lix blog

Sehr geehrter Datenschutzbeauftragter

Heute schreibe ich Ihnen betreffend folgendem Anliegen:
Mir ist aufgefallen, dass im Innenraum der öffentlich zugänglichen
Herrentoilette des Theaters zum Käfigturm in Bern eine Video-Kamera
installiert ist. Ist dies rechtens? – Und falls nicht, ist dies mit
einer Anzeige bei der Statdpolizei Bern zu lösen?

Besten Dank für Ihren kurzen Rat.

Mit freundlichen Grüssen, Lx

Erste Antwort:

Sehr geehrter Herr F.

gerne leite ich Ihnen zuständigkeitshalber die unten stehende Anfrage weiter.

Freundliche Grüsse

B.
Datenschutzbeauftragter

Zweite Antwort:

Sehr geehrter Herr A.

Ich habe Ihre gestrige E-Mail an den Eidgenössischen Datenschutz- und Öffentlichkeitsbeauftragten (Edoeb) weitergeleitet. Da das Theater von einem privaten Betreiber geführt wird, sind wir nicht zuständig. Weitere Angaben und Informationen über den Edoeb können Sie dessen Homepage entnehmen: www.edoeb.admin.ch

Ich hoffe, Ihnen damit gedient zu haben.

Freundliche Grüsse

Fr. B., Mitarbeiterin
DATENSCHUTZAUFSICHTSSTELLE FÜR DIE STADT BERN

Sehr geehrter Herr A.

Wir beziehen uns auf Ihre unten stehende Anfrage betreffend eine Videoüberwachungsanalage im Theater Käfigturm Bern, welche uns zuständigkeitshalber weitergeleitet worden ist. Für Ihre Informationen und Ihr Interesse am Datenschutz danken wir Ihnen bestens und nehmen zu Ihrer Frage gerne wie folgt Stellung:

Grundsätzlich ist es erlaubt, im Privatbereich, z.B. zu Sicherheitszwecken, eine Videoüberwachungsanlage zu betreiben, sofern die datenschutzrechtlichen Bearbeitungsgrundsätze eingehalten werden. Was dies konkret bedeutet, kann in unserem Merkblatt „Videoüberwachung durch private Personen“ auf unserer Website nachgelesen werden. Zum vorliegenden Fall haben wir zudem folgende Bemerkungen:

Bei Videoüberwachungsanlagen auf Toiletten besteht die Gefahr, dass in die Intimsphäre der betroffenen Personen eingegriffen wird. Sollte beispielsweise in die Toilettenkabinen hinein gefilmt werden, wäre dies ein schwerwiegender Eingriff in die Persönlichkeitsrechte der betroffenen Personen, der sich kaum rechtfertigen lässt. Eine solche Videoüberwachung ist daher in der Regel widerrechtlich. Wird dagegen nur der Toilettenvorraum gefilmt, so greift dies weniger tief in die Persönlichkeitsrechte ein, und bei vorliegen eines berechtigten Sicherheitsinteressens am fraglichen Ort kann eine solche Massnahme gerechtfertigt sein.

Jede Videoüberwachungsanlage muss mittels gut sichtbarer Hinweisschilder für die Betroffenen kenntlich gemacht werden. Aus Ihren Ausführungen geht nicht klar hervor, ob dies beim Käfigturm berücksichtigt wurde. Ohne eine solche Kennzeichnung läge ein Verstoss gegen das Transparenzprinzip vor, was ebenfalls zu einer widerrechtlichen Verletzung der Persönlichkeit der Betroffenen führen kann.

Als von den Videokameras erfasste Person habe Sie das Recht, beim Betreiber der Anlage Auskunft über die Videoüberwachung zu verlangen. Sie finden Näheres hierzu auf unserer Website unter http://www.edoeb.admin.ch/dokumentation/00612/00653/00664/index.html?lang=de sowie speziell für Videoüberwachungen (inkl. Musterschreiben) unter http://www.edoeb.admin.ch/dokumentation/00503/00594/index.html?lang=de.

Der Gesetzgeber hat für den privatrechtlichen Bereich (d.h. Bearbeitungen von Personendaten durch Private) vorgesehen, dass die betroffene Person in erster Linie den zivilrechtlichen Weg beschreitet. Gelangen Sie aufgrund der mit dem Auskunftsgesuch erlangten Informationen zur Ansicht, durch die Videoüberwachung im Käfigturm widerrechtlich in Ihrer Persönlichkeit verletzt worden zu sein, können Sie beim für Ihren Wohnort zuständigen Zivilgericht oder beim Zivilgericht in Bern gestützt auf Art. 15 des Bundesgesetzes über den Datenschutz vom 19. Juni 1992 (DSG; SR 235.1) Zivilklage einreichen. Wurden Sie in Ihrer Intimsphäre verletzt, kommt auch eine Strafanzeige (Art. 179quater StGB) in Betracht. Wir empfehlen Ihnen jedoch, sich vor dem Einleiten rechtlicher Schritte anwaltlich beraten zu lassen. In den meisten Kantonen betreiben die Anwaltsverbände Rechtsberatungsstellen, bei denen Sie kostenlos oder gegen ein geringes Entgelt eine Erstberatung in Anspruch nehmen können. Genaueres hierzu finden Sie unter http://www.sav-fsa.ch.

Wir hoffen, Ihnen mit diesen Angaben zu dienen.

Mit freundlichen Grüssen

S.H.
Eidgenössischer Datenschutz- und Öffentlichkeitsbeauftragter EDÖB

Hier mal was zu lesen für diese “Netzaktivisten”. – Rechner ausschalten und ab in den Buchladen!

Bestell’ bei Bookzilla

Instead of attacking the infrastructure of the internet, the self-proclaimed pseudo “freedom fighters” who claim to be part of Anonymous should start think about opt-out solutions to avoid the upcoming ACTA, PIPA & SOPA regulations. This kind of (h)acktivism activity is sence- and useless!

“Operation Global Blackout”
Forbes: “Anonymous Plans To Take Down The Internet? We’re Being Trolled”
Errata: “No, #Anonymous can’t DDoS the root DNS servers”
PCWorld: “DDoS Attackers Start Targeting IPv6 Networks”

Don’t censor the Internet!

Sen. Harry Reid
Majority Leader
United States Senate
522 Hart Senate Office Bldg
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Majority Leader Harry Reid,

As human rights and press freedom advocates, we write to express our deep concern about S. 968, the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA), and the threat it poses to international human rights. Like H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), PIPA requires the use of internet censorship tools, undermines the global nature of the internet, and threatens free speech online. PIPA introduces a deeply concerning degree of legal uncertainty into the internet economy, particularly for users and businesses internationally. The United States has long been a global leader in support of freedom of speech online, and we urge the Senate not to tarnish that reputation by passing PIPA.

Today, some of the world’s most repressive countries, like China, Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Syria use DNS filtering as a means to silence their citizens. As over 80 human rights organizations recently wrote in a letter opposing SOPA, “institutionalizing the use of internet censorship tools to enforce domestic law in the United States… creates a paradox that undermines its moral authority to criticize repressive regimes.”[1] In fact, PIPA would send an unequivocal message to other nations that the use of these tools is not only acceptable, but encouraged.

DNS filtering is a blunt form of censorship that is ineffective at achieving its stated goal, while causing collateral damage to online communities on a massive scale. But while DNS filtering is trivial for users to circumvent, this technology would fundamentally undermine the integrity of the global internet, making users more vulnerable to cybersecurity attacks and identity fraud. Additionally, any legislation that mandates filtering of websites is prone to unintended consequences, such as overblocking. For example, in early 2011, when the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency seized the domain mooo.com, it accidentally removed the web addresses of 84,000 (almost exclusively legal) connected domain names.[2] Moreover, once the technical infrastructure enabling censorship is in place, it allows future governments (and private actors) to block virtually any type of content on the web, making the provisions of this bill prone to mission creep.

The attempts at due process provisions in this bill do not respect the global nature of the internet. The network effects of the internet are realized when users and innovators are able to connect around the globe. However, creating a mechanism that requires a representative of a website to make a court appearance in the U.S. in order to defend themselves against an allegation of infringement would disproportionately impact smaller online communities and start-ups based abroad that do not have the capacity to address concerns in the United States. These websites would risk losing access to advertising services, payment providers, search engine listings, and their domain name. Together, these pieces of the bill would drive international innovators away from depending on U.S. services as a hedge against legal threats, while missing what should be the target of this legislation: preventing large-scale commercial infringement.

PIPA further creates a double jurisdiction problem, whereby non-U.S.-based sites must determine whether a site is legal in both the country it is operating in and the United States. This raises serious concerns about the scope of the bill, as foreign websites falling under PIPA’s definition of infringement may be perfectly legal in other jurisdictions. For example, the domain of a Spanish site, rojadirecta.org, was seized in early 2011 by U.S. authorities without adequate due process, notification to the site’s owners, or an option to defend themselves, despite having been declared legal by two Spanish courts.[3]

The definition of “information location service” is overly broad and would have a chilling effect on online speech. PIPA would make nearly every U.S.-based actor on the internet, including not only blogs, chat rooms, and social networks but users as well, potentially subject to enforcement orders of the bill. Additionally, the requirement that these service providers act “as expeditiously as possible to remove or disable access” to an allegedly infringing website imposes an unprecedented burden on any service that contains links, incentivizing the screening and removal of content in order to avoid being caught up in legal proceedings. Further, even if an accused website is later found to be innocent, links to that website could have effectively disappeared from the web, having been permanently removed when the court notice was served.

PIPA is also vague with respect to how links would be defined, including if all links associated with a domain or subdomain would be required to be blocked and if this would apply to future attempts by users to post content. This provision could potentially be interpreted in a way that would force services that allow users to post links to proactively monitor and censor the activities of their users, dramatically altering the role of these platforms in promoting free speech and setting a dangerous precedent for other countries.

We understand the pressure that lawmakers face in passing copyright enforcement legislation, and agree that protecting the rights of creators is an important goal. However, enforcement should not come at the expense of free speech or due process. This bill is fundamentally flawed due to its wide range of restrictive and potentially repressive measures. Even if individual elements of the proposal, such as DNS filtering are modified, postponed or amended, the legislation as a whole represents a precedent that is a real danger for human rights on the internet. We must remain conscious of the fact that the internet is a key enabler of human rights and innovation, and decisions over its governance should not be made hastily and without full consideration of collateral consequences.

We strongly urge the Senate to stand for human rights, defend the open internet, and reject the PROTECT IP Act.

Sincerely, Lx

Facepalm!

… or (alternatively): while getting a fuel refill, bend over and get a full load by EXXON and/or whatever Oil corp. up your ass. – This will ensure sustaining your ethical values…

“Man gestattet uns regelmässig Demokratie zu spielen”
One regularly grants us to play a little democracy.
Hagen Rether

Hagen Rether‘s Auftritt bei “Neues aus der Anstalt“.

English transcription:
(Link to Youtube video with english subtitles)

Rether! Hello.

Winners don’t exist any more. Only loosers exist nowadays. There are just to types of loosers. The guilty ones and the un-guilty ones.

In Libya there were no winners as well. But a Libyan now has the possibility having four women again. Wouldn’t this be the moment introducing womens rights now? Let us bomb Libya.

Since Peter Struck are SPD ordered air strikes a suitable mean for development aid. Democracy-bombers, we’re sending now. Because it’s so easy. Now Peter Struck became a member of the board of the “Friedrich Ebert Foundation”. Poor Friedrich Ebert. If he knew, he would alternately turn over in his grave and vomit, turn over in his grave and vomit, turn over in his grave and vomit.

And if, in Afghanistan, the aid of the women would continue to be so successful, we should be obligated to do so as well in other coutries. Everything else would be failure of performance. In Uzbekhistan, where women are being kidnapped, and in Saudi-Arabia where they aren’t alowed to drive a car. But we just don’t bother. It’s just not our business. We don’t even manage to support the opposition in Syria or in Iran. We just don’t bother. We don’t see any interest. It’s not our business.

Let us finally bomb India, for example. In India half a billion women are living in a caste system, which has nothing to do which rights for democracy, human rights or rights for women. But we fly there for Goa parties for enjoying the Ayurveda massages. They even get the nuclear weapon, as India is known for being a stable democracy.

There we stand in Calcutta with our back pack and watch how the kids are dying in the sunk. “Come on Hagen this is a tradition in India. The Indian does not know other than his caste system. They have a total different handling over dead and poverty. Who are we to think we should interfere, this would be arrogant and colonial.” “Yes true.” “Further the Indian lives from tourism. How would it be if India could finally live from what it produces? But no they aren’t allowed to do so. They get seeds by Monsanto, which doesn’t work. Thousands of Indian farmers commit suicide, which isn’t so bad for us, as the farmer’s widows perfectly know how to offer us Ayurveda massages.”

We just don’t bother. We don’t see any interest. It’s not our business.

And here everyone shouts for transparency and information. For the sake of what? We don’t do anything with it. We know everything, but don’t permutate our know-how. We would have to change our lives. Information for the sake of informing? That doesn’t help.

We know all under what poor circumstances these iPhones are being produced. But instead of feeling bad about it we buy that crap and stand in the queue for it. And Bill Gates, ahm sorry, Steve Jobs will be praised as employer-god for the next 300 years and clever inventor. “Hey Hagen, they don’t even have agreed wages in China. You can’t compare that. If the Chinese or the Indians would pay agreed wages, IKEA could close their business.”

Try buying a jogging suite in a store here which doesn’t come from a oblique Police state. We just don’t bother. We don’t see any interest. Nothing. Never. It’s not our business.

Mexico? I don’t know anything about it. I know that they starve because they can’t bake Tortillas any more, as the Maize price is being speculated to high. Our cattle gets that stuff in Germany and the rest used is as fuel.

“Oh shit the mineral oil is getting scarce soon. What should be using to tank up now?” “Mhmmm. Let us maybe tank up aliments.” “Oh good idea, but not our aliments, theirs.” “Well sure. It also was their mineral oil, stupid. Moron.”

We just don’t bother. We would have to do something. Which is silly. No we don’t. We are happy as it is.

And we think these undemocratic misogynist tribal structures in Afganistan are unappetising. Where we should do something against it. “Let us finally bomb the Masai in Africa. They live in tribal structures there. A Masai women is worth less than a sugar beet.” Is this of interest to us? “The Masai need elections for mayors, WIFI, suburban railways and washing machines. The Masai warriors marry 12 and 14 year old girls. This is unsupportable for us democrats. We should bomb away these Masai finally. This is hardly bearable. The Masai warriors will then be transmuted into ISAF Police men and the girls then go to schools and the kids being adopted by Madonna. For that they learn waht Democracy is. And then we’ll do this everywhere.”

Sure. It’s about free trade, not about Democracy. Horst Köhler (former German President) was the only guy who had the guts to name that we’re waging economical wars and a week later he was gone. It’s about free trade. And after that in the future we can sell our subsidised chicken feet to the Masai. – Happy christmas goose!

Jürgen Trittin: “Wenn Sie heute das Gesetz ansehen, das entspricht ziemlich genau dem, was ich 2001 in den Deutschen Bundestag eingebracht hab’. Also die geistige Leistung von Frau Merkel ist, was den Atomausstieg angeht, ungefähr so gross wie die geistige Anstrengung des Herrn zu Guttenberg die er bei seiner Doktorarbeit aufgebracht hat.” (Min. 49:22)
Quelle: ZDF Mediathek

For its membership to take effect*, Palestine must sign and ratify UNESCO’s Constitution which is open for signature in the archives of the Government of the United Kingdom in London.

Palestine’s entry will bring the number of UNESCO’s Member States to 195.

The vote was carried by 107 votes in favour of admission and 14 votes against, with 52 abstentions.

Admission to UNESCO for states that are not members of the United Nations requires a recommendation by the Organization’s Executive Board and a two thirds majority vote in favour by the General Conference of Member States present and voting (abstentions are not considered as votes).

The General Conference consists of the representatives of the States Members of the Organization. It meets every two years, and is attended by Member States and Associate Members, together with observers for non-Member States, intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Each Member State has one vote, irrespective of its size or the extent of its contribution to the budget.

The General Conference determines the policies and the main lines of work of the Organization. Its duty is to set the programmes and the budget of UNESCO. It also elects the Members of the Executive Board and appoints, every four years, the Director-General.

Source
Video Link

Congratulations!

… but! Neo-Imperialism: U.S. pulls UNESCO funding after Palestine is granted full membership.

BOYCOTT U.S. now!