Beatrix von Storch, February 25, 2021, Indymedia

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/212, pp. 26783-26784.

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

Yes, we want to ban indymedia, the association and its website and its logo. Alone the question presents itself: Why has this not yet happened? Since as you had quite correctly said, Herr Bernstiel, the predecessor association was called linksunten.indymedia, and it is banned and it also could be banned, other than as you have directly insinuated.

It had been banned because it called for violence and published self-incriminating writings on extreme left, serious acts of violence – exactly the same as indymedia does now – the identical. Indymedia mobilizes violence-ready leftist extremists against the free, democratic basic order, and the Constitution Defense confirms: The leftist extremists approvingly make allowances for attacks on police officers up to deadly injuries.

Indymedia is not about humanity, justice or the environment.

            Marian Wendt (CDU/CSU): Which you then have in common with them!

They want to batter, trample and plunder. They want to humiliate, intimidate and threaten, set fire, burn down and destroy. They want terror, and they want to kill. And they say that themselves. I cite with the permission of the President indymedia itself: “Call us terrorist and criminal…” And in another place is written: “There are enough possibilities to arm oneself. Thus on the internet there are sufficient instructions for the making of explosives…We can thereby kill their personnel.” Where, Herr Bernstiel, is this now relativized? It is not exactly known what can be done? No, they want to kill and they write of it.

For a second, we imagine one which came from rightist extremists. In the next second, the site would be banned. Gott sei dank, it would be banned. In Germany, there is left and right extremist terrorism; yet between the two there is a central distinction: There is, Gott sei dank, a massive pressure of prosecution against rightist terrorism which has now forced this underground. And rightist terrorism proceeds from individual perpetrators and small groups. There is, on the other hand, as good as no pressure of prosecution against the leftist terrorists. That does not occur. They do not act secretively, do not conceal, are not underground and it is not only a handful of individual perpetrators.

            Irene Mihalic (Greens): 200 rightist murders!

The leftist terrorists can quite openly and unabashedly publicly advertise, mobilize and organize and call for violence on the indymedia platform. I may yet again cite: “There are enough possibilities to arm oneself” and “…instructions for the making of explosives.” “We can thereby kill their personnel.” “Call us terrorist…” Why are they still on-line?

For most here, leftist violence is always a moral, in some way a good violence; in any case a better violence. Leftists are disturbed by rightist opinions, not by leftist violence. When an AfD politician criticizes the refugee policy, then that is a crime in the view of the left. When in connection with that, a leftist burns his car or bludgeons him into the hospital, like my colleague Stephan Schwartz recently in Baden-Württemberg, then that in the view of the left is somehow consequential, is held to be good violence. The sympathizers of this leftist violence sit everywhere, in the editorial rooms, in the universities, in the environmental associations, in the trades unions, in the NGOs and, ja, here in the German Bundestag and in the government. The entire left side and a large part of the middle belong to that. Therefore, Federal Interior Minister Seehofer does what he can do best, namely nothing.

I predict of this debate: You will at most pronounce a brief, obligatory lip service on the leftist violence on indymedia, perhaps half a sentence. Then you, especially you of the Linke, will employ the entire remainder of your speaking time to incite against the AfD. You will rant with hatred and incitement, yet you will not fairly condemn the violence against the AfD or the leftist violence because indymedia and its perpetrators of violence are your willing executioners, your long arm, primarily now in the election campaign, so to silence a political opponent and to force from the field the most intense of competitors.

Just now, indymedia is organizing and mobilizing directly against our party day in Berlin in three weeks under the headline “Stomp the AfD Party Day Into a Pulp!” The opposition shall be flattened. This simply suits you here to your concept. On that account, you do not chain up your indymedia bloodhounds. Or don’t you?

I might now be gladly refuted by you. Come forward here. Vote for our motion [Drucksache 19/20682, 24123] and pull the plug on indymedia.

Many thanks.

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

 

Christian Wirth, February 12, 2021, Federal Police

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/210, pp. 26538-26539.

Frau President. Sovereign house.

Herr Seehofer, I personally do not buy that for you the Federal police [Bundespolizei] are a jewel among the security authorities. I unfortunately believe that this is otherwise in the government environment. I believe that the Bundespolizei are rather the stepchild of the security authorities.

We are speaking of a law which – you have said it – is almost 20 years old; we are in the fifth year following the Federal Constitutional Court’s decision that extensive parts of this law are unconstitutional. So much for a jewel. So much for what the coalition delegations think of the opposition, and generally of this house, when this law will be placed at the disposal of the delegations just two days before the first reading.

Even though it was hard times for the Bundespolizei: Refugee crisis, terrorism, finally the control of the borders in the Corona crisis. We are grateful that the Bundespolizei, this outstanding team under an outstanding President Dieter Romann, has set right the Chancellor: Of course the borders can be closed. Despite the hatred from the leftist activist side, these officials have performed outstandingly. For that is meant the thanks of the AfD and the German people.

            Benjamin Strasser (FDP): Your own party does not applaud!

            Michael Brand (CDU/CSU-Fulda): Your own troops are shocked!

You finally react to the Federal Constitutional Court’s criticism from the year 2016 and create a legal basis for the work of the Bundespolizei, which for years, if not for decades, has been overdue. Herr Minister Seehofer, you have named some of the contents: Surveillance of telecommunications, identification and localization of mobile phone cards, deployment of technical means against remotely controlled equipment, circulation of reports, residence bans and much more. This is all very praiseworthy and is about time.

It is clear – you have also named it – why the BMI [Federal Ministry for the Interior] wanted to give it the gas: Because the coalition partner, the SPD, ever again proves itself to be a security risk. On that account indeed, the coalition partner, by striking out essential parts of the draft, must bring in a basic version. You all know: The next coalition partner – presumably the Greens – will be a security policy fiasco.

The problem with the draft law is that it will not once correct the status quo; of vision, we simply just do not want to speak. You do so, as in many areas, as if there was no digital world. The area of cyber defense was completely removed from the draft – indeed under pressure from the SPD, as is ever again heard. Yet cyber attacks are in the civil as well as in the military area the greatest threat – transgressing borders – to which we are exposed. One may think of the criminal bands. One may think of states like China, Russia and North Korea.

We have heard this day in the Interior Committee from BKA [Federal Criminal Office] President Münch of how successfully our officials can fight when they are allowed; namely, in the control of the Emotet malware against the Ukrainian bandits. Yet this is plainly only in the way of official assistance; that is to say, if the BKA is in the position to reciprocate the official assistance of authorities of other countries and work together with them. Yet what is done if official assistance is not to be expected? Then the Bundespolizei is responsible [zuständig], yet not correspondingly set up [aufgestellt]. Here, we leave them in the lurch: No legal basis, as has been the case in both areas for 20 long years.

One must be able to discuss the controversial hackback; thus, the destruction of enemy servers across borders. One must also be able to discuss facial recognition. One cannot simply look away and act as if there was no criminal cyber world.Thus this draft law, doubtless well made, remains standing in yesterday.

Let us simply look three-quarters of a year ahead: There will be a new coalition partner. We thereon proceed that it will be the Greens. It is to be feared that Herr von Notz, with whom one can discuss on point, will fall victim to some gender quota

            Michael Brand (CDU/CSU-Fulda): There is nothing for you without an                                    apocalypse!

and will unfortunately not become Interior Minister. What will happen? The Bundespolizei – like many security authorities – will become CO₂-neutral. We may ride bicycles, and we will communicate with help of carrier pigeons and light signals.

Good night. Feel safe. Thanks.

 

[trans: tem]     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Uwe Schulz, February 11, 2021, Data Strategy

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/209, pp. 26349-26350.

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen.

In digital policy matters, the Federal government can be reproached for many failings, yet surely not for one; namely, that it has no strategy. Cyber security strategy, digital strategy, mobile phone strategy, broadband strategy, AI strategy, high tech strategy, and now the data strategy, all with multi-colored brochures, pretty internet sites. Ja, though with verbiage and marketing alone no state is made, neither an analog nor a digital.  

Thus draft laws for the implementation of the strategies rain down upon us, will be winked through the parliament here, and then as before be sluggishly implemented. The IT security law  comes at least a year too late and delivers more questions than answers. The digital pact school, the on-line access law, or the digitalization administration have hand-made defects. Yet not only the administrative courts have long since come to terms with the quality of so many of the products which this sovereign house has left in the lurch. Strategies for broadband construction and an adequate maintenance of mobile phones were set in sand; even developing countries were better here. Now Corona must come and draw the German cart out of the mud.  

Yet now the really big throw: The Federal government’s data strategy, already announced by Chancellery Minister Braun in January 2020. The implementation should result in the current legislative period. Minister Braun was proud of the ambitious schedule. Dr. Helge Braun was already, ja, proud of his management ability as the “refugee crisis terminator” – so the “Giessner Presse” named him at the time. And surely his failed Corona warning app also filled him with pride. And it is now more than questionable what of the data strategy, which will have been so slowly proclaimed, will be implemented by the end of his service time.

All in all: That everything is drawn out and drawn along is a trademark of this Federal government. That is so much more regrettable, ladies and gentlemen, when the data strategy put forward actually contains some important points. Thoughtful citizens always start up when it is about the gathering and use of personal data. It has here proven to be a giant area of tension. One side attracts the potential of data usage, on the other side is the danger of misuse and the citizens’ perception of how politics masters this balance. Here certainly is now to be expected a higher legal standard, indeed for the user as well as for the digital economy. At least, that is the plan. And the promotion of research and certification projects for data trustees and systems of anonymity are sensible and important.

Why, however, in Germany criteria for an unbureaucratic process for data trustees just today begin to be implemented, dear Federal government, is your secret. Since data protection and IT security are no hindrance for a functioning data society but are its basis. We also ought to be anxious as to whether you adhere to your announcement to allow no additional bureaucratic monsters. Since when you can do a really good one, then it is, ja, just one official, just one commission to create and just one more decision level to fit in.    

What we lack in the digital strategy concept is a transparent presentation of the timely and technical dependencies of the specified measures. A continual and transparent progress report is required for an efficient implementation of the strategy. Yet transparency is as you know, ja, not your thing. You master perfectly the ramification of the decision process. We know that also in the competence jumble of your Digital Agenda where too the principle commands: If thou wishes to conceal, then tangle and maximize the number of associated intersections.

Besides that, we would have wished that the data strategy entered more comprehensively into the specifics in connection with the market dominant firms. Here, concrete requirements are lacking. The reference to the amendment of the laws restricting competition is not sufficient.

An essential danger consists of the abusive use of data, primarily by non-European states. Germany and Europe can bring forward a more regulated and open access to data. The seizure of data however must be prevented. The AfD was the first to here address this in the case of China relative to Huawei.  

We also have a big bellyache with the planned standard platform for analysis of open source data. For example, social media data shall be used so as to

process and, by use of non-state actors, to generate international,                qualitatively high value data on foreign policy relevant topics…and to place                it at the disposal of the Federal government

Cited from the submitted instruction. – Here, the door to abuse is opened, since this formulation leaves everything open. Only one government is envisaged which makes use of the data of its citizens so it might be used for its own purposes of political power – domestic and foreign. Yet, ladies and gentlemen, why concern ourselves? This is all, ja, only wicked ulterior motives which one can have here, conspiracy theories, fiction – like what appears only in dystopian novels.

            Saskia Esken (SPD): The AfD’s black lists.

I come to a conclusion. All in all, the Federal government’s data strategy is an important and correct start. It pushes a long overdue development process, a process which in other countries was already long since initiated. That is to say, we require full steam ahead. For that, the submitted strategy is by far not ambitious enough. What is generally lacking is a superimposed vision, and indeed a vision therein of how we can place data at the service of society, economy and state, yet also thereby make possible a secure use. This primarily for the defense of the private sphere of our citizens, defended from the misuse of politicians who are ready to cancel our hard won rights of freedom.

Many thanks.

 

[trans: tem]