Bavaria elections

[Tracker001]

" BERLIN (Reuters) – Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Bavarian sister party said on Monday it would back political stability in Berlin after suffering big losses in a regional election which their far-right foes hailed as “an earthquake” that would rock the coalition government.

Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party leader and German Chancellor Angela Merkel arrives to the CDU party headquarters in Berlin, Germany, October 15, 2018. REUTERS/Fabrizio Bensch

The conservative Christian Social Union (CSU) slumped to its worst election result in almost 70 years in Sunday’s election in Bavaria and Merkel’s other coalition partner, the center-left Social Democrats (SPD) saw their support halve."

http://www.mrpolitic.com/2018/10/15/bav ... -rejoices/

So is Chancellor Angela Merkel losing more backers ? IDK it's becoming more difficult getting reliable information out of Germany and the UK for that matter .
.........
Speaking of the UK : Internet rumblings that a UK Government (Think Tank) Considering Banning People from the Internet Entirely for "Abusing" MPs . Still trying to find a source for that. "Abusing" ? It seems these days , abusing is nothing more than disagreeing with MPs.
Anyway still trying to get confirmation .

[Alan Phipps]

Re UK internet abuse of MPs, you probably mean this from the WebRoots Democracy think tank. I'm afraid it is probably another 'We really must do something, so let's do this' [no doubt already expensive consultancy] type of report that is a bit skimpy on how to implement and enforce it and as to who will need to pay for it all. I wouldn't hope or worry about seeing anything happening any time soon as a direct result as it would need the social media and ISP companies to put the frameworks in place first.

Making such abuse into a criminal or civil offence is relatively easy enough to get onto the statutes, but enforcing and investigation are probably well beyond current domestic or international capabilities or resources.

PS: Mixing such disparate topics in one thread may have been a bad idea!

[Observe]

So is Chancellor Angela Merkel losing more backers?

Probably. She's been in power almost 13 years. The inevitable shifting sands of time, will ensure her eventual fading away. The increasing popularity of right-wing movement, is due to factors that many perceive Merkel is not addressing. Same over here with Trump. Same in the United Kingdom. This is just the Arab Spring morphing, twisting and rippling around the world in response to real and perceived injustices.

I preface the above, with admission that I know very little about what's going on in Europe, so take my statements with a grain of salt and please don't hammer me too much if I am completely naive about the subject.

[Morkonan]

...Making such abuse into a criminal or civil offence is relatively easy enough to get onto the statutes, but enforcing and investigation are probably well beyond current domestic or international capabilities or resources...

Of all Western countries, the UK has the most extensive and pervasive surveillance capabilities to monitor the activities of its citizens. In that regard, it's arguable that it is more capable than China.

But, of course, actually using that capability to prosecute simple "internet troll" offenses would, necessarily, reveal the extent of those capabilities. (Even though everyone already knows all that, they're more comfortable not having to actually think about it.)

If the UK really wanted to enforce this sort of legislation, they could do so. (They also have a lot more legal authority to do so when it concerns their own citizens, and those of other nations, than US agencies.)

On the Bavarian Elections, Merkel, Germany, et al: (To stay OT)

I'm curious about something - All these "Christian" coalitions, groups, people's front, people's popular front, popular people's front...

How do people feel about political groups labeling themselves "Christian" in some way? Is this a matter of some debate in Germany and Bavaria? ie: Is it a "political talking point?"

I'm not German, of course, else I would not be able to make such fine jokes... But, I kind of like Merkel inasmuch as a "foreigner" can like a world leader. She seems particularly "strong" and appears, at least to me, to be very capable. She's taken the lead several times on the World Stage and people listen to what she has to say, generally with respect. (Well, except for Trump, but he's plastic and not a real people... )

[Alan Phipps]

Sorry Mork, I don't agree there even If I don't label it as marginal paranoia. If say the UK should have the technical capability to investigate fully such issues, does it have the resources to do so for what are probably low priority issues when considered at a national interest scale? Almost certainly not. Even should the UK somehow have such resources right now then the sitting government will find other priorities in future because of the need to win elections and so on - protecting MPs' quality of life (in particular) versus other public safety and spending needs will not sway the UK public at the moment.

That is why I say the first steps necessarily lie with the social media and ISP companies to put a safeguarding framework in place before *effective* legislation should happen. This needs to be an international rather than purely national initiative. I guess this all falls into a similar situation as with general cyber-bullying, online child grooming, internet fraud, etc, etc. Perhaps the best deterrents there at the moment (albeit perhaps on shaky legal ground) comprise targeted entrapment by authorities posing as vulnerable marks.

[Morkonan]

... protecting MPs' quality of life (in particular) versus other public safety and spending needs will not sway the UK public at the moment...

Oh, I agree. I also think that it's an entirely stupid idea. Issuing some sort of government regulation against people that criticize their leadership is a terrifying thing. And, if free people decide to exercise that ability by calling their leaders derogatory names? Maybe their leaders need to work harder to gain the public's trust and respect rather than legislating it...

But, the UK does have the ability to enforce the law. If there was a requirement for human intercession/observation, it'd make it more expensive of course. And, then there's the inevitable bureaucracy of it all. So, it wouldn't be cheap to do just because it can be done.

But, back to the Bavaria Elections.

In an effort to try to make sense of the political situation being described, I decided to look up who the main players were, starting with the main political parties in Germany. Wikipedia provided me this: Wiki: List of Political Parties in Germany.

Oh my... I guess this is typical of a parliamentary system. Seeking to learn more: Wiki: Politics of Germany. Ah, OK, I get it - Since it's a Parliamentary system of government, if Merkel loses members of her coalition, various political parties coming together to support an administration, then she could be removed if the opposition party/coalition was strong enough. Though, it appears that before such a thing could take place there would have to be someone waiting in the wings to take her Chancellorship.

[RegisterMe]

Speaking of the UK : Internet rumblings that a UK Government (Think Tank) Considering Banning People from the Internet Entirely for "Abusing" MPs . Still trying to find a source for that. "Abusing" ? It seems these days , abusing is nothing more than disagreeing with MPs.
Anyway still trying to get confirmation .

I'm not commenting on the merits (or lack of) the idea but just want to remind people about the murder of Jo Cox MP, and the numerous and sadly all to frequent death / rape threats and casual racism MPs receive these days.

[Alan Phipps]

@ RegisterMe: IIRC, Jo's unstable murderer had used the internet to search for Anarchist group material rather than to make direct personal threats to MPs; I don't think the think-tank's recommendations even if then in place would have made all that much difference for that terrible but mostly unforeseeable event. As to the rest of your post, those threats made using internet and social media are exactly what the think-tank report hopes to address - but it will all come down to resources and priorities in the end. I think we all agree that something *should* be done, but I believe that the malaise is more general than just about MPs and must be coordinated at an international level with positive engagement by all the various agencies and providers to hope to be effective.

[RegisterMe]

Sure. I was responding more to the "It seems these days, abusing is nothing more than disagreeing with MPs" comment. I could have quoted it more precisely .

[Chips]

Of all Western countries, the UK has the most extensive and pervasive surveillance capabilities to monitor the activities of its citizens. In that regard, it's arguable that it is more capable than China.

Does it? Online abuse (as in verbal/written) is a Police matter. As part of an investigation they can indeed contact the companies hosting the material (Twitter) and ask for the IP address, then obtain from the ISP which customer was responsible for it at that time. The likelihood is that it'll require a court order to force the companies to comply - which, depending on their host nation, they may or may not comply with. I believe the US and the UK has a reciprocal arrangement to achieve this, dunno about other countries - likely EU countries are also similarly amenable.

However, that's no different to the method used by any country as far as I am aware. Nowt special about it - and nothing to do with surveillance.

[Alan Phipps]

"Does it?"

The problem there is that the people who actually know cannot (or should not) talk about it, and the people that do talk about it probably don't actually know.

[Morkonan]

"Does it?"

The problem there is that the people who actually know cannot (or should not) talk about it, and the people that do talk about it probably don't actually know.

To answer both replies -

Yes, the UK does have the most extensive internal surveillance system in the Western world. The people who do know have talked about it. There's fifty-bajillion articles on it (A scientific term which means "A Metric ___ton" ) and, thanks to good ol' Snowden, we know a lot more. Wiki - UK Mass Surveilance. Don't forget.. Who was it that was caught with a backdoor into that video chat app? Who was it who helped route communications through so the US, and they, could listen to Merkel's phone conversations? Who's got the biggest internetz pipe sitting on their property, hotlined into Europe? The US's NSA doesn't even have the power of surveillance that their compatriots in the UK do. The NSA just can't start gathering data on US civilians because it feels like it or it believes it needs mass aggregate data, so why not? Well, not anymore, anyway. (There's still arguments going on about that. And, of course, some of it likely still being done.) The NSA can, however, gather info on anyone else in the world whenever they feel like it, 'cause they're not 'Muricans. 'Muricans are actually somewhat protected from our own security agencies. But, we're not protected from those of other countries...

...Online abuse (as in verbal/written) is a Police matter...

"Should" it be? I know - Americans have a somewhat idealistic and provincial view of "Freedom of Speech." We get shut down quite a bit when it comes to how that subject is handled in other countries. I'll take all that as granted, but while there are such laws in other countries, how far should they go until the people in those other countries feel that a point has been reached where a citizen's "Right," as it is interpreted by them, not me/us, and their need to exercise that Right is being prevented.

Calling a Prime Minister a "poopyhead" is one thing. Calling them a liar and then producing "evidence" of that lie... Where does that fall? How are the two notions, of them being a poopyhead or a liar, actually separated? If they're called a poopyhead liar, which one of those uses of language counts as a legal offense and which one counts as "Free Speech?" It's not quite easy to parse, in my opinion. (But, yes, I am A Stoopid 'Murican ™ and do realize that my American opinion does not matter. (And, it shouldn't. But, at least in an environment that promotes discussion and everyone's proper input, it's worth talking about if for no other reason than for two or more people to come to a better understanding of one another? )

PS - Just to add, in order to be clear: In the US, it is against the law to threaten the President of the United States. They can take you to jail for that. Threatening "normal people" is also, within certain limits, a criminal offense. (There'd really have to be the threat of true harm rather than just people shouting at each other or someone making dump comments online.) But, when it comes down to certain political persons, making threats is A Bad Thing ™ in the United States and isn't a "Freedom of Speech" issue. It gets one a visit from Official People With Guns who have radios that can call a lot more Official People With Guns if necessary. Usually, they have bigger guns than the citizen they're visiting... Usually.

[Chips]

Freedom of speech is to protect the citizens from being gagged by the Government. Criticise what they do, criticise their actions, that is protected without fear of recourse or incarceration. That's very much healthy and evident, and exercised daily by millions.

But it isn't freedom to intimidate other citizens - and that's not what Freedom of Speech is about; see the above definition.

So it's not acceptable to make people live in fear for their lives - that infringes on that person's rights and is *not* free speech as defined above. That's why behaving as such could be breaking the law and have the Police involved. It is then up to their investigation and the CPS to decide if there's a case to answer for, and a judge (and jury where applicable) to decide if it's actually broken the law.

I'm sure there's endless "what if" that people like to spin about how it could by Government and blah blah, but at present we're on very solid footing in the UK without such fears, so I won't engage further in such a discussion as I view it as pointless time wasting; life is too short.

[Chips]

"Does it?"

The problem there is that the people who actually know cannot (or should not) talk about it, and the people that do talk about it probably don't actually know.

I guess that depends on if you think they obey the law - as the laws governing it all are published (and debated before in Parliament, and after in the papers), and they're supposed to adhere to them under pain of death*
Obviously since both the IPT and European court have found instances where they didn't, it's open to question how much you think they *do* and how reliably There's huge quantities of info published out there - but Police are the ones who deal with "threatening behaviour". I'm fairly sure you don't call MI6 in the event someone calls you a twit on twitter. Or if they're standing outside your house with a baseball bat (not least because they're overseas intelligence, it'd be MI5 for inside the UK anyway!).

A reasonably level of sensibleness is required and I honestly think many people forget that, jump straight to extremes, and start making assumptions. If someone is threatening to hurt you, or harass you on twitter, it's a Police matter. After all, only Police officers** have the powers of arrest***

*that may be an exaggeration...
**Including regular Police, Nuclear Constabulary, Ministry of Defence Police, British Transport Police - though they may be territoriality restrained. Or something.
*** Citizens arrest, obviously, exists, but is not the same.