Remove Handle Sunbeam Le Chef

speech on application 17/2212 (Left): Final waiver of transatlantic and European air passenger data agreement

Dear Bureau
Ladies and Gentlemen,

since 11 September 2001, a number of measures have been taken in the fight against terrorism. Many measures meant A marked limitation of civil rights. The collection and exchange of Fluggastda-ten (PNR) is one of them. In the fight against terrorism is crucial for the FDP, however, that the fight against terrorism as effectively as possible, while necessarily connected with the least interference with civil rights is.

The collection and transfer of passenger data affects a large number of people qualified and their personal data. There is a substantial interference with the right to informational self-determination. We have therefore a long time and depth with PNR. We in the FDP always very critical comments on the topic, this (see, for Example, our application 16/8115 from the last WP), especially concerning the USA Agreement, as the data protection standards and the legal guarantees of this Agreement are not acceptable. For this reason, we have also agreed in the coalition agreement that may be the U.S. agreement not a guide to other possible agreements. As in the coalition agreement agreed, we commit ourselves to a higher level of data protection in EU negotiations.

The left calls for in its request for an immediate waiver of PNR as a whole. But at last we see more positive movements in the EU. The Commission Communication on the corners for the future development of PNR agreements with third States meets in the Great Overall, our requirements and provides an essential marked improvement to the current agreement dar. Liberal efforts at EU level have been worthwhile.

We are pleased that the Commission's commitment to international standards of PNR agreements that have a high level of data protection. The Commission wants to make privacy and data security safeguards in the recipient countries to pre-condition for the conclusion of PNR agreement and the re-transmission on to more places in the country or outside limit. In addition to training of origin and legal safeguards enshrined parties and transparency regarding the collection and the possible use should be improved. This we the FDP has always required.

We also welcome that the Commission would likely revise the agreement with the U.S., Australia and Canada. I want to emphasize again that the USA agreement is particularly reprehensible in data protection terms. Based on the Commission communication future agreements could vary considerably, but he better. The repeal of agreements concluded, as the left-hand in their application is required, currently not in question. Also, it is not currently appropriate as a non-disclosure of data would mean losing the planes to their landing rights in that country would, or else the data would then be passed without any certainty be.

The Commission took up the remainder other FDP demands: the purpose to fight terrorism and serious crime under internationally accepted definitions, by restricting the transfer of data to a minimum, the general improvement of data security and the establish-tion of independent data protection supervisory .

Although we therefore see an improvement, there are criticisms, of course - is at the game, the use and storage of sensitive data is allowed? I would like to emphasize that the basis for PNR still missing: we need to review the necessity and proportionality. We join here in the European Parliament and the German Federal Data Protection Officer, who has already called about a year ago the Commission to review the PNR agreement in terms of proportionality. It has to also consider whether or not the API data could be considered sufficient to achieve the desired purpose. This study we want to wait. This is crucial for us. Also new negotiating mandates with the U.S., Australia and Canada must be tested for proportionality, before they are adopted by the Council.

We will work with our liberal colleagues in Brussels for more ef-fective and use proportionate security measures.

- Jimmy Schulz

Smelly Outside Drains

BLUMENTHAL / SCHULZ: Confirm Experts: FDP's call for fighting strategy remains true

BERLIN. For today's expert meeting of the Subcommittee on New Media "fight against the portrayal of child abuse on the Internet: Technical and organizational issues," explained the chairman of the subcommittee Sebastian BLUMENTHAL and the chairman of the FDP parliamentary group Jimmy Schulz:
Sebastian BLUMENTHAL: Today's meeting of experts has shown that required by the FDP process of "notice and take down is successful. The presented figures show clearly that a close cooperation between all parties involved and the direct exchange with host providers significantly increase the deletion rate. The recent fighting success may be greater harmonization of international cooperation and better staffing of the investigative authorities and appeal bodies further optimized. The fight against child pornography images on the Internet can be won with a comprehensive fire strategy.

Jimmy SCHULZ: All the experts have spoken out unanimously against power locks. This confirms the line that the FDP has represented clearly. The coalition is focused on the evaluation results based on a comprehensive strategy for the fight against child abuse. For the FDP, while the prevention of crime is paramount. The next step the perpetrators have been arrested and the dissemination of documentation can be prevented.

- Jimmy Schulz

Fashion Midnight Tvstreaming

response to the article THE TIME in "crime scene private television" Heinrich Wefing

response to article in Die Zeit crime scene private television "by Heinrich Wefing

Grooming is already banned

The mixture of avoidable substantive interviews with emotional music and a pumped-up reporter, as Wefing writes, should not be confused with the debate over Internet censorship. This is about two issues that should be separated very well.
Tatort Internet deals with an important issue. It is about the so-called "grooming", ie the initiation of sexual contact with children over the Internet. A difficult issue that deserves attention in any case - would be serious in a less sensational way possible, as it makes the TV show - just because Grooming already banned in Germany. The Federal Minister of Justice emphasized this clear. To separate them
the presentation of child abuse on the Internet. Here, too, of course, has to act. According to The Association of German Internet Industry Association works to delete: min can in Germany or between 5th and 2 h and outside Germany within 2 days (August 2010) will be removed from the network. The government parties have already spoken clearly on this issue. It are different ways to effectively combat child pornography is to be achieved. We liberals have developed in the debate, a clear priority list. Chief among these is Tatvermeidung, this is still a degree of chaos. The prosecution of offenders can best be implemented with traditional investigative techniques. This requires the investigating authorities are much better equipped - with personnel and equipment - so that they can pursue promising the money. Other methods include Quick Freeze and notice and takedown. The Provider shall immediately be informed of the illegal file content which they then freeze or disconnect and use in further investigations can. This means that them for no one visible in the network. This is much better than merely to bypass a curtain to pass easily from the crime.
Victim protection is a top priority! Blocking helps no one: neither is it a crime to prevent another victim protected. Rather, the mentality of looking away and maintained the company weighed into a false security that they had not done anything. The
necessary for blocking lists with the atrocious images appeared in other European countries on short notice and are always the perpetrators as "yellow pages" of child pornography. A bad idea that this was also financed by tax money and put together by officials.
by only consistent prosecution of offenders and intelligent methods, the victims are protected. Therefore: Delete instead of lockers!

- Jimmy Schulz

Precision Xt Rbk Manual

we are in a cyber war?

Many of us have asked this question, as on page one of the newspapers was, "Attacks on computer systems of a NATO heads of state will trigger the alliance case. It would be the first alliance case since September 11, 2001, and only the second ever. On Wednesday, the Handelsblatt wrote "One thing is solved, heavy cyber attacks are likely a popular means of warfare in the 21st Century ".

background of the excitement is Stuxnet , a Computer worm attacks, the world's industrial control systems, has and thus enables the remote control and sabotage of industrial facilities, power plants, or oil pipelines. Objectives and origin of the worm are still unclear. In Iran, the worm was in a nuclear plant, and also in China, Pakistan and India, this worm spreads. Finally, it was reported that in Germany are infected computer.

Although up to now nothing "bad" happens, the case Stuxnet the subject of IT security placed on the agenda. The discussion of how we deal with this issue is still in its early stages. As rapporteur for IT security in the Interior Committee, I've obviously thought made to do so.
In Germany, the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) for the security of communications infrastructure in charge, it has also issued to Stuxnet a recommended action. In the military sector, the Federal Office for Information Management and Information Technology of the Bundeswehr, and also referred the matter to the Strategic Reconnaissance Command's department of information and computer network operations with the issue. Until now, discussions in Germany about IT security and above all in terms of Internet crime and domestic political and constitutional implications of the security. Basically, it is
difficult to judge the character of cyber-attack, and equally difficult to make adequate institutional arrangements. As with many modern techniques, we are dealing here with "dual use" technologies, ie they can be used both for military and civilian needs. An arms race to cyberspace, we would also not notice until we were already with us. States could establish that the existing potential without resorting to classical military build international control mechanisms will be. Imagine as well that non-state actors such as terrorist groups, organized criminal hacker attacks delegate could.

Cyber attacks are largely anonymous, and the attacker can strike from anywhere. Distance to the destination has become so insignificant. The preparation of attacks may go unnoticed and be prepared in peace, the attack itself is then quick, unexpected and highly efficient. Since the localization and identification of perpetrators are very difficult, the offender also has a good chance to avoid prosecution.

How do we deal with such developments? Key question is whether we understand cyber attacks as a military or a civilian threat, and whether we think it necessary to adapt the existing structures in Germany accordingly.
In the United States the issue is mitterlweile seen from a security and military perspective. The U.S. has with USCybercom a decidedly for the defense and implementation of computer attacks its own IT-competent command of the army. 2009 President Obama has announced to spend $ 30 million for defense against cyber attacks. Currently in the U.S. held the largest ever cyber-maneuver, in order to determine how best to handle cyber attacks.

2007 Estonia was the victim of a series of attacks on critical information infrastructures, which severely affected the capacity of government and industry. The EU has subsequently Measures taken: 2009 a five-point plan to protect critical information infrastructures are situated. After becoming aware of Stuxnet came the proposal to crack down on cyber criminals. EU interior Commissioner Malmström, the threat of attacks on the Internet as estimated "enormous". NATO also has been 2008, "Cyber Defense Plan ." During the negotiations on the new strategic approach is being discussed at a greater weight of the body's own capacity in the field of IT security. The NATO summit in Lisbon on 19 and 20.11. is certainly the signs are of cyberwar. But whether the establishment of a common defense strategy -structure and is decided at the moment seems doubtful. The prevention of cyber-attacks is in principle possible but requires a degree of offensive capacity. This means that include a military concept, as in NATO would be the case, an attack component and strategy would have. This seems to me in the face of the consensus principle of NATO is difficult to communicate. The international legal assessment of such novel attacks is still at the beginning. So if on cyber-WAR, that war is spoken, it must be secured clear to what extent and in what situations, a State also must defend actively.
will also evaluate whether cyber attacks fall under the prohibition of force by the United Nations if, for example, the failure of critical systems or theft of data goes. This is primarily because the word "violence" is not defined. Even when self-defense law (Chapter VII, Article 51) are unclear, for example, whether a preemptive strike in self-defense is allowed if it is clear that an attack is imminent.
These questions are all very controversial, mainly because the authorship of attacks - and the responsibility of the State - can often not be clarified.

What steps can we take now? Examples would be: Improved national coordination responsibilities for defensive measures in case of an attack, increased international cooperation, both bilateral and multilateral basis complementary to the negotiations in the security organizations, better cooperation between government and industry, and the procurement latest technologies, education and training in the use of communication and information technologies.
I think we should not now speak of "war". The report the BSI on the "situation of IT security in Germany 2009" confirms a serious threat to Germany. Almost everyone depends on "cyberspace" or even from him, and attacks may therefore political, have social, economic and military consequences, as well as great destruction potential. How to deal with cyber attacks, depends primarily on what is the target of the attack, and where the attack comes from. Just because these two points are difficult to determine, there is much need for discussion. The question is how much power we want to give in this context, the law enforcement authorities. One thing is clear: We do not install a European NSA!

We have to deal so closely with the subject, but to speak of a war I feel right now for the first time too far.

- Jimmy Schulz