←back to thread

157 points robtherobber | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.002s | source
Show context
lysace ◴[] No.46245508[source]
Fighting extremist terrorism requires tough measures. This one is a bit extra though:

> If the software cannot be deployed remotely, the law authorizes officers to secretly enter a person’s home to gain access.

Clear Das Leben der Anderen vibes. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lives_of_Others)

However: As usual, the devil is in the details. How much suspicion is required, what's the process, etc. (I assume that a judge needs to sign off.)

replies(5): >>46245612 #>>46245695 #>>46245801 #>>46245950 #>>46247554 #
nabnob ◴[] No.46245695[source]
What are you calling "extremist terrorism"?
replies(1): >>46245726 #
lysace ◴[] No.46245726[source]
E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Berlin_truck_attack (13+1 deaths, 56 injured)
replies(1): >>46245755 #
josefritzishere ◴[] No.46245755[source]
That was almost 10 years ago. That does not an existential threat make.
replies(4): >>46245777 #>>46245882 #>>46248207 #>>46249015 #
lysace ◴[] No.46245777{3}[source]
There have been a number of similar attacks in Germany since. There are no signs of this stopping.

Noone claimed it was an existential threat.

replies(1): >>46246009 #
1. josefritzishere ◴[] No.46246009{4}[source]
Fair statement but it is generally accepted that extraordinary measures, like extraordinary claims require extreme evidence. That's just not the case here. To paraphrase Ben Frnaklin "Those who would give up liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." I think the corollary is that we actually get neither liberty nor safety.
replies(2): >>46246064 #>>46246637 #
2. lysace ◴[] No.46246064[source]
but it is generally accepted that extraordinary measures, like extraordinary claims require extreme evidence

I think you also don't know what kind of evidence this new legislation requires.