Remix.run Logo
delichon 2 days ago

This URL used to host an FBI recommendation to use ad blockers for personal security.

https://www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2022/PSA221221?=8324278624

It's gone now. I wonder if that's a policy choice.

Edit: It just moved to https://www.ic3.gov/PSA/2022/PSA221221

  The FBI recommends individuals take the following precautions...

  Use an ad blocking extension when performing internet searches. Most internet browsers allow a user to add extensions, including extensions that block advertisements. These ad blockers can be turned on and off within a browser to permit advertisements on certain websites while blocking advertisements on others.
mcv 2 days ago | parent [-]

The FBI caring more about people's rights than the German justice system? That would be an interesting twist.

duxup 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I think at any large org you're going to get folks whose job it is to write up good advice and they do it sincerely and the content is produced and if it says "use an ad blocker" there it is.

Meanwhile others at the same org may have different feelings based on what they're tasked to do.

It's just a human organization thing.

------

I once worked at a company where HR was tasked with helping employees de-stress / relax. One group organized free lunches and even an outing or two. They were sometimes naive, but seemed like sincere and good faith efforts.

Later the company was reviewing some kind of expenditures and for whatever reason a separate group in HR became involved. They noticed that some of our 24/7 tech support staff didn't attend some of these lunches or outings. Of course they didn't all the events occurred during the work day and someone had to be on the phones and others worked weekends or nights or etc.

This other HR wanted it noted on their performance review as a negative that they didn't participate in HR de-stressing events ... pure madness (thankfully it didn't happen).

Two different groups, same org, conflicting choices.

2 days ago | parent [-]
[deleted]
riedel 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I guess that is a bit of a misunderstanding of the separation of powers. This court is the highest civil/criminal court which only decides precisely on the text of the law. It has IMHO less interpretation freedom than Germanys supreme Court. Also as far I understand it only sends back the decision to the next lower court because it did not weight the argument that HTML might be code. Copyright on software in Germany is btw strangely different from artistic copyright in many parts. I can imagine that police or the the BSI would share the FBI's opinion. However, I doubt that even if this goes through, politicians will see a need to chance the law or make it more precise in this case. Actually much worse is Germany's hacker law, which endangers pretty much every security research. Although many people acknowledge the problem and there were ridiculous legal cases, there has been so little movement to abandon it.

delichon 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

https://reclaimthenet.org/germany-rejects-us-free-speech-cri...

Germany is jailing people for memes, raiding homes over jokes, and fining pensioners for calling politicians idiots. The government calls it “fighting hate.”

immibis 2 days ago | parent [-]

We've seen what happens if you have completely unlimited speech. One time last century in Germany, and one time in the USA right now.

Germany's going too far in the opposite direction now, though. I'm actually okay with the rule against insulting people as long as everyone knows that's the rule (note that you can't insult anyone, not just politicians) since it doesn't affect quality discourse yet it keeps low-quality discourse (the kind that dragged the USA into the mud) down. The way they're applying it to discussion about Israel is currently a problem. That's a separate law from the insult one. They're claiming that any criticism of Israel's actions is antisemitic hate speech, which is of course illegal.

Note that supporting the principle doesn't mean I support the implementation. If it were up to me it would be only a slap on the wrist fine except in very severe cases (like organizing a hate protest) and I don't know what level of checks and balances would be enough to ensure the classification of "hate" doesn't devolve into what it has become.

mcv 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

There's a big difference between creating an atmosphere of hate against vulnerable minorities, and and criticizing a minister of economics.

Criticism of the government is absolutely vital. It's the very reason why free speech is so important. And that seems to be what the article is addressing.

Using "free speech" to silence and persecute minorities, and create a hostile atmosphere for them, is the opposite of free speech, abusing the space it was granted by free speech, and inevitably leads to serious restrictions on free speech, as we're currently seeing in the US.

These two things are not the same.

ponector 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

>> criticizing a minister

But using memes with real Nazi for this, in Germany, is too much. And they got a fine, not a prison term. Fair enough.

CLPadvocate 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Memes are not critique, they are often (as in this case) just an attack on the personal level. If they are harmless, no one would take them seriously - but calling someone a nazi is an insult in Germany, so everyone who is offended by it, can sue.

immibis a day ago | parent [-]

Germany also has more serious penalties for calling someone a Nazi, specifically.

mcv 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I guess the article conveniently skipped over that detail.

immibis 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

It wasn't for criticising the minister, it was for insulting him. You're allowed to say "Robert Habeck is incredibly wrong on these particular points, has been consistently wrong for his entire career, and he is poorly suited to being the minister for economics." You're not allowed to say "Robert Habeck is a moron." It's like the Hacker News comment guidelines, but for real life!

One major plot hole: Despite the law ostensibly applying equally to everyone, there is zero chance that Robert Habeck would ever get in trouble for saying "Martijn Vos is a moron." That's because he's an Important Person and you're not.

Germany *is* completely totalitarian on speech right now, but only on the issue of Israel/Palestine.

CLPadvocate 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Robert Habeck would not get in trouble, because it's extremely improbable that he would ever use inappropriate language. But in general, every politician insulting any other person could face legal action. It happened before and it would happen again. But, of course, the offended person needs to take action and fill a complaint.

SnuffBox a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> It's like the Hacker News comment guidelines, but for real life!

The difference is that Hacker News is a website and you can visit another to say rude things if you want with ease, not a country with subjects/citizens.

immibis a day ago | parent [-]

You can also visit another country to say rude things. I can see why this rule is controversial, but I don't think it's a major problem because it doesn't infringe on the right to have and share actual knowledge. Only emotional outbursts are forbidden (by this rule).

SnuffBox a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't think 1930s Germany had 'completely unlimited speech' and while I don't like Donald Trump I'd willingly live under both terms of Trump if it meant keeping the freedom of speech.

2 days ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]