Who watches the watchers?

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The question has been asked since more than 2,000 years and translates to "Who will guard the guards?" In developed democracies the risk of abusing military power is rather low; people would not accept it and it's questionable if the army would fire on their own people. The means are more subtle nowadays and an overhauled translation is more appropriate: "Who watches the watchers?"

The threats to democratic states and societies are no longer foreign armies (except maybe for India and Israel and despite Cold War rhetoric during last year's conflict between Russia and Georgia) but terrorism and organized crime. In the last years they often had to serve as reason for undermining civil rights, e.g. with the USA PATRIOT Act.

In the latest installment German government or more exact federal police Bundeskriminalamt BKA signed contracts (German) with major internet service providers to block access to child porn sites, the law is still due. Nobody reasonable will argue against fighting child pornography, but what is currently discussed is more than questionable. There are 3 major points of criticism: relevance, effectiveness, appropriateness.

Relevance

A special investigator of Lower Saxony's state police says (German) the internet is used for communication, but commercial distribution happens via classic mail. Only later on material is distributed via P2P or Usenet - for free. So it will hardly prevent any production of child pornography since it does not dry out the cash flow.

Effectiveness

Different techniques are possible: manipulating DNS, filtering by IP or filtering by URL. The first one seems to be the means of choice - and is totally pointless. Scandinavian countries are using DNS manipulation. Minister of Family Affairs Ursula von der Leyen, who is actually pursuing the access blocking, claims 50,000 clicks are prevented (German) in Sweden every day while the CEO of Verband der deutschen Internetwirtschaft (German Internet Business Association) eco claims that most "clicks" are caused by search engines (German). Both statements can't be proven but the Swedish chief inspector against child pornography and child abuse concludes (German):

Our blocking measures don't help to reduce the production of pornography.

IP filtering can't be bypassed that easily, it needs for example a proxy server. More important is the potential collateral damage: Behind one IP address can be many web sites. URL filtering can also be bypassed via a proxy server, but it does not have the side effects of IP filtering. Checking every URL costs enormous resources though and is not feasible. Therefore the British use a combined approach of IP and URL filtering in their Cleanfeed system to reduce collateral damage and necessary resources - which doesn't always work out as we will see later on.

Appropriateness

An expertise released (both German) by the Research Services (Wissenschaftliche Dienste) of the German parliament Bundestag states that the blockade imperils the freedom of communication as granted by the German constitution. The Minister of Justice Brigitte Zypries expressed concerns (German) about "major constitutional risks" - her ministry was not involved in the process.

The most critical point is the lack of control. It's the BKA compiling the blocking list, it has (obviously) to be kept secret and nobody can control what is on the list. And what happens if the objectionable contents were removed? I'm not suggesting that anybody is trying to introduce censorship since I'm just not a supporter of any conspiracy theory. But the infrastructure for censorship is created and it can be abused in the future with less noble intentions.

To make matters worse police is prosecuting people publishing leaked lists. After WikiLeaks released the lists of Australia, Thailand or Denmark the house of German domain owner was searched (German) for "distributing child pornographic material". Also the house search of - take a breath - a blogger who linked in his blog to another blog which linked WikiLeaks with the lists was ruled to be legal (German)! This example also points to another risk of those lists in case they are published: They help to distribute child pornography by providing link collections. To make it clear: In my opinion that's not a justification to prosecute publishers of those lists but a reason to not create them.

Other side-effects

Related to the lack of control is the question which links get on the list: End of last year Britain's Internet Watch Foundation ruled about the cover of the album Virgin Killer by German band Scorpions:

As with all child sexual abuse reports received by our hotline analysts, the image was assessed according to the UK Sentencing Guidelines Council. The content was considered to be a potentially illegal indecent image of a child under the age of 18.

The album was released in 1976 (!) and its cover has never been censored in the UK. It also used to be available on Amazon or other sites. After few days IWF rescinded the block. During the block British users could not access the page on the album (but the image by accessing the URL directly) and not modify any Wikipedia page.

The Australian list (of which it wasn't quite clear whether it is a fake or not) contained a dentist's website after it had been hacked, and artistic photographs by Bill Henson. Australian Communication Minister Stephen Conroy admitted they were added to the blacklist in error. But since people make errors who is controlling them?

Another critic is CareChild, a society to fight distribution of child pornography and child abuse, calling the plan of Minister of Family Affairs Ursula von der Leyen "symbolical politics" (German) promoting the distribution rather than fighting it. To prove their point they performed a test (both German) with 20 domains from the Danish list, 17 hosted in the U.S., 1 in England, 1 in the Netherlands and 1 in South Korea and Portugal (all different providers). Within hours 16 domains were switched off, the other 4 were determined to be according to the laws and the operators could provide necessary "record keeping documents", i.e. proving the age of the performers.

Quoting the Chaos Computer Club:

A statistical analysis of filter lists (German) from Switzerland, Denmark, Finland and Sweden revealed that more than 96% of the servers they banned are located in western countries, particularly the USA, Australia, Canada and the Netherlands. It is quite implausible that these servers and their operators cannot be shut down and prosecuted by means of international cooperation by law enforcement authorities. There is clearly a lack of political will here to establish appropriate priorities and to make the necessary resources available.

Both CareChild and CCC conclude that the blocking lists might encourage law enforcement agencies to simply put web sites on those lists rather than actually taking actions against their operators.

So in my humble opinion the blocking lists are not only questionable in pretty much every manner. When potentially illegal content is getting on those lists and nobody is allowed to control them they are also dangerous to the fundamentals of democracy with their lack of oversight. Read: Who watches the watchers? As I wrote I don't suggest anybody wants to introduce censorship. But with this populist acting for the sake of it the infrastructure for censorship is created. I don't want to rely on Plato's noble lie but not even provide the possibility to misuse.

PS: FoeBuD is starting an unfiltered DNS server (German) at 85.214.73.63.

Business Opportunity

Today I want to tell you a short story. Imagine I have a car. It doesn't matter if it is an old one, a fast or a cool one. I have a car. Now there is another person taking a look at my car. Following dialogue gets started:
He: "You have a nice car! Can I lease it from you?"
Me: "But then I don't have a car anymore."
He: "That's not a problem. I will lease it out to you immediately."
Ring! Ring! Ring! Alarm! Sounds suspicious.
Me: "What's the point of it!?"
He: "Wait, it's even better. I will you pay you money for this business!"
Ring! Ring! Ring! (Was that an alarm ring or the money sign in my eyes?)
He: "Yes! We are investors, the leasing rates are our investment and so they are tax deductible. We will just give you part of the tax reduction in advance."

Now replace me with German municipalities, the other person with American investors and the car with municipal facilities and services like incineration or sewage plants and you get so-called Cross Border Leasings (German). The article says around 150 contracts have been concluded over 30 to 80 billion Euros.

On the second ring I (smart-ass me, not the supposed me from above) would have asked pathetically if this isn't fraud - if not legally (obviously there was a loophole) then morally. A court in Cleveland, Ohio ruled in one case (Case No. 1:07-CV-857) last year that the tax saving has to be paid back by the investor - at least.

But now the German municipalities are left behind with these financial constructs and the problems they cause. They were backed by the now infamous Collateralized Debt Obligations which are nothing worth anymore (if they were ever) - and the German municipalities have to take all the risks and pay for possible losses.

This is economical growth simply based on the flow of money. Even better, the money wasn't actually flowing except for the initial payment. The investors borrowed the money from the same bank the German municipality had to pay the leasing rate to. And the investors did not have access to the money but it was used to pay their leasing rates. So it was simply moving money from one account to another, fictitious transactions which I consider fraud at the expense of American and German taxpayers.

One final point to add: The article only points finger at the German politicians for taking such high risks rather than questioning the approach because of the moral issues. Since moral obviously doesn't pay off and you can't charge somebody for irresponsibility politicians should finally be liable for their actions in office. They would think more than twice about such high-risk transactions.

Disclaimer: If I have oversimplified the case and there is economical sense in such a transaction I would really like to hear it. Feel free to contact me!

A Heart for Producers

Last week I had to try hard to keep from laughing. I was shopping for grocery and saw a new campaign: Ein Herz für Erzeuger (A Heart for Producers). The idea: Rather than spending 49 cents on a liter of milk you pay 59 cents and the additional 10 cents go completely to the farmer. This is ridiculous in many ways!

In Germany there is both a charity campaign Ein Herz für Kinder (A Heart for Children) for needy children and a magazine Ein Herz für Tiere (A Heart for Animals respectively Pets). And now needy farmers? So first it's simply a ridiculous name from a marketing perspective - or am I the only one who thinks first of a donation account when hearing this campaign name?

Second, why should I pay more for the same product? For my good nature or my conscience? I'm sorry, but this is the same milk from the same intensive livestock farming where cattle is fed with the same antibiotics! Isn't it understandable I don't feel sympathy for this kind of farming? If I want to have a better product for which I'm willing to pay more I'll get organic milk.

Third, I'm not denying that many farmers, especially small businesses, have major problems with the low milk price and their costs. But the problem is far more complex (German) - and needs painful consequences. For years the market for milk was totally regulated (just like every other agricultural product in the EU) by setting quota how much a farm can produce. This led to the infamous so-called milk seas or butter hills - products produced beyond the market's needs, bought with huge subsidies by the EU and destroyed or fed to livestock.

Now the quota system is going to be removed - and the market will fix the distortions caused by the regulations: The price will likely drop due to the oversupply. Some farms might switch to the production of organic food which gives them higher income per unit (a liter of organic milk costs 89 cents). But there will definitely be individual fates, especially small farms, that will have to shut due to reduced income. But it is not possible to work against the market or it will cost an enormous amount of money. It makes more sense economically to spent the money otherwise despite the costs for social benefits or other support for the victims of this change. Only one thing is sure: The 10 cents can't prevent that change. If at all it will extend the agony.

Sharia is for Everyone!

One of the most ridiculous proposals I read lately was the one by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, who is also leader of the Anglican church. He proposed to allow certain parts of the Sharia, the central body for the Islamic law, to be used in western societies. By allowing Muslims to apply the Sharia in questions of day-to-day life like marital or financial matters he wants to raise the acceptance of Muslims for western life style.

In the first place I wonder why this is necessary at all? Yes, everybody should have the right to move to a place where he wants to live. And western societies seem to be very appealing because of their prosperity. But this prosperity results from a certain society model. So if somebody wants his part of the prosperity he has to be part of the society - including its rules and laws. It's not necessary to like everything, and there are definitely many things that can be improved in these societies. But immigrating people first have to accept the rules and laws - and not the rules and laws have to be changed for immigrating people!

Second why is the church that tolerant against the Islam? Let's have a look at other relevant groups like homosexuals. The same Dr. Rowan Williams on an openly gay bishop:

In most of our provinces the election of Canon Gene Robinson would not have been possible since his chosen lifestyle would give rise to a canonical impediment to his consecration as a bishop.

If his consecration proceeds, we recognise that we have reached a crucial and critical point in the life of the Anglican Communion and we have had to conclude that the future of the Communion itself will be put in jeopardy.

In my opinion that's hypocritical.

Another issue with this proposal is outlined by Henryk M. Broder (That's where the title of this post is from.): Can British who are not Muslims also select the rules of the Sharia - and only marry for a certain period? No longer "Until Death Do Us Part" for Christian marriage?

Broder writes often about inter-cultural matters. Lately he wrote an article entitled Suicide for Fear of Dead (German). And that's really what the actions (German) in these western societies look like:

• In Brussels (Belgium) policemen were instructed to no longer smoke and drink in public during Ramadan - to not offend Muslims.


• In Zürich (Switzerland) they should even refrain from drinking and eating for one day - to learn more about Islamic culture.


• The BBC appends "Peace be upon him" whenever they name the Prophet. Broder mentions that it might be ridiculous when the BBC reports about suicide bombers in the name of Allah and the Prophet, peace be upon him.


• Following the British interior ministry "Islamic extremism" is now "anti-Islamic activities".


• The Bishop of Breda (Netherlands), Tiny Muskens, proposed to rename God to Allah.


• In Canada completely veiled women are allowed to vote when they have two identity certifications and one witness of identity.

Respect for other cultures is good - but this goes way too far. Do officials in Arabic countries fast during the Lenting season? Can basic rights in voting still be assured if the person voting can not even be identified? I wonder what they are doing on the air ports - or is security more important than those fundamental rights?

Another ridiculous proposal came from the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan: Germany should establish Turkish high schools and universities. (Turks are by far the biggest group of immigrants in Germany.) Necla Kelek calls his push for Turkish educational institutions an "intrigue against integration" (German) - and I fully agree with her. This does not help with integration but makes the separation permanent.

Yes, a lot has been done wrong in integration of immigrants in many western societies. But the examples above are misunderstood integration. Integration means helping the immigrants to adapt their way of living, to learn the language and the culture. It does not mean that the immigrants have to give up their own culture - as long as the habits comply with the rules and laws. And especially it does not mean that the affiliating society has to change for the immigrants.

Lately there was also a discussion in Germany about integration. It all got started with a brutal attack on a pensioner by a Greek and a Turkish young man in Munich. State Governor of Hesse, Roland Koch, used this as an opportunity to make an embarrassing and polemic election campaign against "criminal young foreigners". Indeed the ratio of foreigners to the whole population is disproportionate to the committed crimes in Germany. (The numbers are quite different. While they form around 10% of the German population around 20% of the suspected criminals (German) are immigrants.) But this is probably more a problem of social background than origin - foreigners are just not criminals per se. And here we are back to the questions of integration. According to the PISA study in hardly any country the social background determines the future chances as much as in Germany. By the way, not suprisingly Roland Koch got applause from the Neo-Nazis for his campaign - and luckily it backfired though his party still won the election.

So the western societies definitely have to do their homework in questions of integration - not by giving up their culture or basic rights, but by welcoming the immigrants, by helping them to get started and provide fair chances. Starting a new life in Germany does not seem to be easy. The people still have to learn a lot, even after 50 years of major integration. Eventually Germany can't without immigrants.

Update: There is now also an article about Dr. Rowan Williams available on the English Spiegel Online website, taken from Der Spiegel magazine, which provides more background information.

Update: Henryk M. Broder wrote a new article on this topic, in particular on Geert Wilders and the recently released Islam-critical video "Fitna". Due to serious threats to the LiveLeak staff the video had to be removed for some time from the web site though it's now back online. Is there any further need to comment on this?