German State Alters DNS To Censor Web Sites [updated]

Rabenwolf writes: "In the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia, the first ISP (ISIS Multimedia) has given in to pressure from the state government and has started to block foreign websites with supposedly "illegal content" by changing the corresponding DNS entries. ISIS customers trying to access these sites are redirected to the website of the local government. ISPs in North Rhine-Westphalia will have to pay a fine if they continue to provide access to sites with "illegal content" through their DNS servers. It's not as bad as China or Saudi-Arabia, but it makes you think... An article from the heise newsticker is here, and if you don't sprechen Deutsch, Google might help." Update: 11/22 15:23 GMT by T : As sqrt points out, this report is misleading: "A single technican altered the DNS Entries to demonstrate it is possible. His changes were already reversed. Heise already posted a new story about this today."

IP addresses?

[Midnight Thunder]

If this is based on DNS entries, tnen what is stopping people using the IP addresses instead?

Different places have different ideas

[SmileyBen]

I really hope people actually think about this before replying about how this is simply wrong. Different countries have different ways of dealing with things. In America, for example, Freedom of Speech is enshrined in law - this gives an enormous amount of protection to citizens from their government, which is good, but also ensures the right of racists and others to say what they like, and recruit new members. In other countries, they frequently take a different approach, and for example consider protecting minorities from hate speech to be more important than letting everyone say whatever they like.

I wish people would understand that these are simply different ways of going about things, and certainly each has its own advantages and disadvatages. I don't honestly think, for example, that one groups is simply correct about gun ownership - perhaps America /is/ correct to claim that citizens need to be able to assert control, and not be powerless against their own government, but there are clear disadvatages. The same with speech - given no censorship, and no ability to assert local laws over internet content has major disadvantages, as well as the obvious advantages.

FBI Internet-tap plus unsecured DNS = trouble

[michaelmalak]

As I commented [slashdot.org] on Nov. 14:

A [problem threatening free speech in the U.S.] is the FBI Wiretap of the entire Internet [foxnews.com]

The new FBI plans would give the agency a technical backdoor to the networks of Internet service providers' like AOL and Earthlink and Web hosting companies, Baker said. It would concentrate Internet traffic in several central locations where e-mail and other web activity could be wiretapped.

coupled with the Internet's unsecured DNS [slashdot.org]. The FBI could surreptitiously censor subtly or DOS sites that criticize the government, for example.

Re:Pathetic attempt

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, shame about the HTTP 1.1 thing. On the bright side IE already provides this service via MSN if a domain name doesn't resolve so this ruling could well mean all people have to do is click on 'GO'

Not as bad???

[Hobbex]

Why is this not as bad as China or Saudi-Arabia? Censorship is censorship, and governments trying to restrict their peoples access to information on the Internet is equally despicable regardless of the information or the method with which it is attempted.

The world has suffered too much already to the German people's willingness to allow their governments to manipulate and control them. I say shame on all those who are allowing it to continue...

Another example

[Syberghost]

Hopefully, the folks who kneejerk respond to stories about similar abuses in the US with "hah hah, the US sucks, come live in a real country" will keep this and similar problems (such as the French encryption policies and Yahoo lawsuit) in mind.

The Internet is shaking up the status quo globally, and the assaults on our freedom of speech to stop it are similarly global. If the US removes it's citizens' freedom, it affects you, whether you're in Georgia the state or Georgia the country.

Re:Different places have different ideas

[ichimunki]

Well, since the speech in question (I don't read German so well-- so I'll assume this is mostly about Nazi propaganda, which is the main free speech issue I've seen talked about in Germany) is essentially anti-democratic and seeks to deprive others of their human rights, I don't see how it can be considered anything less than treasonous. I think the German government are taking this too far, though. By going to this sort of extreme, they are only feeding an us versus them situation, where what is needed is a shrug, a "huh. that sure is some stupid racist nonsense", and an effort to address any real issues that are causing the racists to think their problems are somehow going to be solved by scapegoating jews, blacks, Elbonians, whoever.

Of course, I'm an American who could care less about being able to advocate racist totalitarian governments, but I'm concerned that in their zeal to prevent further atrocities, the German and French (and others?) governments are likely to wipe out honest assessments and careful historical discourse. There is some real danger to whitewashing the problem, and in so doing allowing some deeper issues to go undiscussed and unsolved. This sort of repression (whether in individuals or in societies) seems to be linked to uncontrolled outbursts of bad behavior.

But in general the German government is doing at least as well as the USA in giving its citizens a land where liberty, freedom, and happiness are available to all on an equal basis. The German people affected by this elected their leaders in fair elections (as far as I know), so I assume if this really is against the will of the German people that they will vote their current government out in favor of one that will rewrite these laws.

anti-hate-speech laws focus on the wrong thing

[fhwang]

Anti-hate-speech laws, whether in Germany or Francs or the U.S., seem to be predicated on the idea that the speech itself has some sort of magical power over people's minds. I think that's very wrong, and it distracts attention from where it's needed most.

A number of different groups would have you believe that the swastika was this magical symbol that automatically turned rational people into genocidal creatures: All you do is hide the swastikas and everything's okay. Remember that the Holocaust had a very specific economic and political context: For a number of reasons, the German people had endured one of the worst economic declines ever to be suffered by an industrialized nation, and they were terrified and desperate. This does not excuse what happens, but it gives a much more sensible explanation than what normally passes for historical analysis -- "We need to keep the images of swastikas away from impressionable white kids", or "Germans are just a racist people", or similar pap.

So now Germany has a problem with skinheads (though it tends to get blown way out of proportion because the rest of the world watches the country very carefully). So why is that? Is that because German teenagers can get their hands on albums by talentless oi-skinhead bands? Or maybe, just maybe, it's because the reunification of Germany has been fraught with all sorts of economic and political stresses, and there are too many scared, uneducated, hopeless Germans who are looking for a scapegoat.

Of course, when it comes to what a politician can do about it, there's really no option at all, is there? Either he can stand up and say "We should work hard to make sure that everybody has good economic opportunities" -- and be branded as some stuck-in-the-past Marxist -- or he can point fingers and say "Let's keep Nazi images off the internet!"

Re:I odnt thnk its wrong.

[linca]

It is not "thought" control, it is "publication" control. Not the same thing. You can even speak about it with your friend, you know. The word Nazi hasn't been deleted. But of course, If you don't mind seeing Germany under Nazi rule again ( America has an history of supporting right-wing dictatorships in South America, after all...), Then let them speak. Then, ten years later, YOU go fighting them. Free Speech didn't work to avoid totalitarian regime, in the 30's. Because of that, in 1945, the Americans (along with others), have forbidden any German to promote Nazism. It seems the Germans want to keep this law.

Isolated case

[mseeger]

This is only an isolated case. Till now, there is *NO* consensus between the ISPs and the law enforcers.

I had a lot of meetings with the BKA (something like the german FBI) about fighting criminality in the internet. And they underestimate scale and complexity of the net.

I give you one example. There is a software called PERKEO. PERKEO is able to checksum files quickly and has an internal database of known checksums of child pornography images. They argued, that most child pornography images (which are exchanged through the internet) are well known. Somewhat like 95+% shell be in the database.

In the discussion with the ISPs they argued, that it would be easy to add PERKEO to the proxy server. For every image accessed, the checksum is created and compared with the database. In case the checksum matches, the access is blocked.

When i tried to explain, that the introduction would only result in countermeasure (automatic modification of images), it was taken as unwillingness.

Every meeting (i know about) ended with the same results: Everyone is willing to fight criminals, but the is no modus operandi. The law enforcement agencies have wishes the ISPs do not consider compatible with the law and constitution.

Some politicians and law enforcers are growing more and more frustrated. So a state (Nordrhein- Westfalen) tries to work with laws that put more responisbility on the shoulders of the ISPs.

This generates confusion and the confusion results in such events like the one discussed.

CU, Martin

Censorship isn't a "different idea"

[Karl Cocknozzle]

In America, for example, Freedom of Speech is enshrined in law - this gives an enormous amount of protection to citizens from their government, which is good, but also ensures the right of racists and others to say what they like, and recruit new members.

Actually, this has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with the freedom to assemble peacably.

Maybe we should ban that too?

The same with speech - given no censorship, and no ability to assert local laws over internet content has major disadvantages, as well as the obvious advantages.

I have a hard time seeing the "major disadvantages" of an uncensored internet. Please document these disadvantages so we can all understand how censorship is good.

In fact, I also want to know what benefit does any citizen (not government agency) get from censorship of the internet? What are these alleged "advantages" to citizens whose net access is being filtered by the government? Who knows, if the advantages are good enough, maybe I'll start writing to congress to have my internet censored.

Germany may be protecting its citizens from hate speech, but remember this: All persons are entitled to equal protection under the law. Just because you're saying "nigger" and I'm saying "potato salad" should not affect our protection by the first amendment.

I mean, if I hate potatoes, wouldn't talking badly about potato salad be "hate speech"?

Re:Nazis had different ideas, too

[Anonymous Coward]

Skinning alive native Americans is a different way of thinking, too buddy!

Re:Different places have different ideas

[Skapare]

and as long as only hate speech and Nazi propaganda are banned, things are fine.

But once you have the mechanism in place to enforce whatever is banned, it becomes easy to do so. Let some time pass and people are comfortable with it. Now something more can be banned and it will have a little resistance but with time that settles down. Wait for some troubling times, as Germany suffered right after World War ONE, and things are ripe ... and the mechanism is in place ... to let the Nazis or other ill-intent groups have their way.

That is such bullshit

[werdna]

Sure, the US government is oppressive, except when compared to any other. No local magistrate has the power or ability to keep me from posting to this website, and should they try to do so, I have the power to sue them, undo the censorship, and get them to pay me for the exercise of that privilege.

Freedom of speech in the United States is not absolute, of course. But it is unparalleled elsewhere. In what other nation can you go to the nation's highest court and announce "Fuck the draft?" with absolute immunity?

Re:anti-hate-speech laws focus on the wrong thing

[Skapare]

Anti-hate-speech laws, whether in Germany or Francs or the U.S., seem to be predicated on the idea that the speech itself has some sort of magical power over people's minds.

If the speech is "sanitized" by government laws and enforcement mechanisms, then people might be inclined to start thinking that what they do hear is somehow more acceptable. That is the danger when people stop deciding for themselves.

Re:Against the German constitution?

[Anonymous Coward]

In certain respects the current German constitution is similar to that of the Weimar Republic under which the Nazis rose to power: it is full of grandiose "rights" which are all negated by other clauses which give the government the power to do whatever it wants as long as it is claiming to be fighting anything which is "against the constitution" - i.e.: nazis, communists, scientologists, left-handed taxi drivers, me, you, the internet, etc.

Re:Nazis had different ideas, too

[gorilla]

Of course, America's thinking doesn't let YOU read the words of bin Laden, becasue your government thinks they're too dangerous and has conspired with the media to try to prevent you from accessing them.

Re:Against the German constitution?

[karm13]

you're right, censorship is illegal in germany.
however, article 1 (one, as in the first and most important of them all) is die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar, which means as much as human dignity is untouchable.

so, you can say what you want against the government, or any of its institutions, but you can't say what you want against people, if it touches their dignity.
needless to say, this is not limited to verbal attacks, but includes anything you or the government might do.

Re:Against the German constitution?

[ewn]

I am German, but not a lawyer, but i think this is unconstitutional. Paragraph (1) says clearly that everyone has the right to access information from generally available sources. The internet is such a source. Nazi propaganda, while morally repulsive and disgusting, is information. So article 5 applies to the sites in question.

Paragraph (2) then sets a few exceptions to the rule. One of these is to protect children, one says that insults are not protected by article 5, and then the paragraph (2) says something about paragraph (1) being limited by the general laws. This means that a specific law may limit paragraph (1) in specific cases. It does not mean that there is an unwritten codex of what may be said and what not and that a local authority could decide on an ad hc basis what they like or not (that would be censorship) and then prosecute whoever they want. I believe the law the local authority was thinking about is the one that forbids the dissemination of Nazi Propaganda.

The problem with this point of view is that while distributing Mein Kampf in Germany is illegal, possessing it isn't. Neither is transporting it (otherwise the entire Deutsche Post AG would go to jail). So neither the ISP nor the persons accessing the websites in question are doing anything that would be against the law that forbids distribution of Nazi propaganda. And if they don't, the law doesn't apply and paragraph (1) stands.

The press release in which they blame the ISP for yielding to racists is the usual whining. They made a mistake, they don't want to admit it, so they call everybody a Nazi. The only new thing is that i didn't know that Godwin's law applies to muggels.

Re:Against the German constitution?

[bstadil]

It makes little to no difference what the German Constitution says. Look at the Garbage that they had in East Germany or any other Communist regime. On paper they had the most democratic and free society. In reality they had none.
Example From DDR's Constitution:
ARTICLE 8 (1) personal liberty, inviolability of the dwelling, post office secret and the right to establish itself at any place are ensured.
What Baloney. Sorry I couldn't find an English translation, maybe use babelfish [altavista.com]

to lighten things up a bit

[karm13]

firs of all, i am german, and i am writing this from a german perspective.

having read through the comments, i would like to add a few things.

firs of all, it affects just one state. in germany, each state is responsible for the media by themselves. this includes things like assigning frequencies and so on.
this particular state tries to push the local ISPs (which are not the ones used by the majoraty of the people living there anyway) to block access to those websites. this has been (and will be) opposed by the ISPs, for obvious (technical and constitutional) reasons. one ISIS technician did it, to prove it was possible.
it is uncertain if such a government blocking would be legal.

i agree with all of you saying censorship is bad in general. i also believe it is wrong in this special case.

but there are some things you should take in account, before judjing germany as some repressive country.
those are, of coures, historical reasons. the nazis used media propaganda not only after they gained power, but from the very beginning of their movement, as they had the support of some big publishers. and they used a hole in the constitution of the weimar republic to abandon the constitution alltogether. to prevent this in the future, when the new constitution was made, making it protective had a top priority. protective means that any attempt to fight the constitution is illegal, and certain key paragraphs must not be changed (including the one about censorship being illegal, by the way).
so if you promote a plan to abandon the constitution it is illegal, if a party proposes to abandon the constitution, the party is illegal, and if the party has no democratic structure - guess what.

nazi symbols are illegal, denying the holocaust is illegal, basicly anything pro-nazi is.
contrary to popular believe Mein Kampf is not, but the copyright is claimed by the state of bavaria, so you can't buy it (you can't read it either, i tried it once but didn't make it past the first chapter).
i believe this should be kept up for some 40 more years. imagine you have suffered under the nazis, been arrested by the gestapo or maybe even sent to a concentration camp and you see the same symbols again on someones t-shirt.

but to get to main point: nazi propaganda in germany is illegal. so some people have their sites hosted somewhere else. 90% of german language nazi content is hosted outside of germany. so the idea is to block access to it from within germany. but three question remain:

- is it possible?
- is it legal?
- is it good?

the legal status is unclear, but critical.
the technical possibility is, to say the least, questionable.
the issue iif it is good is just being discussed. i think it's not, a proper educated mind should be able to deal with propaganda, from any side.

i wanted to write something about the different freedoms you have in europe and in the US, but i will do that in another post...

Re:Against the German constitution?

[Holger Spielmann]

Could someone who is German or who has studied German law please clarify?


Article 1: (quoting by heart)

Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar. Sie zu schützen und zu bewahren ist Aufgabe jeder staatlichen Gewalt.

In English:

A humans dignity is inviolable. To protect and retain it is the task of every governmental power.

So it has to be considered which right has to be protected more in every single case - the dignity of someone who feels offended by certain speech or the freedom of speech of someone else.
Considerations like this are very common in German law (and possibly elsewhere) - just think nuclear power plant (property against health) or genetic engineering (property against dignity).
In general, I think it's perfectly correct that serious forms of offensive speech are forbidden - it is illegal to publish hate material in Germany.

But this measure goes way to far - beside the fact that it is technically impossible to suppress content on the internet, and they're running in danger giving a kind of popularity to those sites which they definitely do not deserve.