Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Berlin Approves New Expansion of Police Surveillance Powers

    (reclaimthenet.org)
    157 points robtherobber | 14 comments | 12 Dec 25 15:29 UTC | HN request time: 0.61s | source | bottom
    Show context
    perihelions ◴[12 Dec 25 16:48 UTC] No.46245889[source]▶
    The explanation is deceptively unclear, IMO. What's being authorized is court-ordered searches of a type that were previously prohibited, even for courts to authorize, by strict privacy laws. The US has always had the power to conduct these searches [0]; the "inviolability of the home" human dignity concept doesn't exist in the US. (I'll defer to German people to explain this concept).

    As explained in heise.de[1] (in German) about a parallel law being enacted in the state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern,

    > "For the online search, the deputies now also grant the law enforcement the right to secretly enter and search apartments with judicial permission."

    [0] e.g. https://www.npr.org/2011/08/02/138916011/home-visits-and-oth... ("Home Visits And Other 'Secrets Of The FBI'")

    [1] https://www.heise.de/news/Mecklenburg-Vorpommern-Durchsuchun...

    replies(2): >>46246175 #>>46247116 #
    1. mmooss ◴[12 Dec 25 17:15 UTC] No.46246175[source]▶
    > the "inviolability of the home" human dignity concept doesn't exist in the US.

    Maybe not under that term, but for example, almost the only place an American's 4th Amendment protections against search and seizure apply is in their home. Law enforcement can search their garbage at the curb, monitor their [edit: public] movements via camera and license plate monitoring, etc., look them up online, all without warrants [*]. They can't do that in someone's home.

    [*] I'm pretty sure no warrant is required to search curbside trash or do most online research.

    replies(6): >>46246339 #>>46246535 #>>46246691 #>>46246698 #>>46246710 #>>46247102 #
    2. hrimfaxi ◴[12 Dec 25 17:27 UTC] No.46246339[source]▶
    The trash search thing varies by state at least.
    3. jandrewrogers ◴[12 Dec 25 17:45 UTC] No.46246535[source]▶
    The boundaries of your "home" varies by State. For example, in some States the interior of your car is part of your home even when not at home, which occasionally has entertaining implications.
    replies(1): >>46246816 #
    4. jeffbee ◴[12 Dec 25 17:59 UTC] No.46246691[source]▶
    This article is not about warrantless searches of homes, though. In America, courts can and do order the police to secretly enter a domicile and install surveillance devices.
    5. elcritch ◴[12 Dec 25 18:00 UTC] No.46246698[source]▶
    It also appears this Herman law allows “no knock” search warrants, which in the US are generally considered more serious and more restricted.
    6. perihelions ◴[12 Dec 25 18:00 UTC] No.46246710[source]▶
    The distinction here is whether police can secretly enter a home to plant bugs, &c. In the US, this is routine; in Germany, this is (was?) taboo.

    (FYI, you can escape * as \* to get it to display as *).

    replies(2): >>46246754 #>>46246869 #
    7. mmooss ◴[12 Dec 25 18:04 UTC] No.46246754[source]▶
    Thanks for the tip!
    8. stronglikedan ◴[12 Dec 25 18:08 UTC] No.46246816[source]▶
    > the interior of your car is part of your home

    Especially when you exclusively enter and exit the car inside your garage! /s

    9. andrepd ◴[12 Dec 25 18:12 UTC] No.46246869[source]▶
    Is this even practical anymore? A non-technical person can set up video surveillance on their home for a couple hundred bucks. Why wouldn't a criminal do that? I think the days of the FBI planting a microphone in a lamp on Tony Soprano's basement are over.
    replies(3): >>46248172 #>>46248274 #>>46248688 #
    10. tptacek ◴[12 Dec 25 18:31 UTC] No.46247102[source]▶
    I think the "inviolability" thing is useful just to understand what's actually happening here, but it's also important to understand that the US and Germany have very different criminal justice, search, and evidentiary systems. Germany doesn't have an exclusionary rule for evidence, for instance.
    11. fragmede ◴[12 Dec 25 20:02 UTC] No.46248172{3}[source]▶
    I read in the papers that the cheap cameras are over wifi, so thieves are using wifi jammers to take them offline during the heist.
    12. marginalia_nu ◴[12 Dec 25 20:11 UTC] No.46248274{3}[source]▶
    It's hard to set up video surveillance in your home without inadvertently providing much of the surveillance data the law enforcement officers were after, especially for non-technical people.
    replies(1): >>46253803 #
    13. breppp ◴[12 Dec 25 20:45 UTC] No.46248688{3}[source]▶
    The FBI has an array of readymade zero day exploits, it is probably able to handle Tony Sporano's Chinese knockoff video survelliance
    14. andrepd ◴[13 Dec 25 11:25 UTC] No.46253803{4}[source]▶
    Good point!