[kbwt]

There is also a huge discrepancy between the proposal from January and the proposal that is being voted on: https://www.internet-strafrecht.com/wp-content/plugins/downl...

A few highlights:

- Instead of "providing an internet-based service", the crime is now "facilitating access to an internet-based service".

- It is no longer a requirement that access to the service be restricted.

- The law now applies to all crimes, rather than just the specific crimes that were listed before.

[gmueckl]

Thanks for pointing this out! Wow... this is something else.

I'm confused by the fact that the document you linked to is labeled "recommendation". The recommended changes are indeed much, much broader than the original draft and have me worried. However, I must admit that I do not know if these recommendations are changes that will be applied unconditionally or not. I am not familiar enough with the procedures within the Bundesrat.

[yorwba]

On the other hand, the amended draft adds a fourth paragraph that explicitly excludes cases where commiting crimes is of only secondary importance (I guess the Zwiebelfreunde lobbied for this addition to protect TOR) and also actions of authorized personnel (to keep police honeypots legal, I presume). So the law is broader in some ways, but more specific in others.

[craftyguy]

> the crime is now "facilitating access to an internet-based service".

Does that include cafes that provide internet access to customers?

[cabalamat]

Or, for that matter, manufacturing computers with ethernet or wifi connections?

[rurban]

But was still restricted to only "Betreiben von internetbasierten Handelsplattformen für illegale Waren und Dienstleistungen". => Operating Internet-based trading platforms for illegal goods and services. i.e. a illegal darknet platform, not a tor exit node itself, if it's not created to help for illegal purposes. They mention the darknet and tor, but this doesn't made it the sole target of this law.

Otherwise they would outlaw bitcoin scramblers also, which is mostly used for illegal, not privacy purposes.

What is bonkers is now the recommendation of the lead legal council and some committee on internal affairs to broaden the wording to "facilitating access" which could be interpretated as anything, and thus will not pass any critical review by law. Those guys just need to be fired.