191
Berlin: Police can secretly enter homes for state trojan installation (www.heise.de)
submitted 9 months ago by to c/privacy@lemmy.ml
31 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/54414754

In order to monitor encrypted communication, investigators will in future, according to the Senate draft and the Änderungen der Abgeordneten, not only be allowed to hack IT systems but also to secretly enter suspects' apartments.

If remote installation of the spyware is technically not possible, paragraph 26 explicitly allows investigators to "secretly enter and search premises" in order to gain access to IT systems. In fact, Berlin is thus legalizing – as Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania did before – state intrusion into private apartments in order to physically install Trojans, for example via USB stick.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 16 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (6 children)

In the US it's always been possible to do this with a proper warrant, though avoiding detection if the person expects something could be difficult. Security cameras and so on.

I'm not too bothered by this given how much work it is. They will only do it if there's a criminal case or some other significant interest to work from. It's not a tool of warrantless mass surveillance even though it's been done abusively/illegally from time to time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 22 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    They will only do it if there's a criminal case or some other significant interest to work from.

    Significant interest has, just to name a few, lead to german SWAT storming the wrong appartment because somebody who used to live there called a politician a wiener on facebook. And also locking down entire main train stations for hours on account of some guy or at best a "super recognizer" saw what looked like the AI aged version of an RAF member. Or confiscating literally every electronic from someone because they used chalk spray on something (which is not vandalism as ruled by many judgements because it just washes off).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Think about what we did in Ireland in the 80s. It's no different, and it only worked marginally. Although that cpuld be because opsec was pretty good among the provisional IRA active cells.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago

    Idk how stuff was done in Ireland but there weren't so many computers then. It's probably easier to install audio bugs than conduct an "evil maid attack" (infosec term for surreptitiously messing with someone's computer, traditionally in the person's hotel room) if they have taken any precautions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Feeling like this is a gliding scale though. What's next, a surveillance state?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

    I think those are two different things. They might do 1000s of secret break-ins per year, maybe 10,000's. But probably not millions. OTOH, mass surveillance is used against just about everyone, i.e. billions. So the scale is different.

    Here in the US, I suspect secret break-ins are rare, because they are risky (armed occupants etc). So they do SWAT raids instead. Abusive and too often fatal, but not that secret.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    Yeah, it doesn't scale. Most of the surveillance (legal intercept, SINA hardware on ISP) and injection of government malware will be through the hostile network. People who run a tight ship will have a small attack surface.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    In theory a judge has to look through each surveillance act of the police in germoney, in 12 years not a single one got denied. Because its paperwork to defend civil rights but just nodding to whatever the officers say costs nothing

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago*

    I was under the impression that not only has this been the (German) law for decades, it used to be the only legal way of installing spyware and also exfiltrating data. But I can't be assed to look it up.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent