Access Barrier Act

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Basic data
Title: Law to make access to child pornographic content more difficult in communication networks
Short title: Access Barrier Act
Abbreviation: ZugErschwG
Type: Federal law
Scope: Federal Republic of Germany
Legal matter: Commercial administrative law
References : 772-5
Issued on: February 17, 2010
( Federal Law Gazette I p. 78 )
Entry into force on: February 23, 2010
Expiry: December 29, 2011
(Art. 1 G of December 22, 2011,
Federal Law Gazette I p. 2958 )
GESTA : C083
Please note the note on the applicable legal version.

The law to make it difficult to access child pornographic content in communication networks (in short, the Access Difficulty Act - ZugErschwG ) should make it more difficult in Germany to access websites that contain pornographic depictions of sexual acts by and against children ( child pornography ).

The law, which came into force in 2010, was de facto not applied and was repealed early in December 2011.

Content of the law

Draft of a stop sign that should be displayed when accessing blocked websites with child pornographic content

It was prescribed that the German Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) kept a blacklist . Domains , IP addresses and URLs of websites that contain or link child pornography according to Section 184b of the German Criminal Code should be indexed on this list . This should be done if their deletion cannot be obtained or cannot be obtained within a reasonable time. Content providers and hosts of the incriminated websites should be notified about the indexing. Access providers with more than 10,000 customers should receive the blacklist and be legally obliged to block access to the fonts indexed in the blacklist at least at the DNS level, to redirect it to a "stop sign" designed by the BKA and to send the BKA anonymous access statistics to transfer.

Prosecution solely for accessing a blocked website or domain was prohibited under Section 5 ZugErschwG.

The BKA should document the reasons for the blocking by actual child pornography and one from the Federal Data Protection Commissioner appointed expert panel - consisting of five people, with the majority qualified judge quarterly - must have randomly be controlled.

History of the law

Initiator Ziercke

On August 27, 2008, the President of the German Federal Criminal Police Office, Jörg Ziercke , announced at a press conference on organized crime in the presence of child protection and children's rights organizations that he would like to initiate a discussion on a legal basis to oblige providers to block Internet access.

Advocate von der Leyen

This discussion was initiated by Family Minister Ursula von der Leyen in November 2008 when preparing the III. World Congress against the Sexual Exploitation of Children and Adolescents by several international organizations in Rio de Janeiro . In their deliberations on how to proceed in Europe, the congress members recommended the development of a code of conduct and common guidelines for Internet service providers, the establishment of national databases, close cooperation with Interpol and the establishment of specialized investigation units.

In January 2009 Ursula von der Leyen announced that she wanted to have child pornographic content filtered in cooperation with the Federal Criminal Police Office and the major German Internet providers. Similar blacklists already existed in several other countries. The Federal Criminal Police Office should create a list of the pages to be filtered and transmit it to the provider, who should then ensure the blocking.

Contract with providers as a preliminary stage

As a first step, on April 17, 2009 , the Federal Government at the time concluded contracts with five major Internet providers in the Federal Government's Press and Information Office to “make access to child pornographic content more difficult on the Internet”. They were limited to the end of 2010. The undersigned companies had a three-month notice period. The Federal Criminal Police Office should be responsible for any pages that may have been unjustifiably blocked.

Internet offers should be blocked by the providers according to a daily updated list from the Federal Criminal Police Office. The publication of the contract text in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act was refused by the Federal Criminal Police Office. This was justified with the resulting threat to public safety and the protection of the copyrights of the Internet providers concerned.

The voluntary contract signatories were Deutsche Telekom , Vodafone / Arcor , Telefónica Germany , Kabel Deutschland and HanseNet / Alice . Other providers such as 1 & 1 initially rejected the extra-legal regulation because of legal concerns. The Internet provider Manitu also boycotted the contracts and announced that it would bring an action to the Federal Constitutional Court with reference to Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany .

The implementation of the fully automatic blocking procedure was delayed in April by probably six months due to "technical problems".

Bill

In order to cover other providers and to guarantee the providers legal security, the promised law was also introduced, which was also requested by 326 signatories in an online petition at the German Bundestag . With the law to combat child pornography in communication networks , the major providers in Germany should be obliged to make it more difficult to access pages with criminal content specified by the Federal Criminal Police Office. A corresponding bill was approved by the Federal Cabinet on April 22, 2009.

For the law to combat child pornography in communication networks, parts of the Telemedia Act and the Telecommunications Act should be changed.

The Internet providers were obliged by law to keep the blacklists created by the Federal Criminal Police Office secret. According to a subsequent amendment to the draft law under Justice Minister Brigitte Zypries , attempts to access these pages should also be logged at the same time and used for law enforcement purposes.

Opinion polls

In order to support the federal government's proposed legislation, Deutsche Kinderhilfe commissioned a survey from Infratest dimap in May 2009 , from which it emerged that around 92 percent of respondents would be in favor of blocking websites.

However, the nature of the question was criticized as a manipulative PR campaign by the Union-related children's aid. The abuse victims against Internet locks association thereupon also commissioned a survey on the same topic and from the same polling institute, although the questions were worded differently. She asked whether barring access alone was sufficient or whether criminal prosecution and deletion would be required as an alternative. As a result of this second survey, more than 90 percent of the participants spoke out against the sole blocking of websites and instead advocated consistent deletion of the websites and criminal prosecution of the operator.

According to Richard Hilmer, the managing director of the opinion research institute Infratest dimap, the two surveys do not contradict each other. The first survey wanted to determine whether there was approval of the population for the draft law, and the second survey whether the citizens were in favor of more far-reaching alternatives. In his opinion, this does not mean that there is no majority in favor of blocking Internet sites, but only that the majority of the population welcomes any measure against child pornography.

Attitude of the coalition partner SPD

The then Federal Minister of Justice, Brigitte Zypries , had argued before the introduction of § 5 ZugErschwG with the wrong argument that the attempt to acquire child pornography was already a criminal offense, and that the data should be recorded and passed on to the Federal Criminal Police Office. In contrast, the online advisory board of the SPD had spoken out against the law shortly before the vote.

Youth pornography

Some politicians, such as Lower Saxony's Minister of the Interior, Uwe Schünemann , have already expressly called for the prohibitions in the Access Difficulty Act to be extended to youth pornography .

Decision and non-implementation

On June 18, 2009, the Bundestag passed the Access Restriction Act by roll call . There were one or three dissenting votes from the government factions CDU / CSU and SPD; the parliamentary groups of the FDP and the Left unanimously voted against the draft without abstaining. About two thirds of the Greens voted against the draft. In the political reporting, however, it was attentively registered that with 15 MPs about 30% of the Greens behaved against the vote of the group and abstained because on the one hand "child pornography [...] one of the most disgusting forms of crime" and on the other hand criticism constitutional and technical deficiencies in the law, according to the abstainers around Priska Hinz and Katrin Göring-Eckardt, among others, in their personal statement. The long-time spokesman for the SPD parliamentary group, Jörg Tauss , went over to the PIRATES in protest against his party's voting behavior and thus became their first MP for a short time .

In October 2009, Wolfgang Schäuble admitted technical errors in the Access Difficulty Act and stated that the law was also created in the final spurt of the election campaign ( 2009 Bundestag election ) to depose the CDU against other parties. As part of the coalition negotiations in 2009, the Union and FDP decided to suspend the Internet bans for the time being and instead to strive for the deletion of child porn.

The German Federal President Horst Koehler refused to sign under the law. Before deciding whether or not to sign the law, he asked the federal government for "additional information".

In mid-December 2009, the SPD declared that it would now campaign against Internet blocking and repeal the law on access restrictions. With the argument "network blocking do not help and distract from the actual problems", the SPD declared a change of opinion and joined the arguments of the blocking opponents. Internet blocks are “ineffective, imprecise and easy to bypass. They make no contribution to the fight against child pornography and create an infrastructure that many - rightly - view with concern. "The policy of the former Family Minister Ursula von der Leyen was" populist "and the Federal Criminal Police Office's blocking contracts with the Internet - Providers "obviously illegal".

On February 17, 2010, Köhler signed the law because there were "no radical constitutional concerns" that would have prevented him from executing it. On February 22nd, the law was published in the Federal Law Gazette. It came into force on February 23, 2010. The Federal was then the Federal Ministry of the Interior by a decree instructed, but not to create blacklists.

Constitutional complaint

On February 22, 2011, four network activists filed a constitutional complaint against the law. On March 29, 2011, the Federal Constitutional Court declared the complaint to be inadmissible due to insufficient reasons.

Repeal of the law

The ZugErschwG was provisionally limited to the end of 2012, but in 2010 the Left Party introduced a bill for early repeal.

On April 5, 2011, at the instigation of the FDP, the repeal of the law was resolved in the coalition committee of the federal government. Six weeks later, on May 25, 2011, the Merkel II cabinet enacted a law with which the already suspended blocking law should be finally repealed. In future, the pages should be deleted instead of blocked . On December 1, 2011, the German Bundestag passed the law on the lifting of blocking regulations in the fight against child pornography in communication networks . The Repeal Act was promulgated on December 28, 2011. With effect from December 29, 2011, the Access Difficulty Act was repealed.

Aspects of the law

Restriction of blacklists to large providers

In order to avoid publicly announcing the blacklist as much as possible, access to it should be restricted. Following this logic, only large providers were obliged to set up the locks. More precisely, these were communication networks with more than 10,000 participants. In the justification for the draft it was heard that all state institutions such as universities or libraries should be exempted from the closings for this very reason.

Quite apart from these exceptions, most of the blocking affects the World Wide Web . Other channels for information and data exchange such as e-mail , peer-to-peer networks and Usenet could have been affected as collateral damage in individual cases.

Handling of retrieval data

The originally planned law also provided for attempted calls to blocked domains to be logged by the providers and passed on to the responsible law enforcement authorities upon request (Section 8a, Paragraph 5). In addition to this data collection, Section 8a (6) of the draft law "Making it more difficult to access child pornography in communication networks" stipulated that "Service providers should send the Federal Criminal Police Office an anonymous list of the number of access attempts per hour to the telemedia offers listed in the blacklist".

Judicial review

An independent review of the blacklists by judges, control commissions or similar bodies was not provided for in the first draft law. She was later assigned to the Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information, who did not want to take on this task at all.

Opposition to the proposed law

On April 22, 2009, Franziska Heine submitted an online petition against the blocking law to the German Bundestag. It could be signed from May 4th, 2009. Interested citizens were able to speak out against the legislative project until June 16, 2009. In the text of the petition, the main petitioner clearly committed to the fight against abuse of children, but at the same time presented the blocking of websites as an unsuitable means in the fight against child pornography and therefore called on the Bundestag to reject the planned law. The procedure is opaque and uncontrollable, and it also jeopardizes the fundamental right to freedom of information (GG Art. 5). As early as May 8, 2009, the 50,000 signatories needed to publicly deliberate the petition and hear the petitioner were found for the petition. On May 28, the threshold of 100,000 signatories was exceeded and on June 16, the last day of signing, the number rose to 134,014. This made the petition the most-signed online petition in German history to date. In order to relieve the petition service of the Bundestag and still give interested parties an insight into the further development of the petition, numerous ad hoc web services have been created, for example signatories broken down by region.

Another reaction to the proposed law was the founding of the working group against Internet blocking and censorship , which criticized Internet blocking not as an effective measure to combat child abuse, but rather symbolic politics and tried to coordinate the work of the blocking opponents. In his view, an action by the working group against child abuse documented on the Internet based on the launched European blacklists was able to prove that the deactivation of websites that are still accessible despite the blocking , provided they contained this documentation, is also possible abroad without problems and no longer than the transmission of a blacklist takes time. The pirate party Germany, which was still little known at the time, increased its popularity significantly through its protest against the law and, among other things, achieved its first successes in elections as a result.

Criticism from the specialist press, lawyers, victims of abuse, the opposition, civil rights activists, associations and organizations such as the Chaos Computer Club saw the project as a populist campaign tactic with dubious arguments that it does not fight child pornography, but that it creates an instrument for general censorship on the Internet . Critics and experts also complain about the contradicting and manipulative information policy of the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs and the Federal Government and the insinuation of the then Federal Minister of Economics, Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg , that they support the distribution of child pornographic material. They saw their fears that the government ignored their concerns and that politicians with little knowledge would reflexively make decisions about network policy with the Guttenbergs' statement confirms them.

In the first reading in the Bundestag was doubted whether the federal government the necessary competence to legislate are entitled, as media law and police security after the competence under the Basic Law between federal and state the countries responsible and therefore you would be entitled legislation. In the context of the protection of minors, there were legal regulations in state law and also corresponding joint institutions of the states that already had the legal authority to order the deletion of websites in Germany. Since there were no legal powers to delete websites outside of Germany, as in the general framework of the fight against Internet crime , international cooperation was sought.

In the opinion of the critics, the draft law encroached on four fundamental rights :

  1. Telecommunications secrecy
  2. Right to informational self-determination
  3. Freedom of information
  4. Freedom of occupation (of the provider).

The scientific services of the German Bundestag had classified the project as constitutionally questionable: “A blocking order, which for example provides for the blocking of IP addresses, is only lawful if it is also proportionate. This is the case [...] if the measure is suitable, necessary and appropriate to achieve the goal. ”-“ If you consider the great potential for abuse that exists with central technical filter systems and the importance of freedom of communication for a free democracy in mind, this danger must be viewed as particularly serious. "

Demonstration against the Internet blocking against child pornography on April 17, 2009 in front of the press and visitor center of the Federal Government in Berlin

Civil rights activists particularly criticized the infrastructure created for this purpose, which enables unpleasant content to be checked, the “real-time monitoring” under consideration and the lack of earmarking. Above all, the non-public blacklist of the Federal Criminal Police Office was viewed with skepticism, which was supposed to be drawn up by unspecified police officers without legal or committee control. The intention to block pages that link to a public blacklist ( e.g. WikiLeaks ) would have enabled the Federal Criminal Police Office to prevent its activities from being checked.

The newly founded association MOGiS e. V. (AbrauchsOpfer gegen InternetSperren) saw abuse victims being instrumentalized in a campaign through which abuse was not combated, but merely ignored. The association Despite Allem e. V. , who tries to help remove the taboo from society on the subject of "sexual violence, sexual abuse" and supports women who experienced sexual violence in their childhood, described the blocking of websites as "protection against perpetrators" in an open letter. Similar reasoning was followed by critics who raised concerns that upstream DNS locks would have prevented the effective prosecution of perpetrators.

Opponents of the original draft law saw the danger that internet users would unknowingly be redirected to blocked websites by retrieving harmless domain names or the widespread short URLs and thus reported as suspects if they had not taken precautions to ensure anonymity on the internet . In their view, prefetching , the automatic pre-loading of content by the browser, was also a problem in this regard.

The project was also criticized in a document by the Federal Association for Information Technology, Telecommunications and New Media , in which it declared its willingness to use technical mechanisms to make access to the corresponding content on the World Wide Web more difficult on a legally secure basis and called for changes to the draft law. "With concern and profound skepticism, we therefore evaluate the more far-reaching claims and desires that have already arisen in the past and are now taking place in the course of the [sic!] Discussion on child pornography. Consistently thought through to the end, these would push the Internet Service Providers (ISP; i.e. all service providers who offer access to the data network) into a supervisory role that is contrary to the neutral nature of the service provided and thus also contrary to fundamental legal assessments ”.

As another specialist society, the Society for Computer Science turned against the project.

The seriousness of the procedure was also controversial, since according to a statistical analysis of the filter lists from Switzerland , Denmark , Finland and Sweden, over 96 percent of the pages blocked there were hosted in western countries such as Australia , Canada , the Netherlands and the USA . At the beginning of June 2009, the BKA also confirmed to the SPD parliamentary group that child pornographic content was preferentially stored in states “with an intensively developed internet infrastructure”, especially in the USA, Germany, the Netherlands and Canada. These could have been effectively removed by means of police cooperation and the operators of those sites with child pornographic content could have been prosecuted. Instead of taking effective action against documented crimes, the DNS block would have only made access slightly more difficult. In addition, the conditions with which Ursula von der Leyen campaigned for the blocking were dubious, as the allegedly multi-million dollar child pornography industry actually did not exist, which is why the benefits of the blocking, and thus the proportionality with regard to the constitutional right to free information , was questioned.

An evaluation of the BKA statistics for January 2011 showed that a total of 143 pages of messages were sent abroad, 81% of the pages being in three countries (33% USA, 33% Russia, 15% Canada). After one week, 68% of the content was deleted, after two weeks and reminders to the foreign authorities, 93% and after four weeks 99%. In the previously known BKA evaluations, only the significantly lower erasure successes were indicated, which were achieved within a “verification interval” of one week.

Experience outside of Germany

Bans against child pornography on the Internet have been in place for several years, including in Norway , Denmark , Sweden , Finland , the Netherlands , Italy , Great Britain , Switzerland , New Zealand , South Korea , Canada and Taiwan . In Italy and Finland this is done on a legal basis; In the Scandinavian countries, binding agreements have been made with the access providers; in the USA there is a voluntary commitment.

In the US state of Pennsylvania , the Internet Child Pornography Law was declared unconstitutional in September 2004 because, among other things, the considerable collateral damage would violate the 1st amendment to the constitution .

According to the justification for the draft law of the Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology, tens of thousands of accesses to child pornography would have been prevented every day. Around 15,000 to 18,000 hits a day in Norway and around 50,000 a day in Sweden. However, Michael Rotert , the chairman of the board of the Association of the German Internet Industry , points out: "The majority of these clicks that are counted there are the many search engines". The head of the police investigation group against child pornography and child abuse in Stockholm, Björn Sellström, also states: "Unfortunately, our blocking measures do not help to reduce the production of web pornography".

The police in Norway receives an anonymized log file from the providers involved via the blocked pages about those cases in which the stop page was displayed. This is helpful to get on the track of other web domains that link to child pornography. According to the Federal Association for Information Technology, Telecommunication and New Media, “a conclusion of these figures is that corresponding content is apparently also consumed away from closed rooms in newsgroups and away from peer-to-peer systems, i.e. child pornographic content in addition to a hard core of criminally organized consumers can also be accessed by 'occasional consumers' ”. Part of the retrievals recorded in this way would result from users unintentionally reaching pages with child pornography content when searching for simple pornography or completely different content. According to information from the Federal Association, this is one reason why Scandinavia deliberately refrains from using the information for law enforcement purposes.

The blacklists of Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Italy, Australia and Thailand were published by WikiLeaks despite strict secrecy . This shows that numerous sites are also censored on which no child pornographic content is offered. According to Jyrki Kasvi , a member of the Green Bund party in the Finnish parliament, pages with political material have also been blocked in Finland, for example. A police central office in Scandinavia assumes, according to the Federal Criminal Police Office, that the blacklists did not reach the public through a breach of confidentiality, but were reconstructed through reverse generation (see also the Streisand effect ).

See also

literature

  • Heliosch, Alexandra: Constitutional requirements for blocking measures for child pornographic content on the Internet. With special consideration of the Access Difficulty Act. Göttinger Schriften zur Internetforschung - Volume 10, Göttingen 2012, Göttinger Universitätsverlag ISBN 978-3-86395-057-6 online version (PDF; 2.5 MB)

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Subsecretaria de Promoção dos Direitos da Criança e do Adolescente: Main recommendations resulting from the WCIII ( Memento of January 8, 2010 in the Internet Archive ). (Word document; 570 kB)
  2. ↑ Stop sign against child porn on the web , Stern from April 17, 2009
  3. ^ Federal Criminal Police Office: Application for inspection of files according to the Freedom of Information Act . May 7, 2009 (PDF; 157 kB)
  4. ↑ Internet providers agree to block websites ( memento from April 19, 2009 in the Internet Archive ), Tagesschau from April 17, 2009
  5. ↑ Data retention & censorship , manitu.de
  6. ↑ focus.de: Crime - surfing ban for child porn sites is delayed . April 26, 2009.
  7. ^ German Bundestag: Petition: Child and Youth Welfare - Child Pornography on the Internet of March 17, 2009
  8. ↑ heise online: Federal cabinet adopts draft law on child porn bans , April 22, 2009.
  9. ↑ a b c d Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology : Draft of the law to combat child pornography in communication networks ( Memento of May 21, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) - Planned changes to the Telecommunications and Telemedia Act . (PDF; 36 kB)
  10. ↑ Punishment required for attempted access to child porn sites April 24, 2009
  11. ↑ Survey on behalf of Deutsche Kinderhilfe
  12. ↑ Frankfurter Rundschau : Internet locks - struggle for the sovereignty of opinion ( Memento from May 22, 2009 in the Internet Archive )
  13. ↑ Survey on behalf of victims of abuse against Internet locks (MOGIS)
  14. ↑ More than 90 percent against blocking on the Internet - article in Die Zeit , May 20, 2009
  15. ↑ Kai Biermann : "Every step against child pornography is welcomed". Zeit-Online May 27, 2009. [1]
  16. ↑ http://www.netzpolitik.org/2009/online-beirat-der-spd-gegen-zensurgesetz/
  17. ↑ Heise.de, June 12, 2009: Federal Council has "considerable reservations" about child pornography bans , online at heise.de
  18. ↑ Bundestag.de: results of the voting by name ( memento of May 16, 2011 in the Internet Archive ), accessed on March 17, 2010 (PDF; 183 kB)
  19. ↑ Internet locks ( Memento from October 6, 2009 in the Internet Archive )
  20. ↑ Personal declaration according to § 31 GO-BT on the vote on the law to combat child pornography in communication networks ( Memento of February 22, 2014 in the Internet Archive )
  21. ^ Ole Reissmann: FDP victory in civil rights - stop sign for Zensursula , October 16, 2009, SPON .
  22. ↑ hda / dpa: Stop signs on the Internet - Schäuble admits errors in network blocking , October 10, 2009, online z. B. under SPON .
  23. ↑ AFP: Black-Yellow stops Internet blocking , October 16, 2009, online z. B. welt.de .
  24. ↑ Köhler refuses to sign the Internet blocking law . In: Spiegel Online , November 28, 2009.
  25. ^ Christiane Schulzki-Haddouti : SPD opposes Internet blocking law . In: c't magazin , December 12, 2009.
  26. ↑ Press release of the Federal President of February 17, 2010: Execution of the "Law to Combat Child Pornography in Communication Networks" ( Memento of February 20, 2010 in the Internet Archive )
  27. ↑ Märkische Allgemeine : Ministry of the Interior stops law on Internet blocking ( Memento from June 2, 2010 in the Internet Archive )
  28. ^ [2] Report on the constitutional complaint at Spiegel Online
  29. ↑ BVerfG, decision of March 29, 2011 , Az. 1 BvR 508/11, full text.
  30. ↑ Coalition tips internet blocks ( Memento from April 8, 2011 in the Internet Archive ) Report on the coalition committee at tagesschau.de
  31. ^ Federal government cancels blocking law against child pornography for a while online, May 25, 2011
  32. ^ Bundestag overturns internet blocks , Frankfurter Rundschau , December 1, 2011
  33. ↑ Christian Rath: Schaar does not want to control. In: taz.de. June 15, 2009, accessed February 11, 2016 .
  34. ↑ German Bundestag: Petition: Internet - No indexing and blocking of Internet pages from April 22, 2009 ( Memento from May 25, 2012 in the web archive archive.today ). Accessed May 4, 2009.
  35. ↑ 50,000 citizens against blocking websites ( Memento from May 9, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) Tagesschau from May 8, 2009
  36. ↑ Press release of the Bundestag, May 20, 2009: Public meeting of the Committee for Economics and Technology on May 27, 2009 11: 00-13: 30 ( Memento of July 23, 2009 in the Internet Archive )
  37. ^ Franziska Heine: The Face of the Internet Frankfurter Rundschau (online) from June 18, 2009
  38. ↑ Statistics on sejmwatch.info ( Memento from May 7, 2009 in the Internet Archive )
  39. ↑ This is currently the most successful ePetition. The record holder is still the handwritten petition signed by 969,891 petitioners to preserve the work-free Sunday from the year 2000. See: [3]
  40. ↑ an overview of numerous ad-hoc web services in the AK-Zensur-Wiki ( Memento from April 30, 2009 in the web archive archive.today )
  41. ↑ Dynamic evaluation of the votes for the petition against the indexing and blocking of websites
  42. ↑ ak-zensur.de: About the wrong way in the fight against child pornography
  43. ↑ AK censorship : delete instead of hide: it works! May 27, 2009.
  44. ↑ Greens and Pirates - The Buccaneers of the Void faz.net of November 24, 2011
  45. ↑ MOGIS (Abuse Victims Against Internet Locks)
  46. ^ Despite Allem eV: "Delete instead of lock" ( Memento from January 8, 2010 in the Internet Archive )
  47. ↑ Von der Leyen's dubious argumentation Die Zeit, May 13, 2009
  48. ^ NDR television: Zapp : Protests against Internet blockages ( Memento from August 15, 2009 in the Internet Archive ). May 27, 2009 (Flash video; 9:51 min.) (Accompanying text; the video is no longer available)
  49. ↑ Bettina Winsemann : Lies and contradictions - The official network blocking FAQs . Telepolis , June 8, 2009.
  50. ↑ taz.de: Blogosphere against “Guttenzwerg” . May 12, 2009.
  51. ^ KJM: Supervision of private broadcasting and telemedia
  52. ↑ Deutschlandfunk , Deutschlandradio Kultur: Bund Deutscher Kriminalbeamter calls for "Kripo 2.0" . June 4, 2009.
  53. ↑ Telemedicus: Netzsperren: The new draft and its legality . April 24, 2009.
  54. ↑ Scientific services of the German Bundestag: Blocking order against Internet providers ( Memento from February 19, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) January 27, 2009 (PDF; 285 kB)
  55. ↑ Lutz Donnerhacke: How do you know what you're doing? May 5, 2009
  56. ↑ AFP: SPD expert Wiefelspütz for the expansion of Internet blocking ( memento from January 24, 2013 in the web archive archive.today ). June 6, 2009.
  57. ↑ heise online: Child porn bans: Government is considering real-time monitoring of stop sign access . April 25, 2009
  58. ↑ a b c Disguise tactics - The arguments for child pornography bans run nowhere , c't 9/09
  59. ↑ gulli.de: Internet Blocking Act - draft constitutionally questionable , April 24, 2009
  60. ^ No omnipotence for the BKA Die Zeit from April 22, 2009
  61. ↑ MOGiS website
  62. ^ Victims of abuse fight against network blocking Die Zeit from April 16, 2009
  63. ↑ Despite everything e. V .: Open letter on the bill on Internet blocking ( Memento from May 20, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF; 155 kB)
  64. ↑ Law enforcement or internet blocking? Telepolis from May 18, 2009
  65. ↑ Modern Adventure: Prefetching & Link Shortening Network Policy of May 12, 2009
  66. ↑ a b c BITKOM statement ( Memento from July 9, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF; 186 kB)
  67. ↑ BITKOM - Sharp Kriktik am Kinderporno-Gesetz domain-recht.de, May 14, 2009
  68. ↑ Follow child pornography seriously instead of Internet bans ( memento of July 21, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) Gesellschaft für Informatik, press release of May 18, 2009
  69. ^ Frank Patalong: BKA filters the web , Spiegel Online , April 17, 2009
  70. ↑ Heise online : Web blocking: Child porn perpetrators prefer the USA and Germany as server locations
  71. ↑ Internet blocks for child porn ( memento from October 21, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) Süddeutsche Zeitung from April 15, 2009
  72. ↑ The Legend of the Child Porn Industry law blog dated March 25, 2009
  73. ↑ http://www.heute.de/ZDFheute/inhalt/16/0,3672,7558608,00.html (link not available)
  74. ↑ Own figures bring BKA in need of explanation Konstantin Notz, GrünDigital on March 18, 2011
  75. ↑ BKA figures prove the success of “delete instead of lock” By Jörg-Olaf Schäfers on: March 18, 2011
  76. ^ Statement by the BKA on the 4th meeting of the New Media subcommittee (PDF; 200 kB) on October 25, 2010
  77. ^ Pennsylvania child porn law causes' massive overblocking of sites , www.theregister.co.uk, Jan. 13, 2004
  78. ↑ Page no longer available , search in web archives: Blocking orders on the Internet , KJM, 2008@1@ 2Template: Dead Link / www.kjm-online.de
  79. ↑ Child pornography: Above all, symbolic value, Swedes satisfied with Internet blockades / banks should block payment channels ( memento of August 13, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) Märkische Allgemeine of March 27, 2009
  80. ↑ heise online: "Family Minister: Providers take part in blocking child porn" . Retrieved May 16, 2009
  81. ↑ House search of the owner of the domain wikileaks.de. (News article) heise online, March 25, 2009, accessed on March 28, 2009 .
  82. ↑ Strike against Internet activists for allegedly aiding and abetting the distribution of child pornography. (News article) Spiegel Online, March 28, 2009, accessed March 28, 2009 .
  83. ↑ Guttenberg angered online petitioners against Internet censorship ZDNet.de from May 11, 2009
  84. ↑ Child porn site filter inadequate - blocks do not prevent abuse taz dated February 9, 2009
  85. ↑ http://www.bundestag.de/bundestag/ausschuesse18/a22/a22_nm/oeffigte_Sitzungen/a22_uanm_to24/Stellunghaben/Maurer.pdf (link not available)