>We shouldn't fear their 'capabilities' but rather their lack of knowledge that'll ultimately lead to 'open systems' which can later be exploited by other criminals.

We should fear their intent. Their capabilities are beside the point -- they could hire the very best tomorrow if they found they need to.

Spot on. We should also fear the attempt to make such activity legal.

Capabilities will evolve on all sides. The mindset that cedes the right of the state to engage in this activity and instead falls back to a position of mounting a technological defense against them is a losing one. It essentially says to the state, "it's fair game to come get whatever you can".

Given enough time and intent, the unlimited resources of the state will ultimately prevail. More importantly, this is not the posture that private citizens should tolerate with their governments. This is first and foremost a legal matter. Technological capabilities are secondary.

Not only that, they could take over the already-built infrastructure of tech companies tomorrow if they wanted to.

I guess you are not involved in politics? There is a lot of evidence that we should be very afraid of the state if you look at Verfassungsschutz activities. They are monitoring a lot of people who oppose policy backed by the state and there is a precedent in which “opposition members” were banned from state official jobs (teachers, ...) just a few years ago. Opposition member can mean for example being involved in anti nuclear-power protests.

Edit: People are also targeted for being critical of the Verfassungsschutz, so me writing this as well as you replying positively is a likely reason to be monitored, take care!

And not just a few years ago, this is an ongoing issue. For instance, a government minister in Hessen tries to ensure that this politician from AfD (in opposition to the ruling CDU/SDP coalition) should not be able to work as a teacher.

http://www.focus.de/politik/videos/er-hatte-sport-und-geschi...

You're conveniently letting out the part about the racist remarks which are the actual cause. I'm all in favor of not letting racists teach children.

Well, very likely the same can be said about anti-nuclear protesters: they're not excluded for "political reasons", but for criminal actions which are "actual cause". Or so someone says. (Though in the case of this teacher, it looks like no crime could be cooked up). With AfD I've heard of trying to use just the political alignment as a reason (couldn't find the link just now).

You're missing the key difference here: The maximum an anti-nuclear protester could hope to achieve through his or her actions would be to have the country quit nuclear power generation, nuclear waste storage, etc.

The political views of a far-right politician such as Höcke (probably aka Landolf Ladig[1]), if you translate them into what he hopes to turn Germany into, threaten the liberal democratic basis of the German constitution. And that we have a law against.

Naturally, the means through which said anti-nuclear activists try to achieve their goals, if only of making themselves heard, need to be legal, and if those actions are sufficiently illegal that they constitute a crime, I'm sure that will get the perpetrators in trouble and rightly so.

[1] https://andreaskemper.wordpress.com/2016/01/09/landolf-ladig...

This is drifting beside the original point, but my understanding is that the anti-nuclear movement in Germany has established a non-negligible violent culture. If you go to these protests, you know you're going to participate in or give vocal support for violent action.

http://www.dw.com/en/clashes-between-police-and-anti-nuclear...

(I don't mind drifting for a bit)

A considerable part of their actions is very disruptive, seeking to, in the view of the protesters, I imagine, annoy everybody involved in the transport of nuclear waste to such an extent that they'll give up, while in actuality just causing a financial burden for the taxpayer (17000(!) policemen were in service during the protest you linked to according to [1]). That includes the traditional "Schottern" (the "[removal of] gravel from the bed of the train tracks to stop the train" as the article calls it), see also [2].

Even encouraging others to go "Schottern" on the internet is punishable[3] (sorry, again only in German) and punished, though.

And with respect to physical attacks, I think those protesters are rather harmless. I believe not a single policeman was injured in the aforementioned protests, even though thousands of protests were there (1500 at some point, 5000 at another point in time).

[1] http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2010-11/castor-gorleb... [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schottern [3] http://www.oberlandesgericht-celle.niedersachsen.de/portal/l...

Actually I thought dozens of policemen were also injured, and police cars torched. Also a couple of paramedics were attacked if I got this right (I'm not native German).

http://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/atomausstieg/castor-...

Anyway, I think that based on this it is not entirely unreasonable that the police does keep an eye on the protesters.

However, I'm quite doubtful about the wisdom of the "Trojan" plan:

http://www.dw.com/en/german-government-to-use-trojan-spyware...

It says nowhere how the police got injured (attacked by the protesters, tripped and fell, got a dose of their own pepper spray, accidentally struck by a college when they used force on protesters). It does not say if the paramedics were attacked or if the injuries were just accidents. It also says nowhere that any police vehicles were torched, just that some police vehicles were somehow damaged.

If I recall correctly (well, this is from 2011), the majority of injured police was not at the hands of protesters but accidents, exhaustion and "friendly fire" - but a very few police got attacked or were injured in brawls and suffered minor injuries - the paramedics were mistakenly pepper sprayed by the police, and the police vehicles mostly had accidents where they drove into ditches and such, but a one or two were e.g. scrapped or damaged by people throwing train track gravel at it. Both injuries and damage (to police property), were aggravated by heavy rain and storm and the events taking place in rural areas and/or on gravel train tracks.

According to the police itself, most protesters were strictly peaceful and caused property damage to the train tracks at most ("Schottern").

So you got it mostly wrong, I'm afraid.

I do think it is extremely unreasonable and actually harmful to democracy for the police to track lawful, non-violent peaceful protesters exercising their basic rights (Grundgesetz) of free speech and freedom of assembly, or sanction or discourage them otherwise. This does not include violent people or people breaking the laws by e.g. willfully causing property damage, of course.

I also think it's very wrong to sanction people who you claim to be racist. If they are found to be unlawfully racist by an actual court, or demonstratively found to spread racist garbage as a teacher at a school, then again, that's a different matter.

If dozens of policemen are injured and a couple of police cars burn in a demonstration, and the demonstrators had nothing to do with it, I must say that this a very remarkable coincidence. The police don't trip over like that and get careless with their matches anywhere else, to such a degree.

My understanding of the demonstrations is that they were not intended as lawful, non-violent peaceful protests. The organizers wanted to make criminal damage (the "Shottern"), and some of the group were also very intent on violence.

The problem here is that anyone who was participating surely must have known what they're about to participate, even if many have themselves only wanted to not damage or hit anyone themselves. Just create a crowd where this can be done. And it is indeed hard to decide what level of surveillance is necessary and appropriate to prevent violence and large-scale damage.

The focus is a tabloid paper that belongs to the right of the political spectrum, they're rather fond of taking the police report at face value. And it's like the parent says: The police counts scratches and paint bags as "damage" (note: it's not a dozen police cars burned) as well as ankle injuries as "injured" (1). There are some clashes between the police and the protesters at the castor demos, but the demonstrations are not violent. The overwhelming majority is peaceful.

(1) That's fair to do, but something to keep in mind when interpreting the numbers.

If you're looking for samples you'll probably find sufficient if you're looking for NPD affiliates (they're not illegal either). If you look up cases where the affiliation is left-wing or anarchist you'll find even more. The standards for teachers are really very strict [1] - the must be "weltanschaulich neutral".

There's certainly a debate to be had about whether they're too strict, but IMHO, Höcke is so far across the line that I'm all in favor of keeping him out.

Edit: Note: higher standards apply for all government employees, but they're stricter for some, among them teachers, police etc.

When I started working in public sector I had to sign that I'm not a member of an unconstitutional group. As examples it included a list similar to this one: https://www.justiz.bayern.de/media/pdf/verzeichnis_extrorgan... It includes left-wing, right-wing, and islamist extremist groups.

Interestingly this list also contains the leftist party "Die Linke" which now has been a member of the federal parliament for a rather long time. That being said it's probably not a hindrance if you are a member there but you are expected to explain yourself.

Very interesting list, but perhaps it is meant to include some hardline former members of the SED?

Die Linke is seen by some as some sort of pariah in the German political landscape, due to its legacy and roots in the SED from which they never really distanced themselves in a very clear form. It's a bit of a touchy topic and the expansion to west Germany swept up a lot of nutcases, some of them in the more extremist spectrum. The topic gets even more confused since they're fairly well rooted in Eastern Germany where they are basically a left wing form of the SPD while they never managed to achieve that success in the West.

Interesting list indeed, and not only the entry for "Die Linke" is at least questionable

And who gets to decide who is a racist?

Due process is there for a reason.

In this case I don't doubt it will end up in the courts which will observe due process. The statement was "we will try by all means" and Höcke is certainly free to appeal. Though the statements quoted were obviously racist, not even thinly veiled.

The distinction we hold in America is between letting a racist teach children vs teaching racism to children -- it is the act, not the beliefs, that are controlling. Though obviously I understand why European states are more wary in such cases.

I'm against censoring. What I read here: >>hatte ... von einem "lebensbejahenden afrikanischen Ausbreitungstyp" gesprochen - was von Experten als rassistisch gewertet worden war<< [1] should not be compared with how the term 'racist' has e.g. been used in the Third Reich. As I understand, it's a scientific method to generalize and the race is a factor (among many others) and one should be allowed to say such things without loosing the job.

[1] http://www.focus.de/politik/videos/er-hatte-sport-und-geschi...

You're mistaken. There's no censoring going on at all. Höcke is free to say whatever he wants in public. He even gets more publicity and reach than most people. However, freedom of speech doesn't mean that statements are without consequence. He already collected a warning for voicing extreme right tendencies earlier (before the AFD even existed) and well, now there's consequences. He's a history teacher and fringe right wing people are just the kind of history teachers that are unfit for the job. (fringe left-wing nutcases as well).

You are wrong. Censoring [1] is exactly what I said, "the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds". He is being threatened to lose his job, this is suppression. You don't have to agree with him but one should be careful with 'fringe right wing' claims and who is or is not fit for a job. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censoring

> You are wrong.

Just because you have a different opinion does not make yours right nor does it make mine wrong. I'll reiterate for you why I don't see any censorship here.

Bernd Höcke is "verbeamteter" Teacher. Beamte in germany are a special kind of state employees that get many benefits (1) but in return give up some liberties (2) and as part of their oath of office they commit themselves to a neutral political view in public and a very strict adherence to the constitution. All kind of extreme political opinion voiced in public are off limits for them - left or right. It's a contract that Bernd Höcke willingly and freely entered without coercion. He violated that rule in 2006 and was warned. He now violated it again. He basically violated his employment contract and for that he's terminated. He's still free to voice his opinion. No censorship here.

(1) can't be fired unless they commit a grave offense, get their health insurance and pension funded by the government etc. (2) also the right to strike, etc

sorry, he leads a party that openly called for shooting children at the border. He's fringe (or I hope so, because if he isn't, I need to emigrate)

> he leads a party that openly called for shooting children at the border.

My understanding is that

1) he is not leading the party, he is one of the speakers for the party in the local (state) assembly. And I understand he is actually repeatedly clashing with the actual AfD leadership.

2) any comments about "shooting children" or even generally changing rules of engagement regarding firearms are not, as far as I know, an AfD party position, as the party leader responds in [0]

3) I understood the comments about using firearms were for a context where authorities are under a violent attack when performing their duties. Specifically, did they mention children? I didn't think so, but I could be mistaken.

I don't need to like what the "fringe" says, but I wouldn't like to make it bigger than it is. Because precisely this kind of exaggeration is what is undermining the credibility of legitimate criticism of AfD (the most devastating kind being, "hey, what would you really do instead?" because that is a question that is very hard to answer.) Its supporters see the opponents as just twisting the truth.

(I'm not experiencing this in Germany, but there are very similar discussions going on here in the Nordic countries: enormous straw men constructions are built all the time around criticism of immigration policies, and people are really quite fed up with that. If you keep repeating to people that they are racists, they may eventually start to believe you. In Sweden, the political consensus to "exclude the extreme right fringe from politics" seems to be resulting in the "extreme right fringe" now having the second largest electoral support of all parties [1], and continuing to grow. Once they go near 50 % it's going to be hard to talk about "fringe".)

[0] http://www.dw.com/en/german-right-leaning-afd-leader-calls-f... [1] http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article22117739.ab

> Specifically, did they mention children? I didn't think so, but I could be mistaken.

you are mistaken.

can you translate this phrase? google translate produces "life-affirming African propagation type", which doesn't have any clear meaning...

The intended and implied meaning "the African race has more sex and reproduces faster"

HN doesn't disappoint ;-) knew already at writing time that this will deplete karma. (Nevermind, I have enough :-)

Nice term... who gets to define what counts. I remember a recent UK failing to protect children incident that shows the term itself is worthless to be used as any part of official government law.

What is the expected outcome of "being monitored"? If a new WWIII starts that means you'll be disappeared? In the mean time - what impact will this have on you?

I am just wondering how governments make intelligence "actionable".

Right now its mostly about “divide and conquer”. They inject moles into political groups which will then actively push for violence and extremism which in turn causes a split of the group. Another effect is that people that are active in opposition politics are always questioning whether their comrades are on the states payroll (“V-Mann”). The goals here are to 1) weaken opposition, and 2) provide plausible reason for more sate security (e.g. Verfassungsschutz).

(Historically, the Verfassungsschutz was founded after WW2 and its goal was to persecute communists. It was headed by hardcore Nazis for more than 30 years. Even the Americans called it a “phony” institution, since its name translates to “Constitution Protectors”.)

There are rumors that big parts of the Neo-Nazi scene is funded by the Verfassungsschutz. They funded and instrumented the NSU assassinations and the Oktoberfest bombing. That's only what we know of today, go figure.

If there was a fascist regime change in Germany, yes, I would expect a lot of people to be disappeared.

Impact on me personally, right now? How would you feel if there was a military black-ops agency tapping you?

In the past they used it to infect the laptop of a potentially drug trafficking medical doctor.

Of course it's unclear what the secret police is up to. This is mainly for the federal police and customs police.

> I doubt they have any professional Linux programmers working for them. Working for the State also means earning only a fraction of what you can earn in the free market.

Fortunately for them there is enough of commercial companies already that sell high-quality spyware to any government that able to pay for it.

Those companies also lack professional programmers. Actually, such companies sell for extremely expensive software programmed by students or consultants. The CCC disassembled the trojan and found out that they've used simple string manipulations to split Win32-APIs. For example OpenFile was split into "Open" and "File" etc.

In today's world we can assume that the number of programmers with deep knowledge of systems is only going to dwindle

I shudder to think of code written by interns

But why would they split 'Open' and 'File'?

Obfuscation.

It is also a usual trick to avoid detection by "heuristic" antivirus software (even in legit software).

The software was reportedly developed in-house with only a backup purchased from FinFisher.

This is so delusional and easily refuted.

It doesn't matter that it isn't perfect as long as it works. Let's assume, this one example of finfisher's (IIRC) tools was used on a lesser infraction, I don' remember specifics. Why burn a good traffic encryption that the CCC would go to analyze? The use oftools that will cost more if a simpler, even faulty tool will still beat the target, is also debateable. And why are there capable programmers at the NSA, but none could be in the BSI or BND. We even know they use tools from the NSA, so where's the difference?

Consider the debacle Stuxnet caused when there were presumably some very capable developers working on it.

Some potential outcomes of malware, poorly written or not: it spreads to other machines, it exposes information publicly which harms many third parties, it is co opted and repurposed by other criminals.

Maybe they currently don't have capable programmers but I've definitely known programmers from Germany very capable of doing such. Whether they can hire / find them or not is another thing entirely. Indeed the issue with creating a massive backdoor into everyone's system is how insecure a backdoor can and will always be, if the wrong person exploits it you now have an entire country as a botnet?

It may sound exaggerated but when I think about it, every interaction with german government sponsored software I had, has been rather terrible. Admittedly, it weren't that many occassions, but in comparison enterprise software generally felt like progressive and forward thinking as hell.

I think you have a very valid point here. Still, their intentions are worrying.

I don't buy the whole "real programmers would never make spyware." Who do you think made Stuxnet?

There are many companies willing to produce this type of software. As such the ability of the developers employed by the German government isn't an impediment to them doing something like this.

I'd say the thing to fear then is the fact that these "sucky" programmers have the power of state mandate. They should be feared in that incompetence is backed by absolute power.

They could do some scary stuff then... or at least they can fuck things up to such an effect that should be worrisome.

"I do not fear the State..."

That's a nice sentiment and while I hope you're correct it's not really good enough in any country. This state is Germany and it has two of the poster children for state terror in the last 100 years. The Stasi and well, there are times when Godwin's really doesn't apply. National Socialists happened and we can't pretend they didn't.

Neither of these two examples did the state start out the way it became.

I thought even Windows was more secure by default these days. Is there reason to think the German government can actually install trojans remotely, especially if you decline any offer to click on interesting emails?

Learning from Prism in US, I think it's highly possible. Remember the state also has control over ISPs and internet access. They can inject binary into files you download. It is very unlikely that you operate in an air-gapped computer. I've been learning some reverse engineering lately and the possibilities for injecting malicious code seem endless. If such a practice happens, people will have to live in paranoia.

Am I the only one who has no issue with these kinds of things? As long as they're treated like a regular wiretap, and only used on a crime suspect with a lawful warrant, what's the actual problem with this?

Because by taking complete control of a suspects computer, with a software that's essentially a version of backorifice, you're mudding up all the evidence you might have found. A wiretap is completely passive. Sure one might fake that data as well, but in it's nature it's different from taking control of the whole computer, I would say.

Perhaps. But no-knock search warrants are also legal. The police can break into your house and put cameras or microphones in it with a warrant. Even though the process of breaking-in does affect the evidence a little, or even opens the possibility of a cop planting drugs or something, it's generally still accepted in court.

This is basically the same thing as using malware for surveillance. I'd argue the malware is even less invasive.

Digital evidence is IMO a different matter than physical evidence. The threshold for implanting fake digital evidence is very low. You need fewer people, you can cover your traces easily... To break-in and install cameras you need to find a suitable time where the suspect is away for a long time. And you can't always break-in to the house and change things, you won't be permitted. The monitoring of the use of these trojans is the most important problem. With a trojan horse you have access to the computer 24/7 and you can do whatever you want. Of course you could argue that police could also plant fake physical evidence, but that's a lot harder to do and you need more people. (more witnesses) There is a thin line seperating a state of law from a police state.

It's true that it is probably easier to get away with planting fake digital evidence than fake physical evidence. But, I mean, there has to be some trust in law enforcement. If law enforcement does this on a regular basis - and the US police have much more in the past, especially against certain minority groups - the entire system collapses.

So until there's evidence of German law enforcement planting fake evidence, I still see no issue with this.

you should be afraid of This state, when the Germans decide to be complete idiots, they don't hold back.

someone needs to show up at their parliament or whatever they government with, in a nazi uniform, salute the bench, and start yapping about computer security in your best hitter voice.