> While searching the premises of the board members in Augsburg, Jena, Dresden, and Berlin, the police – on their own accord –decided to extend the search to premises also used by members of the CCC: the OpenLab in Augsburg. Here the officers were confronted with hackers in their natural habitat: substances to clean and etch circuit boards as well as hair bleach. After interpreting the contents of a whiteboard as a bomb making manual, the officers then went on to accuse random people present at the hackerspace of plotting a bombing attack. Three people were arrested on the spot and the hackerspace was subsequently searched without a court order and without any witnesses.
So working on circuit boards is being construed as plotting a bombing attack? Really?
If not to make it intelligible, then perhaps to engage in one-up-man-ship? But since feeding the ego tends to be a zero sum game, at what cost? Perhaps the original poster has one of a whole host of conditions which make it difficult to reproduce spellings as per a standard. Perhaps the original poster learned the language primarily through hearing, rather than reading. Who knows?
So what did your one-up-man-ship gain us, the community? Nothing of value (since good spelling is merely indicative of background, rather than capability), but perhaps something of harm, since you might have hurt an otherwise valuable contributor who may not have control over how they spell.
In short, your comment is a net detriment to the community.
Someone did something probably illegal and put a @riseup mail in as the contact info. Police looked at riseup (Not-in-Germany) and found some people (In-Germany) forwarding donation money to riseup. Police and state prosecutor somehow conclude that these donations might be relevant and seizes them (and the usual bycatch).
Now my commentary: On the face of it this seems overblown and rather out of proportion. To me it looks like some AG was looking for an excuse to raid these left-wing organizations. It doesn't have to be that way, but I have a hard time imagining how some leftist hateblog I've never heard of before justifies such a large scale raid of (presumably) at best tangentially related entities. It's a somewhat different story of course if it turns out that the backers of the blog have actually been raided as well as part of these raids.
As my favourite social critic Marcuse wrote, when the democratic process is blocked, apparently undemocratic means may be required to unblock it.
"Krawalltouristen" specifically is a term that came up for the first time, I think, with the G20 protests last year. Hooligans might not be the most accurate translation; it essentially means people who travel somewhere specifically to participate in riots/vandalism/looting under a political pretence.
If you know a more fitting description for a blog like this, please do comment.
As for naming such Blogs, „Riot Travel Agency“ seems fitting... ;)
Do you consider the New York Times a “hateblog” for their endorsement of political violence against the former government of Iraq?
No, that's war mongering/yellow journalism by a mass media company, far worse and more destructive than a "hate blog"
I don't know if somebody is going to say that this is edgy triple-layer sarcasm, but its pretty clear to me that at least some readers of the site will take this as an endorsement of potentially lethal violence against political opponents.
If you throw rocks at political opponents, you don't think they're just misguided and their policies unfortunate, you hate their guts.
EDIT: The paragraph is explicitly about breaking windows, and say to be careful not to risk hitting people. So it's not about violence against individual people, but it's still violence, and illegal. And you don't break people's windows if you merely disagree with them.
Leftist doesn't mean liberal, peaceful etc.
It means leaning to the left, afaik that usually means towards socialism and communism.
For those who are either old enough or have read enough history there are plenty of examples of left leaning haters.
See for example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction
Edit: added quote from parent post.
I'd also like to point out that I'm not defending the police (or anyone else) just trying to correct a misunderstanding before it spreads even further.
Just recently this party introduced a new police law in Bavaria which is considered to be the toughest in Germany, making it considerably more easy for Police to read your mail, block your bank account, to surveil you etc.
While this is not directly related to the CCC raid, the raid was ordered by the Munich Attorney General. For Germans, it is not surprising that such an act comes from the Bavarian justice system.
I've seen a general sentiment in HN and other tech circles over the years that Germany is much less of a police state than the U.S. or the UK, for instance, and generally has greater respect for privacy and other rights many of us care about. Do you feel that perception is still broadly accurate?
I can't think of a relevant legal discrepancy that may exist between the laws for ordering searches (there are very tight rules set by the Federal Constitutional Court) but I presume the judge has to take into account the laws where the search takes place. On the other hand my knowledge on criminal investigation law is very rusty.
I don't know how far you want to define "police state", but in general, SWATting won't be terribly successful here, the only police units with near-military equipment are special units like the GSG9, and while there's certainly racism, and also at least one probable murder (Oury Jalloh), our police doesn't regurlarly murder minorities.
If you limit it to surveillance etc., you will find better countries.
France, for instance, unfortunately seems to have moved quite a bit in that direction after the terrorist attacks of recent years. I've not heard of a similar trend in Germany, but it's always nice to hear an informed perspective from people who actually live there.
* Police special forces (SEK which are organized on the state level unlike GSG9 which are state police) have switched from blue to military-like green/brown uniforms (which have no tactical value, but that's another discussion).
* Police in e.g. Berlin are changing their fully automatic weapons by phasing out the 9mm MP-5 and replacing it with 5.56x45 G36 assault rifles for "anti-terror defense" purposes.
* More and more police units are equipped with armored wheeled tanks.
* Peaceful left-wing demonstrations in some states are regularly "secured" by special forces equipped with tactical equipment including assault rifles, a clear intimidation tactic. SEK units aren't even being trained to handle demos.
* Crime statistics are recorded in bizarre ways to artificially inflate anti-police violence, which in turn forms the basis for police unions to demand stricter laws. For example, any attack on a single police man is counted as an attack against their whole unit, and suddenly one victim becomes 10 victims in the statistics.
2. The MP-5 is just as "military" as the G36.
3. I doubt that. Yes, there are water throwers that are highly armored, but that's nothing new, nor bad.
4. That sounds just a little biased.
5. That sounds not true. Certainly you should post sources for that extraordinary claim.
What the grandparent meant, I'd think, is the difference in the round. H&K MP5 uses 9mm Luger, pistol ammunition with significantly lower energy, range and penetration than 5.56x45mm NATO. One of those is suitable for police work too, one is only suitable for military or hunting.
This matters in urban areas, in police work, in use by inexperienced shooters (pretty much any policeman except for specialized units by definition, unless they train in their spare time, which is… somewhat difficult in Germany).
5.56x45 absolutely is "military" and equipping 5.56x45 riffles to regular police units doing patrol duty in cities absolutely is "militarization".
> 3. I doubt that. Yes, there are water throwers that are highly armored, but that's nothing new, nor bad.
The emphasis of that statement was on "more". While such hardware is sometimes needed, and so are "militarized" police units, the scope is limited. If (I don't know, nor the scale of it; but neither seem you) more of such equipment is used, "militarization" certainly would seem appropriate term for it.
About the more technical legal question: I think – as some other commenter pointed out – the legal basis for the search should be the same. The searches themselves should be governed by the respective police law – in other states the police would be a little more restricted in how to handle the searches.
But now that some other german states took over the unconstitutional interpretation of federal law from Bavarian judges it became a state issue. There should be some oversight, when judges and police plot against constitutional rights.
Other experts travel warnings to Bavaria are for pregnant women, because they will have a hard time to find someone to deliver the baby. There's critical shortage.
Calling this a travel warning is simply wrong.
I find your attempt to inject party politics in this a diversion.
Just because the state government is well to the right and turning populist, it doesn't mean that the independent judiciary is just the same.
In practice, many entities which work even in judiciary are influenced by party politics.
The current 2nd mayor of Munich is from the CSU -- so the winds have changed. The CSU is (since the last election) much more important than before and it seems that the SPD is massively weakened in Munich. This is also the reason for throwing out Linux It systems of Munich.
Try to tell this a Bavarian pothead.
Call them what they are: a right-wing populist law-and-order party that is only active in the state of Bavaria, but terrorises the rest of Germany with their reactionary and regressive policies.
But the criminal offence is spot on:
Amusingly enough, they labeled it "mutmaßliches Modell einer Atombombe" (presumptive model of an atomic bomb) with the crime being "Herbeiführen einer Sprengstoffexplosion" (causing an explosion), but the relevant norm  explicitly excludes nuclear explosions.
var newUrl = details.url.replace('.m.', '.').replace('/m.', '/').replace('/mobile.', '/');
The crucial step is that they wanted to get ahold of Riseup, a mail provider (and hence, in their view, a commercial entity). Then they find those German people (whom they can get ahold of) who collect money for Riseup. I find it very likely that they just could not imagine someone collecting money for a commercial entity without being financially and personally intertwined with said entity.
For example, if you see someone collecting money for Coca-Cola, wouldn't you think that they're paid by Coca-Cola, no matter how much they insisted they're "just fans"?
(Note: This argument only concerns the original warrant. What the policemen did at the hackerspachackerspace was just preposterous.)
Worse, if you suspect that somebody's role is related to fund raising then it very unlikely that that person has detailed operational information.
To the extent that the police is aware that riseup is a US-based organisation, then any kind of forced cooperation the German police would get from the people outside the US would unlikely to have any effect, because a US-based organisation is likely to only respond to requests from a US police organisation.
So this kind of action can only be explained by criminal carelessness or a goal to intimidate.
I hope the victims fight back and get adequate compensation.
Raids can also be at witnesses' places if it is necessary to get the evidence.
Otherwise I'd simply stow the bodies in my friends' cellars.
Authorities can search and seize property of any civilian without a warrant if said civilian is just a witness? If yes, then who decides and how is it decided that someone is a witness?
If for example I happen to stand in front of my window and witness a crime being committed in the street, they could search my house without any consent or warrant?
The long and short of it is that there was a warrant, the question is whether the warrant itself was issued on a legitimate basis.
That is probably not an instance, where a search warrant would be reasonable. But if for example you denounce someone for embezzlement, and during the investigation it comes to light that you have profited from this act of embezzlement yourself, a search warrant would be given (against you) despite of you beeing a witness.
>> they could search my house without any consent or warrant?
They do need a warrant, handed out by a judge. The idea is, that a judge gets a request for a warrant and decides if it is reasonable or not. The problem is, that the judiciary is so overwrought, that almost any judge will decide in favor of a warrant, even if its not reasonable.
I am almost certain, that this warrant would not be reasonable if a judge with time had thought about what actually happens here.
So a judge who makes mistakes like this, should be kicked out. Of course, that will never happen. I'm not sure if there is even a reasonable procedure to file a complaint and get such a judge kicked out.
> The warrant lists specific items. This was not respected.
Assuming that fact, was it legal?
But that discussion is pretty useless, since our version of the exclusionary rule is more toothless than an American could possibly imagine. Basically, everything found can be used in court.
So I limited my reply to the general question asked.
The CCC is a bit like that. And in this raid they searched offices that where also used by CCC. And they do have the resources and willingness to fight this.
Who? The CCC or Zwiebelfreunde?
Can you give me a link?
Edit: Oh, you are the one with the flagged comment in this thread.
Which perfectly illustrates my point. I haven't said anything offensive. People are treating extremism differently depending on which side they're on and that's stupid. HN is very far left, so this opinion is unpopular.
Did you forget that this board is literally run by a venture capital firm? It's not exactly about to rise up and seize the institutions of the capitalist hegemony.
Then you start a new comment with "These same people are calling others Nazi"
Who? When? Where?
The CCC and most of its members - and they don't exactly hide it. The CCC founder was on the far left and that's exactly the course it took.
They have talks by Antifa activists. They have combined CCC and Antifa logos hanging in their centers: https://twitter.com/DandelionInaBox/status/90147462783431884...
German Antifa are about as extremist as it gets and they are rightly watched by the state police. They threaten and attack citizens and police for political reasons and do about everything else that's considered extremist.
tl;dr: Left extremism is openly accepted by the CCC.
Now you can downvote this post too, but these are verifiable facts.
And who did CCC say is a Nazi just for sharing non-radical ideas with conservative parties?
Don't bother replying. I'll repost this, because I want the CCC's political affliction to be more visible. It's important to understand the context of their post.
I'm really surprised that many people seem to not know the CCC is explicitly politically aligned.
Also, at least in Europe, many of the hacklabs/hackerspaces from the 80s and 90s used to be politically aligned. The less aligned hackerspaces we see today are a recent phenomenon.
Why did the police raid them?
Why should I care?
And more importantly, why does HN care so much, apparently? :)
What do you think? I reddit.
Unfortunately a common sentiment in germany is that left and right extremism is equally pernicious, or even worse people tend to be more annoyed by the left burning luxury cars than they are with nazis burning refugees.
Become? The CCC has always been a political organization.