suspected of "supporting prostitution". The site notes that the listed persons are considered innocent until a court has determined their guilt.
Great, isn't it? Let's just put your picture on display, the small side note the lynch mob will surely read before they unpack the rope and drag your ass to the nearest tree. And anyway, the term sex offender can't be broad enough ...
Major Eavesdropping Also in Saxony Unconstitutional
Sachsens Verfassungsgerichtshof kippt in Teilen den "Großen Lauschangriff" and of course the politicians still feel confirmed, the laws just need to be changed - sorry, but I see it differently. The mindset needs to be changed and it's a shame that the constitutional judges are not more explicit about this.
Another Piece from the Madhouse
The Lufthansa profits from the deportation of foreigners (since the state pays full fees for an airport slot), but may not be subject to protest as part of an online action. Because that is reprehensible, even if it only concerned the transmission of the annual general meeting and not the actual booking business. Despite registration of the action and prior legal advice, the activist is now convicted. And what is the great damage involved? 43,000 euros for Lufthansa for alleged countermeasures ...
Sorry, but somewhere I have a problem with that. Of course, denial-of-service attacks are a problem and are a pretty massive demonstration - on the other hand, highway blockades, rail blockades or large protest marches on main roads are nothing else. That is, after all, an essential part of a demonstration that a form is chosen that is noticed due to the side effects. Standing somewhere with a candle in your hand, smiling politely, is not a demonstration, but a church convention.
The action against Lufthansa, however, had been prepared and carried out exactly like a demo - but the court ignores the right to demonstrate. It's the internet, who cares. Funny, just a few days ago, interior ministers still wanted to prevent the internet from becoming a lawless space. But they probably meant something else by that ...
GEMA in Delusions of Grandeur
Anyway, you can't explain something like this any other way: GEMA demands providers to block websites. I thought that at least a judicial determination would be necessary for something like this - yes, I know, Büssow did it without a court order, but at least he has the excuse of being part of the executive. GEMA is just a fee administration, nothing more. It's quite bold of them to make blocking demands ...
The Inn of Lost Freedom
David Souter, one of the judges who supported the absurd eminent domain decision of the Supreme Court, might now have to swallow his own medicine:
In the small town of Weare in New Hampshire, an investment firm wants to build a hotel at the address 34 Cilley Hill Road. However, there is still a house at this very address. Coincidentally, it belongs to federal judge David Souter. Yes, he is one of the judges who signed the ruling. The "Lost Liberty Hotel" would unfortunately not make sense anywhere else, as it is supposed to contain a museum about civil rights. And finally, the entire citizenry would benefit from the tax revenues and so on.
The ruling was about the fact that eminent domain is also legal when the motivation for the construction is not the greater good of society but pure profit - whoever has money then gets the right to the land, even if it is already inhabited. Let's hope that the building committee of the city has backbone and treats the judge according to his own ruling.
Soothing Priorities
FTPWelt.com: First criminal proceedings initiated against users:
Parallel to the investigations against the users, the prosecution of the four alleged masterminds from southern Thuringia and Munich is being prepared, Germerodt announced.
Exactly. Before nailing down the masterminds, one first goes after the much more lucrative end users. Reassuring that in Germany too the focus is always on the petty criminals (if such a term is even permissible for FTPWelt users) and not so much on the masterminds ...
Strange Court Decisions Are International
Supreme Court rules against P2P, Apple to benefit?:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of studios and record labels, saying that peer-to-peer software companies should be liable for the copyright infringement of people using their products
Presumably, hammers, cars, and curtain cords will also be banned in the USA next. Oh no, that's not possible - murder isn't such a serious crime as copyright infringements ...
I would be interested to know how the court wants to maintain such a decision in the context of a network like freenet - where there is no central instance or company. But facts seem to be completely irrelevant in the entire copyright discussion around the film and music industry anyway.
Search engines are not liable for stored thumbnails
No damages for image display in search engine thumbnails - which even received a sensible reasoning from the court, as the thumbnails are only temporarily stored for processing search queries. Although the reasoning is so logical that one almost expects the whole thing to be overturned on appeal and the Hamburg variant (search engines may only use images with consent - which would de facto make image search engines impossible, at least on the scale that would be useful) to prevail ...
Forum operators will soon no longer be able to take vacations
For operators are liable for the delayed removal of illegal content:
The forum operator's statement that he had no opportunity to block access within the 24-hour period due to absence was not accepted by the judge. In the age of "fast emails," the defendant is obliged to comply with the deadline set by the plaintiff. Therefore, he has to bear the court costs and the out-of-court costs of the plaintiff.
This makes the private operation of a forum de facto impossible - at least if you set it up alone. And since blogs with their comment function are essentially forums, we can look forward to the first lawsuit against a blogger. What a mess. Of course, illegal content must be removed immediately - but equating "immediately" with a deadline of one day is sheer nonsense.
And what a practical method to get rid of an unpleasant colleague: if he announces that he will be offline for a few days, quickly post something in the forum and file a complaint ...
Also sometimes a good judgment to announce
Acquittal in the Hyperlink Case:
The judges and lay judges of the 38th Criminal Chamber of the Regional Court acknowledged without reservation that Freude's reporting on Nazi websites criticized by the Düsseldorf District Government had been a documentation of contemporary history.
Very good!
The Fight Against Free Speech
In the process against Alvar Freude the regional court is about to announce its verdict. Let's hope the judges see through the nonsense the prosecution is building up and give them a clear rejection. Because if this nonsense gets through, we will soon really have reason to cry censorship - and the reason won't be petty deleted comments on blogs, but the actual ban on reporting about blocking orders (and thus active censorship measures) by the state.
Trademark law now also on usernames
Forum operator sued over username - Pure extortion. If this succeeds, we can expect a wave of further extortion attempts.
Off to the police state
German cabinet approves bill to expand DNA analysis:
... DNA analyses of individuals may in future also be stored if they have committed only minor offenses such as property damage or trespassing, or if it is expected that they will commit such offenses in the future. Furthermore, investigators will be granted the right to order DNA analyses in an expedited procedure without a judge having to approve them.
You participate in a demo that someone doesn't like? No problem, your data will be recorded and filed. Trespassing at a demo can happen quickly, property damage can be quickly attributed to you, and if you don't need to ask a judge, you can also move much faster. And so, a small and fine DNA database of all those unpleasant subjects will quickly be collected that a state really doesn't need - namely people who engage publicly and speak up.
What, civil rights are left behind in the process? Forget it, it doesn't interest Otto Orwell nor the combined incompetence in the Ministry of Justice.
Oh, and who believes that I am only paranoid, here is the case example cited by the Ministry of Justice:
A has been convicted because he repeatedly scratched the paint of motor vehicles with a screwdriver. The prognosis is that corresponding criminal offenses are also to be expected from him in the future.
Yes, you are a wheelchair user and you are upset about the idiotically parked drivers and have scratched the paint of one? Hey, you are still in a wheelchair and we simply assume that you will continue to get upset about the idiotic drivers - so off to the DNA file with the murderers, terrorists, and sex offenders. After all, you are at least as threatening to society as they are.
What kind of shit is this red/green puppet theater in Berlin getting us into. It is absolutely unbelievable.
And if you think it would be better with the Union:
... on the other hand, the proposed amendment to the DNA analysis by the CDU is by no means sufficient. "The bill is a step in the right direction. It is too short," said the deputy chairman of the Union faction, Wolfgang Bosbach. The Union will further tighten the existing legal situation in the event of an election victory, explained the interior and legal politician. There is no right for offenders to remain anonymous.
Who spontaneously thinks of recording every striking worker there is probably on the right track according to their idea ...
And all this from people who, under the guise of neo-liberalism, have written a reduction of the state to its core functions on their banner - and see surveillance, exploitation, and harassment of citizens as core functions.
We are moving straight towards something that can no longer be associated with a democratic society and a rule of law.
No attorney's fees for cease and desist letters in multiple representation - not yet the long-awaited breakthrough, but at least a first sign of intelligence. It would also be nice if multiple representation (as practiced, for example, by Walldorf and Stättler in the music industry and with burning programs) were treated similarly. At least where not explicitly representing the rights of specific companies but rather general ones.
Data Protection Experts: Anonymity on the Internet a Legally Guaranteed Right
A reaction from Kiel to the accusations from Hesse that the anonymization service JAP would promote crime:
"We will continue to defend ourselves unequivocally when would-be internet police without any sign of technical understanding discredit data protection as protection for criminals in a populist manner."
Will this still sound the same after the formation of the grand coalition?
Judgment in the case of the music industry against heise online
The judgment in the case of the music industry against heise online is available in writing - and the judges once again prove their incompetence on the internet:
In the opinion of the Munich judges, heise online has deliberately provided assistance in an unauthorized act by setting the link to the company's homepage and is therefore liable as an accomplice according to § 830 BGB like the manufacturer itself. The fact that a download of the software is only possible with two further clicks does not contradict this. The decisive factor is solely that the readers of the report are directed directly to the website via the link set. It is also irrelevant that readers can find the product via a search engine as well. By setting the link, finding the product is made "inconveniently easier" and the risk of infringing on legal rights is significantly increased.
I consider myself - and a large part of the German internet user base - quite capable of finding a product at least as quickly with a search engine and a manufacturer name as well as a product name as with a manufacturer link (depending on the manufacturer's presence, the way via search engine can even be more efficient).
Ok, if the judges explicitly want to exclude themselves from this circle of minimally competent users, fine. But I consider a judgment that presupposes such incompetence in users as a personal insult.
That they did not throw press freedom overboard as well can almost be seen as a stroke of luck in this case ...
Search engine operator must be held accountable for defamatory entries
Search engine operator must stand for defamatory entries - please what?
Since no nude pictures of the moderator could actually be found on the Internet, the mere allegation of the existence of such nude photos already violates the general right of personality protected under Section 823 of the Civil Code (BGB) and obliges to refrain from such allegations.
May I translate that: because the judge has interpreted something into the given search query that isn't even there (that old pig), the dirty imagination of the judge is a violation of the search engine's personality rights against the moderator, which doesn't even appear on the page.
Search engines do not make any statements about their search results - they only provide hits for a keyword query. Has someone once again confused cause with symptom? Apart from that: where the hell is the alleged allegation to be seen - only in the fact that search results were found for given keywords? What a ridiculous nonsense.
Or is it just the attempt of a lawyer to provide his unemployed colleagues in the warning faction with lucrative sources of income with little effort delivered to the doorstep? I'm just asking. Quite innocently.
Munich Regional Court Bans Link to Copy Software Manufacturer
Munich Regional Court bans link to copy software manufacturer - and Heise celebrates this as an important partial success. However, the court has only rejected the completely absurd demands - but the link itself must be removed. Well, one might be glad that not all the most outrageous demands of the music industry are being met, but the fact that links to manufacturers are illegal is still a big idiocy. Because this continues to open the door for link warning letters - and even if it's nice for the Heise publishing house that every page bears its own court costs, for the average web worker this is not realistic - hardly anyone has the money to pay the costs of such a procedure (and possibly even through several instances).
Top-Level Domain .at has no mandatory connection to Austria
Top Level Domain .at has no mandatory connection to Austria - because German judges think so. Unless you live in Switzerland - then the judges have a different opinion. All this nonsense about naming rights is simply ridiculous - arbitrariness would almost be a reliable alternative against all the judgments that have been made in Europe on this matter.
A similarly absurd justification - that a top-level domain does not stand for a country - was also brought up with .ag. There, the judges even dared to determine that only an AG has the right to a domain under .ag.
In the Law Blog, it is explained what we can expect due to the blacklist against corruption in NRW.
Court confirms liability of Admin-C
Court confirms liability of Admin-C - which should now be quite bad for the legal advisor, as he is registered as Admin-C for many dialer domains and was somehow involved in that strange warez story ...
For providers, this should now be the last incentive to only enter the domain owner as Admin-C - otherwise things can go terribly wrong.
Are Overtime Mandatory?
Wouldn't the Frankfurt ruling conflict with the ruling from the ECJ? So, wouldn't overtime have to be explicitly mentioned as a mandatory component in the contract? Of course, it's only an ECJ ruling, so it's not binding until a corresponding national law exists. But somehow it seems to have already found its way in, if you look at the many references to this topic on Google.
And this also doesn't align with the ruling from Frankfurt. Or perhaps the Süddeutsche has omitted an important detail - because transferring files doesn't sound like an emergency or an extraordinary operational situation to me. And also that the employee would have had an explicit notice about the overtime obligation.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer and therefore probably not suited to follow the strange thought processes of judges and lawyers, but somehow it's been on my mind what the ARD guide says - and that's pretty much the opposite of what the ruling in Frankfurt says according to the Süddeutsche ...
Kleinkarierte Kritik - Rechtliche Inkompetenz - Ebay und das neue EU-Recht - Klarstellung der Rechtssituation bei Gewährleistung und deren Ausschluss bei Privatverkäufen