 All right. Let's go to the next topic, the police laws. I would say from what I've read so far, soon your nose is not fitting for me. You should go to jail. We had this time. I remember it. When I was young, there was this wall that came down and it kind of looked like that behind that wall. I don't know if I want to go back to that. That's why I'm super excited why Marie Brackling and Constanze Kurz, both journalists from netspolitik.org, are going to talk about the police laws of Germany due tonight. Big round of applause for the two of them. Well, thank you, Mirko. We're thinking if we should switch to French and do this in French, but I think we're going to continue in German. We are happy and looking forward and we're super interested in all of you showing up. Most of you that are German who are sitting here are affected. We would like to talk what is in these police laws, what are the most debated ones and the most questionable things that are going to be implemented. We want to talk about the protests and the way that it's supposed to be for proper talk on this. We have a few demands at the end that hopefully overlap with your wishes after the talk. Hopefully we'll find some coming around. We do find the development quite concerning that we saw over the past year. Why do we want to talk about this? There was a few things. We had a few points of touch with this. We wrote about these things. You can read those articles on netspolitik.org. That's not just the two of us, but also other members from the editorial staff. We were invited as experts in different German counties. There was different teams of the CCC that sent out written expert statements. We want to talk a little bit about how the process of that is as well. That was important to us. We want to start now with the question of protests. We would like to start with the positive and then move forward to the more and more mean measurements. I think we had a bit of luck this year because in Bavaria, as we know, there was a county election that led to protests being a little bit more widespread. As you can see, we were quite surprised how many protests actually showed up for the demonstration and that the politicians are reacting to all these protests and this massive protest is showing up. They had to react. This is obviously not the first police law in the federal state of Hesse. There was already one before. But the protests that were recognized beyond the county state, not just in Bavaria, and they were quite big and I do think that the county election, the electoral vote was definitely helped. There was obviously different posters that were quite amusing. The protest was quite big. The largest protest Bavaria had seen in years. There was one day in Munich where 40,000 people took it to the street. In Berlin dimensions, you know, but in Bavaria, these are quite unheard of and I would like to say and we had a few allies that were quite surprising. I mean, it was a very, it wasn't just a big protest. It was a quite diverse protest. That was very mentionable within Bavaria. It was all parties except for the CSU. It was unions that took part in this. Even the police unions let out critical statements, which is quite uncommon, especially Jörg Radek, who is part of the head of the police union. That was quite surprising. There was other protests that joined down the line that were quite foreign and strange to me. I have very little to do with the football scene and the soccer scene. There was very well organized soccer clubs that joined the protest also on the street, not just in the stadium, especially in Hannover and Lower Saxony. It was quite surprised by they had the same sure as they could sing quite well. The only maybe disadvantage is only males. But it actually proved to be quite striking and they were quite vocal. I mean, obviously, they're quite affected. She made a word game on the word of punchline that I couldn't really translate into English on the spot. The beautiful thing was that all of this was so positive and so peaceful and everybody was kind of waiting for an escalation to take place. So let's go back to Bavaria, because I'd like to go back to how politicians reacted to these large protests taking place. We have an original representatives, Joachim Herrmann, the Minister of the Interior in Bavaria that explained to us in the past, I mean, maybe the title of the slide is quite telling why people are taking it to the streets. Lügenpropaganda is lie propaganda. I'm going to try this again. Can we hear anything? I have the voice on. It should be working. I'm trying to turn up the volume. It's just an idea. I just thought it's not working. I'm going to try to do this. All right. But you can see there's like a thing. Still no sound from stage. Could I get a little hint? Because we tested this and the plug for the audio is plugged in. And again, I don't know if it's running. I have another idea. I'm just going to try it here. There's now a bunch of yelled advice from the audience. The technician is informed. Help is coming. Also just the title of the slide is one of those famous German compound nouns that is very notoriously difficult to translate. In the evening we only do this as an extra entertainment aspect to us presenting at this point of the night. We're going to go back so that you can hear what the important minister, the minister of good morning and were you surprised how many people took to the streets against your law? Oh, yes, of course. It was quite impressive number and it was more than we're expected to show up and you have to take this seriously. I am beyond all baffled that they kind of took jumped on this bandwagon of lie propaganda and were led astray. Well, what we can see obviously the reasons for the protests were the lie propaganda. And I mean, we have to say add here that on netspolitik.org we actually reported on this and it was quite upset by what he said in that interview. And I actually wrote two debunk articles about what he said in the interview, but he never got back to me on that. I mean, most of you know the final results in Bavaria. Before the elections, you didn't have to come to consensus with the coalition. So Marie found a really good title that the law, the police law in Bavaria is in this extent is not seen since 1945, basically the change in the law and this kind of widening of the law and like in any other county in Germany, that was not to this extent. I would want to talk about now what are the most and especially judiciary like measurements and the most extensive ones. We don't want to talk about everything. We want to talk the ones that are being disputed right now. And I mean, the central point and everybody's read about this is the person, the endangerer. So as a non lawyer and a non judiciary person, you can leave this aside kind of, but you have to look at the thought and the idea that's behind this, the idea of the endangerer that we have people, that we have people that themselves haven't done anything yet. They haven't committed any crime. They're not even shortly before the actual crime, but I have a person where they have two assumptions, one that they want to do and commit a crime and that they're capable of doing and committing this crime. And the when and where of these actual crime is completely unknown to me. And this person, I would like to, I would like to, I have like this, so that this measurements that I can apply to them now. So there's, I have a suspicion there is things such as surveillance, finding out more about this person and Bavaria was the very first county to do so, to take measurements that are actually quite invasive, things such as electronic anchor brace that's, it's basically like continuously locating somebody's and having all times like locate, localizing device. I mean, at this point, I don't even know what that person is going to do and where they're going to do it. And now they're continuously controlling somebody's location. And there's a lot of lawyers who actually said, well, how am I supposed to help prevent something if I don't even know where something's going to happen? Like when are you going to, how are you going to justify taking somebody into custody? For example, I think there's two things that we have to distinguish like in the sense in this case, the sense of this ankle bracelet, this electronic monitoring. Like for example, if you're out on, if you're, if you're let out of jail early and you're an early release, that's completely different. This is potential in danger is like potential threats. And the case, like the judiciary case that we have in this context, like our common sense, like what's coming and facing us now is what's threatening is a threat that hasn't even materialized yet. So you have to separate these two things. And when it comes to electronic ankle monitoring, we were writing about all sorts of experts that were releasing statements. And we're looking at these cases. These cases where there was actual attacks. And there was a text by people who were wearing these ankle bracelets. So actually the practicality of this practice is something that you have to really question. And I mean, obviously, there was also technical problems that they did. They didn't even have they don't even have proper laws on how this data is protected. Like this data that's collected, how is that actually securely stored. So there was a lot of stuff that was done wrong on a technical level of this, like the fact that somebody who is not materializing to be an actual threat, but you're tracking and localizing them constantly is quite disturbing. We brought a few examples. We want to want to refer to things that we've said in the past, like you can publicly find these available either on ccc or at that'spolitik.org. Most committees of the interior are usually quoting experts and there's statements that basically trace back to refer back to constitutional law. We always have to remember that we're not talking about people who actually made themselves conspicuous of committing a crime. We're not talking about people who are an actual threat. They have to be stopped in the act of committing a crime. Yet these people are being robbed from their freedom for quite some time. So people who are basically labeled as a potential threat. Like we're kind of moving in this thing called preventive custody. That means that somebody who's committed nothing close to a crime but could potentially in the future be willing to commit a crime and is capable of doing so. We can take them into custody and this is the most drastic measurement that a state has. To this day, this was something that was usually between two to four days in most counties. But it was in a very long period of time and now when we're talking about the novelization of the new police law, we're talking two weeks, four weeks in Bavaria, even three months. These are completely new dimensions. Like a little anecdote maybe from Northern Westphalia. I was an expert on a committee there where the CDU and the SPD were having a debate on whether or not that person should be allowed to have a lawyer if you're put into custody for a month. And the SPD was definitely demanding that for somebody being put in that position. But the counter-argument in this case maybe plausible was, but why would that be necessary? Why would it be necessary to give them a lawyer? We're not actually accusing them of any crime. So there's two things that we can maybe also say beforehand. The police law in Northern Westphalia, they allow for a lawyer to be consulted and that actually got stated in the mid-December. And the SPD in the opposition in the country actually took this as something to be like their shiny little star that they pushed for that to be put into the law, which is kind of a common right you should be having. In the beginning there was some things that we want to talk about also about patterns of police law. Within the coalition treaty contract like from the current German government, from the black-black-red coalition, this pattern sample or model police law, there's a lot of differences. So within the coalition contract there's apparently different zones of police law. And that's something that you can read up on, but it's always claimed. We say we have different zones of right and law. I can quote from the coalition contract. We do not want different zones of different levels of security. And this is why we need to aim for a model of the police law. And if you look at it more closely and then you look at the aspect that's more preventive, just lock somebody up like that, those are kind of the most significant differences on the different county levels. But we want to talk about this a bit further. There's another thought that we have also from Northern Resfilia, from Jörg Ennochat, who was in the first hearing of the Interior Committee, and he introduces an interesting thought. There's a lot of interesting thoughts from experts in these committees actually on how to do this better and how to execute this better. So Jörg Ennochat says, what happens if afterwards it is proven that this person was not even a potential threat based on rights of reimbursement and how you could, this could be something that you could use as preventive measurements from taking people into custody too easily and too lightly. So if you take somebody into custody, so compensation, so basically introduce better measurements of compensation for when you throw somebody into this kind of custody. So compensation, so basically introduce better measurements of compensation for when you throw somebody into this kind of custody without actually having grounds for them being a potential threat. So it's obviously in a surprise to no one that there's another measurement that is newly added to the law. There's different forms of the state's Trojan horse which we captured in the wild in this image. I don't really want to talk about this too extensively because I think the CCC is working on this for the past 10 years. There's two actual verdicts on this from Karlsruhe and in this discussion in the center, in the statements of the CCC you can find this all the time, the changed situation of the IT security and the IT crisis of trust that we're having right now. And I mean this is obviously something that we can, it's mainly due to the Snowden years. So the commercial state Trojans are obviously actually blackmailing and extorting the government. And I also would like to remind of the legislative period before this one, the state Trojan horse was something that was written into the criminal procedural code. So we have something that was, there's constitutional complaints that were filed for of them for this. And there's four counties now that obviously are not paying attention to any of this and it's kind of like this discussion never happened. And it's the scenes that happen in Northern Westphalia and Lower Saxony through the two of us. And you have politicians in these county parliaments and they've never heard of this debate. And they, literally their debate is literally fed by American television shows. And I mean I have to tell this one story, this one scene and it's just quite telling of the level of knowledge. And it's a scene of with Dura Shura Kapf. She's part of the SPD party in Lower Saxony. And she was making suggestions that weren't, I was making suggestions that weren't new because I wanted to see the reaction of parliamentarians. So I was trying to introduce, I was saying that maybe some machines should be excluded from this state Trojan Horace. Maybe like medical machines should be saved and excluded. And on a judiciary level you should be thinking about how in a law you could shape this and form this. How can you prevent health and life being threatened from this? And I kind of talked about Wanna Cry. And I mean obviously there was quite a few hospitals that were affected by this. And there was no limitations on what a system is. And then Dura Shura Kapf looked at me and she said well yes Frau Quartz, Mrs. Quartz, well what are we going to do? Well if we do this then the criminals can take exactly these machines. Well think about what you just said, like what she just said there. A, her thought process is with the state Trojan Horace you can hack all machines. It's kind of like a cheap movie from Hollywood. Like she has no idea what can German governments and government offices actually hack and do. And the idea that they can hack everything. And if we limit this from a law level that would also be the technical limitation. And I was telling her about different operating systems and for what? Like so for what operating systems this Trojan Horace was supposed to be hacking for. So what's in the official description of the people who are then writing the code base for this. And I mean and also what these governmental institutions can pay for basically. And I mean like in the heads of the people of the deciders. I mean I'm just talking about this one politician. I'm talking about the concept and like the politicians and like their idea of this and their understanding of this and the limitations of these. Like for ten years we've been talking what hacking is in a state context. And then we get to this stage and you think that it's like black magic. And Naya, I mean you guys know. All right. So I think we should leave the state Trojan Horace aside because there's lots to talk about this but we don't really want to do it right now. We've tried to kind of limit the points of argument here. And there were none. I mean maybe we should at this point mention. Yeah no we don't have time. We have to go to the next aspect. We have other technical measurements that are quite disputed. For example the general surveillance. We can't really do it in the classic sense anymore. We have to talk about it in the sense where we have a biometric measurement aspect to this. I mean there's something that they don't really ever distinguish. They blend the two together which are qualitatively quite different. But I mean we had a bit of help. I mean video surveillance per se is something that's researched quite well. And especially in lower Saxony there was results from these studies that were showing that the argumentative line for video surveillance. But I mean honestly without actually having two degrees I can know and come to the conclusion that a camera is not going to jump between a perpetrator and its victim. I think a lot of experts that empirically researched this were usually talking about what video surveillance actually does. And so that was not really our focal point. But what became very clear and what became very clear to me is that in this discussion that with all these police laws they call it intelligent video surveillance. What they mean is anomaly detection or biological and biometrical measurement and detection. I mean this is obviously in this aspect that we have to watch out for. There's a little point in brackets here. Generally all of this is always done under the protection against terrorism. So there's a couple of position party members who actually also. This was right after the attack in Strasbourg with weapons. And okay so the Haberdreuil is the minister of the interior and he stands up and he's like you're not really allowed to say this. But he directly links the passing of this law to this attack. And then he then jumps to pedophile stalkers and all sorts of other criminals. And I mean this is usually the point of arguments that I use to push these laws through. And I mean our point was usually always that the argumentative line was always the current state of threat that we're living in. And to be honest if we're looking at this this is not something that can be proven out of facts in reality. Continuously all the German federal countries are passing new police laws and there was and there was within the constitutional court there was a change in the law and that affected all the different police laws. And so I mean there's no proof in the circumstances of threat and the level of threat that's risen or that there's more of it now in the current time. And I mean like the usual claim is that these terroristic attacks could be prevented if only our police laws were a bit more strict and were capable to be more elaborate in what they can do and who they can surveil. OK we're going to try to play another audio here. Bear with us. Let's see. I'm going to try this again. Matthias Becker is also a student of law. I do believe that the area that we have so that a lot of actions that are done before the actual terroristic attack we have quite extensive laws so we should maybe critically evaluate our current actions based on the current laws that we have in place and we should maybe look at and evaluate how they're being put in place before introducing new ones. So it's not quite clear to me how many of you remember this was in June but that's also when the first aspects of the parliamentary inquiries into Anis Amri and his attack on the Berlin Christmas market two years ago. All of these things were coming out around the same time and it was very clear at the time that the police actually would have had the ability and the right to look into a lot of these things but they simply didn't use these insights and they didn't actually use the rights that they had to capture an actual endangerer quote unquote despite all these undercover cops being around him. So you can't just give all these agencies more rights because with the existing rights that they have they could have already prevented that but I think we should make very clear that we also haven't heard from anyone except for current policemen. We haven't found a single lawyer or constitutional lawyer who actually thought that was a good idea and I think this is something that you can also look into and that you can research yourself. I also don't think there was a single federal state parliament where they actually had proper empirics for the state's the state trojan. How many devices are we talking about here? How often can you actually not access data? So if they put facts on the table that would be very helpful but it just didn't happen at all basically. If you look at if you look at the way they essentially justified expanding police rights. So but now let's go to media's race. We have a visual presentation for you so you can get an overview of what this looks like and so you can also understand what it looks like in your own federal state. So we want to explain some of these differences between the federal states even if not all of them. So the lighter ones so white yellowish ones are the federal states which you all know from geography lessons anyway which have new police laws either as a draft law or have already decided on those. We have two city states and Bremen and Berlin because both of those states in Bremen they had a police law draft but there was a political fight about it but then it was withdrawn so the police law wasn't changed. So this was also partially due to this was due to successful protests as well. And you can imagine the parties in Bremen present that in slightly different ways but oh well. And yeah in Berlin this is crossed out well Berlin so far there is no official public draft and we don't know what's in there yet but there have been some public statements from the government which basically said in a straightforward way that they want to be Berlin wants to be a model state. It wants to create the first liberal police law and they have grand plans and we're very curious to see what happens there. As Berlin is as you know red red green has a red red green government and the only other red red green federal state through India which for some reason is not on here but it's the only other federal state that has openly said that it's not going to rewrite its police law and it's not interested in including new measures and rights for new measures in its in its law. So this is not chronologically what we're doing here but we just want to emphasize some of these differences between the different federal states and also kind of go back to what the state of affairs is right now. So we already discussed authoritarian and so this law was decided on and voted through on December 12th with the support of the SPD the German Social Democrats with an interesting justification. So the Social Democrats said that we've been part of the government for decades now and now these conservatives are in here with now but we consider ourselves stately politicians. So for five decades we've been writing police law here so now we're also going to be part of this. So they're basically saying that at least they're being part of the process. The AFD the far German far right party didn't vote an abstain from the voting and the entire debate about this they literally the AFD literally just talked about refugees. Their justification was if you don't have refugees then you don't have criminal criminals. So well you don't have crime. One other thing Northarmist failure received a lot of praise for having two hearings about this which was very unusual because usually you have a draft from government then you have one hearing with experts and then you vote on it or you basically usually voted through in parliament maybe with slight amendments but Northarmist failure actually received so much criticism. People really like completely ripped us apart that they really didn't dare to push it through and that they had another hearing after making several changes. That was really interesting and I also checked because this is really important to me. So I was in one of these hearings and I was invited to one of into the second hearing. There were 10 people in total and four of those were policemen. So that means there were five lawyers myself and four policemen and imagine that because when I tell people about this I really think it's amazing in some way. It's as if they're basically union representatives as if you were talking about a new hospital law and you had four members of a nurses union who are talking to you but that doesn't happen in any other area where the people who were affected by a law are involved in such an active way and also are involved in such an disproportionate way. In lower Saxony it was actually slightly worse but we were in hearings on different days and it was 50-50 so basically there were three days with experts and half of these experts were active policemen of different parts of the state and of course they have an interest in getting more rights and then expanding the number of things that they can do legally but just the sheer number in that they turned up in is somewhat strange and also let's not forget that that's also a black and yellow coalition in North and Westphalia currently. Of course the Liberals, the German Liberal Democrats also tried to influence this somewhat and through the changes that were like they really bragged about these changes they were ultimately made to this law before it was actually voted through in North and Westphalia. Okay so we're gonna move did we forget anything? Yes we forgot something in North and Westphalia some of you may have heard about this and there was this Hambacher forced anomaly so this is a very German thing you can Google it we don't have enough time to explain it I'm afraid. Remember this because we actually have a we have a video clip later about this but remember that these activists in this forest who wanted to protect this forest had acid on their fingernails or put acid on their fingers that's something that's going to be very important later on but because you need to do something about that if you need to do because you need to do something not only against extremists but also against activists activists so lower Saxony so lower Saxony had hearings the law has not been decided on yet because something very interesting happened and the lower Saxony in Parliament has something like a scientific service so there's several lawyers who essentially employed by Parliament to give advice to parliamentarians and so they've looked at what the specific committee for issues of the interior and they were asked to turn that into a law and they reaction was basically oh my god and they basically said it and they published a very notable document which is publicly accessible where they basically took this apart bit by bit and I think one of the things that I said earlier about this electronic ankle bracelets is something that they said where they were saying it is absolutely not comprehensible for us what you want to like what which goal you're trying to achieve with these bracelets if you have barely not even an inkling what's going to happen there we didn't know about this concept before but we didn't encounter this in any other federal state parliament so this scientific service is considered very proper and is very well respected but in this case at least they're holding up the parliamentary process and there definitely were parliamentarians that were not very happy about this thanks we just want to mention Reina Wendt who was invited as an expert in one of these hearings on the same day as you so obviously they're not embarrassed by anything anymore and again German you can Google him he's part of a police union and he said some very stupid things in the past so van Wittenberg they in December 2017 they actually changed some things about their police law and there were some things in there including the state Trojan the ankle bracelets and now they have a new draft law but we don't yet know how far that's gonna go but we think that the discussion has changed quite a bit because of these debates and the protests and because of these hearings so we'll see so ah Hessen you can say something about that ah well Hessen I think that was the first case where there was an actual debate because Hessen is an anomaly which is why the CCC was very much involved in this and we have a dedicated website which we used to try to help the people who were voting working answered so what they were trying to do is they were trying to give the state Trojan to a secret service but now they've definitely included significant new rights for police and secret services in their new police law which was voted through in June 2018 and there are several statements by experts and also by a CCC which you can read on our website all of these were very very critical but nevertheless they voted this law through but without the Trojan for secret services then we have this black state so well now it's not black it's black black now since Bavaria voted they have a coalition now but in May 2018 when they pushed this through it was an absolute majority by the CSU the Christian Conservative Party even though we're running low on time there are two things I think that are important about Bavaria here because they were special in several ways I think one thing is the preventative custody which really is way beyond anything that anyone else wanted to do because in Bavaria they said two weeks four weeks that isn't enough if we think someone is dangerous and we don't even know what we're accusing them of we should just put them in custody forever so they have this endless custody which they created which means you can hold someone for three months if you just suspect them of something and then you can extend it for three months several times of course every time a judge needs to look at it but there's no maximum duration of this preventive custody included in the law so we're waiting for the first case of endless custody and the second case I think yeah this is also well Bavaria so they expanded DNA analysis you may have heard that Bavaria is the only state so far that has introduced this idea that if you find DNA traces you want to look into those you want to investigate those so they want to use those to draw conclusions about the skin color of that person and about the geographic origin a bio geographic origin of that person this led to a lot of protests is a very good website which I would highly recommend by scientists in Freiburg who are geneticists and biologists which is called WIDNA.de where they collected a lot of information about this topic and scientifically well founded materials so yeah that's so much worse than this debate about the state Trojan so there's a this website is very scientific but it's very readable so if you want to learn something about this in DNA analysis then I would highly recommend that as well. Okay next there's Mecklenrhoferpermann they don't have a state Trojan as part of their law but at least they have the electronic ankle bracelet and an ability to essentially prevent people from being in the state legally and they had all have had all of that since April 2018 and we're expecting further additions. Brandenburg which is a red red government so social democrats in the left so they have a law they're gonna have the first hearing in one week so in early January 2019 but they're ready really strong protests so this is probably going to be voted on in spring and that's supposed to include a state Trojan but well not yet and then there's Saxony you may have already seen there are lots of signs for one of the demonstrations of course again there's a group of initiatives that's working on this and they're working against us this has been voted through without the Trojan but it has no no so the government has voted it through but the parliament hasn't voted it through yet but it also includes significantly expanded rights for secret services and the police but if you want to have a look at the what this group is doing here in Saxony then you can have a look at all these posters that are around here and now we have what we promised you we brought you an example we already mentioned this earlier oh we wanted to mention one more thing we mentioned the expansion of basically criminal law in Germany and in one way this these revisions of police laws are a response to this expansion of criminal law on the on the national level so maybe not in its essence but generally in its details and they were not even waiting for what the constitutional court might decide in these questions and now we have this very sympathetic minister of the interior of Northarmist failure and let's remember what we said in the beginning the thing that's usually argued is that we have high rates of crime and that we have international terrorism as a threat and that's why we need these laws these very drastic really intrusions into people's basic rights and this is the day when Northarmist failure voted on this law and decided on it and this is the commentary commentary from their minister of the interior and actually that parliament does look like that we weren't quite sure but yeah that's what that looks like so let's try picture and audio so surveilling telecommunications and messengers such as what's up that's really important for example we do this to determine people's identity because 12 hours are not enough if someone has essentially used asset to get rid of their fingerprints so we can't just let someone go because because we can't determine who someone is that's not that's not a rule of law what's happening right now so that's something that should make every everyone feel insecure anyone who's somewhat sensible should know that there are hundreds of people who are checked and for half of them you can't even tell who they are because you just don't have the time that's impossible it's impossible it's impossible to tell to determine the identity of 500 people in in 12 hours because they just refuse to and then you have to let them go but it doesn't make any sense if someone so just to clarify this it's not the evil state if someone is arrested that is absolutely up to you so if that person names their name and their address they immediately free right so obviously that's not what's written in the law but just so you have an idea of the level of the quality of the debate that's happening in these parliaments I was shocked really so two weeks before that I was in one of those hearings and that very parliament and I said that I was very concerned that if you include these measures once that they will be used for other types of people later on and all parties were like ah no no no you this is all of this is rule of law and then have a role is coming in two weeks later and he says he wants that use use for everyone for pedophiles who ligands activists activists well this is about these environmental activists that we mentioned earlier there's a second example here that was less than a week later so the same minister of the interior let someone take a picture and a video of him with this new terror vehicle so we couldn't we couldn't keep ourselves from we couldn't keep ourselves from including this nice comment because someone asked someone someone asked on Twitter whether it also had nice embroideries on the seats someone who doesn't understand that so there was a scandal in Saxony where police vehicles had basically right wing embroideries on parts of their seats and so then here's also have a drill again so he was also asked whether he expected that they might be constitutional complaints and so let's listen to what he said so might you be worried that someone might sue you in front of the constitutional court with this law well of course with these laws someone is always gonna sue and that's why it also it's also smart to write this law in a way that you have the best possible conditions with the constitutional judge that you have the best possible conditions so someone always sues and then as if it was completely normal for you to implement in unconstitutional laws that's an interesting way of presenting the facts and of seeing the world I've said this often in the previous 10 years whenever I discuss ever since I ever since I discuss have been discussing this state Trojan things with politicians and they often say that the and I've often been telling them the first person who breached the constitution was the parliament in these cases and if they didn't constantly implement unconstitutional laws they wouldn't have problems with the constitutional court all the time I am so upset again and we have three minutes left but now we're coming to our core demands hoping that you're all going to join us in these demands and they're going to shout them loudly at the next demonstrations so considering that they're not very concise well and we'll stick to this and I think we have the better arguments we have even more better arguments just because they are called technical devices does that not mean that we are now suddenly agreeing to state Trojans state Trojans are essentially one way of introducing insecurity into people's devices and we continue to stand for this idea that the state should not be hacking people's devices and I continue to hope that we can actually implement this secondly maybe a bit difficult not very catchy to shout at a demonstration which is because it's quite lawyer-y and there's this term about there's this judicial term about how it's something is highly personal but we're saying that this is not just about privacy but it's about your the most intimate sphere so this is a German legal term and I personally think that this very personal this intimate sphere was barely discussed so this is not just privacy this is really absolutely protected regardless of what you suspect someone of and what you're accusing someone of this is part this is something in German law that you cannot interfere with and I think this is not discussed enough so all of these is getting more endure difficult in terms of shouting these things so you need to find alternatives that actually protect people's basic rights there are alternatives are obviously but people are not even talking about these anymore and whenever an expert tries to bring these things up as alternatives to actually hacking someone's device it's people are basically barely listened to that nobody really listens to them and then lastly if there's the thing I think that's really depressing is that there are so many lawyers and there are so many lawyers who are invited as experts and one important thing is the one question is also how can you implement the measures you have in a way that's legal rather than just including technical alternatives and then one thing we also want to get away from is this feeling based and field spaced security policy if there is no evidence that this actually provides for the security and safety then we're not going to implement it full stop and that's also really what's being said right now and if you feel that something is going to make you safer then we also can't do anything about that and you shouldn't be implementing that unless you have these empirics good security policies are not just repressive I think this is also very important for this is not just the question of security politics is not just about what you write into a police law right if you there things that are insecure there are many different ways there are many different ways of making things more secure so not every social problem has a technical solution but you need to go into very different areas to find these solutions and then we have this demand that I think that we don't need to justify in many great ways but we shouldn't have surveillance without justifications even in a technical world this is not something that should have a future such as biometric data other location data movement data these are not things that you should simply simply record and lastly we really want to know how much this costs everything do you remember what this was previously oh I see very few hands uh oh well we need to do that very quickly the total the total surveillance bill is something that was mentioned in one constitutional court decision which basically said the question is how many different kinds of surveillance can be done simultaneously and this is something you can use to counter this argument that it is actually possible to go dark so basically it is looking at how many parts of everyone's lives are already being surveilled but in different ways and in general this whole idea of having these endangers is something that we really need to get away from this whole logic of this whole notion and we just shouldn't tolerate this anymore this idea of having preventative um preventive uh laws and measures so this entire idea that has been implemented for a while that has been manifesting itself for for quite a while now and in danger is a term that's been gotten quite popular and that's being discussed and used a lot and so it's basically based on this idea that there are people who are intrinsically dangerous that's completely counter to the rule of law you can't assume that some person is by nature dangerous because then of course if you think that then you're going to get to the conclusion that you have to put this person behind bars into custody for all of eternity and that's something that you really really need to counter and I think important things like the indivisible demonstrations stuff like that we can't let them we can't let people segregate us but for every single measure we also need to imagine that we could be affected by that and not just these endangers so before we're being thrown off stage um so we're also just going to briefly mention brandenburg because they included explosives in their draft so they were supposed they are supposed to use be used very carefully such as hand grenades so of course you're not supposed to kill anyone or prevent them from fleeing with these weapons but if it should happen then the exceptions are kids and pregnant people and throwing explosives into groups of people and then i'm really like what where did they take a wrong term turn they really can't they can't use these war weapons right for police so well thanks so much for your attention um and just so twitter doesn't explode after this um with comments like oh my scooter was stolen there was um an illegal wild scooter park on this side here so all of that was moved to this side where the legal parking area is so now please another round of loud applause for this nice talk um thanks from us as well um as always please you can you can give us feedback on twitter at