Folia lib. ... Freiheitliche Blätter

15.7.2026
Politiker in Lebensgefahr!


Die Politiker stehen jetzt mit dem Rücken zur Wand: "Wer "Fake-News" verbreitet, soll bis zu 580.000 Euro Strafe zahlen."

Zu früh gefreut, Monsieur, denn dies gilt selbstverständlich nicht für Berufslügner, wie Politiker und Scharlatane. Die Politiker hielten schon in der Vergangenheit ihre schützenden Hände über die Scharlatane - und natürlich über sich selbst. Juristische Immunität kommt doch nicht von ungefähr, sie hat ein Ziel, und sie hat einen Hintergrund...


"Südkorea: Wer "Fake-News" verbreitet, soll bis zu 580.000 Euro Strafe zahlen."



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HNOAaC1WYAANo9K?format=jpg&name=small

16.7.2026
Ursula von der Leyen unterstützt eine Massenmörderbande


Sie tut das ganz öffentlich, vor den Augen der Welt.

Und sie ist stolz darauf.

Mit Geld, das den Einwohnern europäischer Staaten zwangsgestohlen wurde.

Und sie ist stolz darauf.


https://x.com/zac1967/status/2077311175323168939

[*quote*]
-----------------------
Claudio Zanetti @zac1967

Beim Gedanken, Terroristen, die Juden ermorden wollen, zu finanzieren, wird @vonderleyen warm ums Herz...

Quote
https://x.com/vonderleyen/status/2076619701598232639
[***quote***]
-----------------------
Ursula von der Leyen @vonderleyen

Heartwarming to see the success of our 2nd Palestine Donor Group meeting today, with 65 participating countries and institutions.

We have raised almost €900 million for early recovery in Gaza.

The Team Gaza initiative is supported by 🇪🇺🇪🇸 🇩🇰 🇬🇧 🇩🇪 🇳🇴 🇫🇮 🇮🇹 🇳🇱 🇫🇷 🇯🇵 🇨🇭 🇸🇪 🇧🇪 @WorldBankGroup

12:48 PM · Jul 13, 2026
888.2K Views
-----------------------
[***/quote***]

10:35 AM · Jul 15, 2026
416 Views
-----------------------
[*/quote*]

16.7.2026
Geisterwerke des Journalismus


Wer Atomkraftwerke benutzt, benutzt Atomkraftwerke. Und wer keine benutzt, benutzt keine.

Eine überwältigende Logik.

Ein Geisterwerk des Journalismus.


https://x.com/sternde/status/2077317687693246808

[*quote*]
-----------------------
stern @sternde

In fast jedem zweiten EU-Staat sind Atomkraftwerke im Einsatz. Vor allem ein Land setzt immer stärker auf Kernenergie. Diese EU-Länder führen beim Atomstrom.

https://www.stern.de/capital/kernenergie--diese-eu-laender-produzieren-am-meisten-atomstrom-37964808.html



https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/2077317691203878912/11JCtkYj?format=jpg&name=900x900

11:01 AM · Jul 15, 2026
394 Views
-----------------------
[*/quote*]

14.7.2026
Part 7 (the end of the video)

7 FINLAND CHAT CONTROL 2024 oj8Kj8oXfS4zMgVP

(0:00) Especially these fraud companies, there are so many of them, that it doesn't make sense, (0:13) and it wouldn't be possible with a kind of national vigilance, or whatever terms are used. (0:24) It's important to pass on this information, so that it ends up in a systematic process, (0:30) and ultimately in the dismantling of these criminal organizations, as it happens. (0:36) And then on the other hand, if we think about it, but there is also benefit from such national activities, (0:42) like for example these kind of frauds, where official resources, or law enforcement resources, (0:50) haven't been used much lately, like for example bicycle theft, or some vehicle theft, and such.
(1:00) And in those, the messaging platforms have even been quite effective. (1:07) People have actively, for example, tried to find on the internet, for example bicycles, or donated cars, or something. (1:19) So if a bicycle or a car has been stolen, then where is the sales announcement on the matter? (1:25) Yes, for example.
(1:26) But the point is still that there has to be reasonable, easy-to-use ways to get the matter to a reasonable conclusion. (1:42) So that a citizen wouldn't have to try to get the stolen car from someone else's yard. (1:54) Then it's probably going to be a worse follow-up than a good follow-up.
(2:00) Generally speaking, something like that. (2:02) Yes, I have three themes that come to mind here. (2:06) Now we're probably starting to get to the end of the episode already, but (2:11) one argument against CSAM that I've come across is that (2:17) this doesn't really serve the original purpose in the end.
(2:23) That it would be something that would look good on paper, and then the politicians could say that (2:28) now we've done something, but in practice it wouldn't change anything. (2:35) Another thing that came to mind is what do you think is the responsibility of the parents in today's society, (2:41) in today's world, and in what way, if there are young children, (2:49) where should they be aware of everything, and how well do you think parents in general are aware of (2:55) how the children might be subject to different kinds of dangers in different applications. (3:02) And the last thing that comes to mind, or theme, in this whole, is then artificial intelligence.
(3:07) What is the significance of artificial intelligence in the context of this discussion? (3:13) But if we start with the first one. (3:18) Yes, of course. (3:21) If I try to intensify the two main challenges of the current legislation, (3:30) they relate to the effectiveness of the legislation, and then to its vulnerability.
(3:39) So this legislation, as it is now being processed, is not effective. (3:48) So it doesn't lead to better protection for children. (3:53) That's the conclusion.
(3:58) So in other words, an important and good goal, but the means to achieve it are wrong or ineffective. (4:09) Can you somehow intensify it for the sake of clarification, why would this be weak in your opinion? (4:15) Well, this effectiveness is due to the fact that in this legislation there are (4:25) these limitations. (4:30) Intentional and perhaps unintentional limitations.
(4:36) And they first of all relate to the fact that we are trying to target this surveillance only to pre-identified material. (4:49) So then everything that is created is new. (4:53) And also what happens in this incessant interaction, as I mentioned at the beginning, (5:00) this kind of web-hooking, which in English is called grooming, (5:08) this legislation does not address either of these in its entirety.
(5:14) But only to pre-identified material that is already under the control of the authorities. (5:20) So it is extremely narrow. (5:23) In addition, it is also narrowed by the means that these technical solutions that we are going to use here, (5:32) as we talked about earlier, they do not work effectively.
(5:38) And in addition, they are, I dare say, I'm a little careful and I'd like to say that it's difficult, (5:48) but I say that it's quite easy for a motivated operator to circumvent these controls. (5:56) And then there is this misuse problem and risk. (6:02) And so on.
(6:03) There are a lot of these. (6:05) And then, of course, also the fact that this does not only apply to certain applications, (6:11) certain service providers and only those operating in a certain management model. (6:17) So, for example, it is not thought of that there is a company as an operator and so on.
(6:26) So there are many such adventures. (6:30) And then there is this other direction, (6:33) from which I said that when this legislation is not effective. (6:42) And then the other is this violation.
(6:46) But at the same time, regardless of the above mentioned, (6:52) we are still creating mechanisms that are in practice de facto mass surveillance (7:00) and the trustworthiness of the message, which is the basic right of all of us, (7:07) to break it down in a de facto way. (7:10) So if in some way this tightens your connection and your connection, (7:16) then it is that now this bill in practice, if it were to be implemented, (7:21) it would lead to a situation where interpersonal privacy would be broken, (7:26) mass surveillance would begin, this kind of large-scale surveillance-type mass surveillance. (7:32) But regardless of the initial problem, i.e. the sexual abuse of children, (7:38) it would not be possible to effectively eliminate the threat in any way.
(7:41) Just like that. (7:44) Absolutely. (7:44) And then, of course, when we think about the part of artificial intelligence as a whole, (7:56) I see two things in it.
(7:59) One is the idea that artificial intelligence systems could somehow help in the near future (8:15) in the recognition of unauthorized material and so on. (8:23) It's one direction. (8:24) But the central problem is that we talked earlier during this episode (8:32) about the third important thing, not just about efficiency and vulnerability, (8:41) but also about the predictability of surveillance.
(8:47) The fact that we hope that technology will somehow develop in some direction (8:53) and create some opportunities, that is not a wise principle for setting up legislation. (9:02) We should be very, very, very careful in that regard. (9:06) Just like we have in other legislation, (9:08) more and more society prefers to legislate quality impact assessment.
(9:14) Before regulations are created in society, we must know what to follow. (9:19) And the idea that we hope that some technology will develop and work in the right way (9:25) is nothing but smart. (9:27) Do you think that the situation with CSAM at the moment, (9:31) that somehow the idea is that the recognition algorithms in the future (9:38) are probably good enough? (9:41) Well, a little bit in that direction.
(9:43) Especially the idea of artificial intelligence, (9:46) if in an artificial intelligence system the algorithms are just one layer of the whole, (9:53) then there should still be very long-term machine learning-related basics, (10:01) and there should still be high-quality data and all kinds of other things (10:06) that would somehow lead to, for example, (10:09) if the data in the criminal case is changed, (10:15) like image manipulation or something like that, (10:18) can the systems still operate in the desired way? (10:24) And that opens the other direction. (10:27) That is, artificial intelligence systems are already now, (10:30) and tomorrow they will be easier to use, (10:34) for example, in the manipulation of the criminal case very easily, (10:42) so that somehow this recognition could be avoided, (10:46) so that they would not remain a target of these recognition systems. (10:52) Because artificial intelligence is a long-term automating work, (10:58) even though all of it would now necessarily be purely artificial intelligence, (11:02) but only by automating the processing of large amounts of data, (11:12) it gives great opportunities also to lawless and criminal offenders (11:19) to avoid that, I don't want to say imprisonment, (11:25) but to end up in the hands of the authorities.
(11:30) So what if you think about artificial intelligence, (11:33) or specifically generative artificial intelligence, (11:36) for example, DALL-E or Mid-Journey, (11:38) such responsive services that can then produce images, (11:43) these are now better known from commercial versions, (11:46) but then there are a lot of others, (11:49) so what is the significance of artificial intelligence (11:50) in generating and producing this kind of modern, (11:58) or at least at the EU level, or at the level of law enforcement, (12:01) at the central level? (12:04) Well, as far as I know, there is currently no specific discussion that would be used, (12:12) but of course it is so that the EU's artificial intelligence attitude (12:18) is such that it has come to power, (12:22) where it is very precisely determined (12:25) what purposes artificial intelligence systems can be used for, (12:30) how their risk level, or the risk basis, (12:39) no action must be taken on the basis of it, (12:46) so that the risks of the use of artificial intelligence systems are under control. (12:54) And of course, if these purposes, (12:57) that is, the creation of images and images, (13:01) is of course a completely normal and very reasonable use, (13:08) then the criteria for the EU's artificial intelligence attitude (13:12) must be applied and it must be clarified (13:16) where the boundaries of forbidden use will be crossed, (13:23) and then what other requirements, (13:25) if they can be used for a certain purpose. (13:30) But what is your opinion on the fact that, (13:33) even though commercial forces will always censor (13:37) or filter this kind of morally questionable content, (13:41) it seems to me that this is very easy to see, (13:44) but at the same time, these models based on open source code (13:49) are getting better and better all the time, (13:51) so could it be that in the future, (13:55) we are in a situation where, regardless of all the regulations, (14:01) we have in practice, (14:02) or I speak more broadly to society now, (14:05) that we have in practice models (14:07) that can basically create very simply any image.
(14:13) And it's very, very difficult to miss that. (14:15) Yes, I do think that the scenario is very possible. (14:24) I don't dare to say anything about the probability yet, (14:28) but I think it's very possible.
(14:30) Because now, for example, (14:33) when it comes to regulation or above all laws, (14:37) they now apply to those actors (14:40) who initially want to act according to the law. (14:45) And we now have such things as (14:48) AI that can be used, (14:50) that is, accessible to various users, (14:59) who can, for example, create a code of conduct, (15:03) that is, in practice, a code of conduct for viruses and so on. (15:08) It is of course clear that such action is very questionable (15:17) and not legal, (15:19) but if there is a criminal act in general, (15:24) such as providing unauthorized services, (15:26) whether it is an artificial intelligence service (15:29) or some more traditional sexual services (15:38) or something like that, (15:39) partly because they are legal, (15:42) then these will more than likely still be there.
(15:50) Because you can imagine that, again, (15:51) initially criminals or those people who are not interested in (15:58) whether something is moral or legal, (16:01) then again, the law does not necessarily press them. (16:05) Yes, yes, I see that. (16:08) Of course, one of the strategic measures is (16:17) that the more aggressive or smaller, (16:20) as they can be limited, (16:22) the smaller the harmful consequences are.
(16:27) Of course, the more limited the use of the team is, (16:30) in general, whatever it is, (16:33) putting there powerful lasers or artificial intelligence systems (16:38) or shooting guns or whatever, (16:42) or incitement agents or so on, (16:43) then it does matter. (16:47) But still, the continuation question in a certain way is that (16:52) if it is limited to creating such an image (16:54) where there have never been real people, (16:59) then how harmful is it? (17:02) And if it is harmful, (17:04) then on what grounds is it harmful (17:06) and what can be said about it? (17:09) I think this is a very, very important question (17:15) in this discussion, because (17:17) well, everyone, as was mentioned earlier, (17:21) everyone thinks that if there is a victim, (17:26) that if a child is victimized, (17:27) then it is automatically wrong and so on. (17:30) But then if there is a question of creating a digital image (17:34) that does not connect to anyone, to the right person, (17:37) then the attitude changes.
(17:39) Although I do understand that (17:42) such a backbone reaction, probably, (17:45) for the vast majority of people, (17:46) is that it is imaginable, (17:49) it feels wrong, it feels bad. (17:53) So it is immoral and it should be legal or criminal. (17:56) And it is a very strong emotional reaction.
(18:00) And then if you want to argue it a little longer, (18:03) then I can also see the concern or fear (18:06) that if there were some people who then, (18:11) it would be generally acceptable that (18:13) well, some people then look at this, (18:15) then the concern may be that (18:16) can the consumption of a certain kind of content (18:19) lead to the fact that those people would also want (18:23) to fulfill their desires in the real world. (18:27) So the fear or concern that (18:28) even if now some content would be consumed (18:31) that does not have a connection to the real world, (18:34) then can the link be formed through this. (18:38) However, now I do not know if there is any research (18:41) that would go in that direction, (18:43) because then again someone else could say (18:44) that if certain people only have the opportunity (18:50) to consume such digital content, (18:53) then they never need to be in the real world.
(18:56) But now I have to say that I do not know (18:57) how it really goes, (18:59) that this should then be asked from some real psychiatrist (19:02) or someone who would then... (19:04) Yes, it may be that there is quite an excellent (19:08) topic for the second episode. (19:11) I would think so, because if I myself (19:15) just bring up a few such preliminaries, (19:19) then I get like three questions in mind, (19:24) whether it is really possible (19:25) that such an artificial imagery and material (19:30) could work as part of the solution to this problem. (19:36) I am not proposing it, nor am I presenting it, (19:39) but I will present it as a bold question at this point.
(19:43) And then again, if we think about what follows, (19:48) whether it can be used (19:50) as a solution for these individuals, (19:56) was it in 1978, or what could be the year (20:01) when Rambo I came from the TV (20:03) or to the movies? (20:05) And I'm not quite sure how much... (20:08) Is it an addition to the number of war crazy people (20:11) who want to fight in the woods as survivors (20:15) or against real evil authorities? (20:21) I'm not sure about that. (20:23) This is a good question, (20:25) but I suspect that it may not be entirely radical. (20:28) If you think about how much... (20:30) Of course, there are real people, (20:32) actors have been involved, (20:34) but if we continue in a certain way the idea (20:36) that we have some Marvel universe (20:39) that has been in the limelight for many decades, (20:45) where there have been no real people, (20:46) not even actors, (20:50) did it lead to some kind of (20:52) Batman vigil, (20:54) a kind of self-governing law enforcement, (20:58) or something.
(21:00) And now, of course, (21:02) there are probably people in the audience (21:03) who are wondering (21:04) that Boomer talks about the Marvel universe (21:08) and Batman, of course, at the same time. (21:10) I emphasize that I am aware (21:12) that they are from different universes. (21:14) But all in all, (21:17) the other superheroes are a bit like that, (21:21) and named after them, (21:22) and others who, according to the law, (21:25) save the humanity and the world (21:27) all the time.
(21:28) Or if you think about the Rattlesnake games, (21:31) which probably... (21:32) Yes, yes. (21:33) Actually, I don't know if most of the boys (21:36) would have played them, (21:37) but I would guess that part, (21:40) or it would be really, (21:41) in any case, a high percentage, (21:44) and whether it has led to (21:45) the fact that youth is a violence itself. (21:50) You could say that at the moment (21:51) youth violence is growing, (21:53) and it is a concern, (21:54) but whether it has links (21:58) to the Rattlesnake games, (21:59) that's another matter.
(22:00) There is a lot of research and experts, (22:04) very deep experts, (22:06) I myself know a lot of (22:10) several experts in that field, (22:16) and I'm pretty sure (22:18) that there is a lot of (22:21) based opinion. (22:24) But all in all, (22:27) what is artificially created, (22:30) where there are no living people (22:32) who have ever been involved, (22:34) what can be stated as a fact (22:36) is in any case that (22:39) there are at least no victims. (22:41) I guess that (22:42) if you compare it a little (22:46) like this, (22:47) that the human brain (22:48) in a way, (22:52) or I don't know (22:53) how well (22:54) we generally understand (22:57) that something is virtual (22:59) and not real.
(23:01) That the same (23:04) enthusiasm, (23:06) or that kind of enthusiasm, (23:07) or that excitement, (23:09) or in any case a strong (23:10) negative emotional reaction (23:13) to the fact that (23:14) it is so strong (23:18) that it easily (23:20) drives (23:21) in a certain way (23:22) away from what (23:23) the real world effect is. (23:26) And in my opinion, (23:26) it would be very (23:28) at least important to think about it (23:30) from the perspective of (23:31) what leads to the end result (23:34) where (23:36) children in real life (23:39) are treated (23:40) as a possible victim. (23:42) So to think about it from that perspective (23:44) and not just (23:46) from the perspective of (23:47) what is the first (23:50) emotional reaction to it.
(23:52) Yes. (23:53) Yes, I can (23:55) clarify it myself. (23:57) Was it the 60s (23:59) in the United States when (24:00) according to my memory (24:02) for the first time, (24:04) could it even be the end of the 50s, (24:07) so (24:09) was this researcher's (24:10) last name Kinsi (24:13) who (24:15) published (24:15) for the first time (24:19) people's sexuality (24:24) as (24:25) a (24:25) hidden (24:27) research.
(24:28) And it was a radical (24:31) massacre (24:31) straight away. (24:33) Before that (24:36) each of us (24:39) assumed (24:40) that there is only one way (24:41) to be sexual (24:42) and it has to be (24:46) the same for everyone. (24:46) But it turned out (24:49) that this was not the case.
(24:51) And it has been a long (24:52) time for these days. (24:56) From this (24:56) my continuation is (24:58) very similar (25:00) to you. (25:03) I think (25:04) that it would be (25:07) important to ask (25:08) that here comes (25:10) once again (25:11) the fundamental question (25:14) from which we started (25:16) where is (25:17) the boundary (25:18) between the social (25:18) and the individual? (25:24) What is (25:26) acceptable to the society (25:28) and what is not? (25:30) And there (25:30) the question is (25:34) where (25:35) is the problem (25:42) for (25:42) other (25:45) people? (25:46) And to some extent (25:47) there is also (25:49) of course the (25:50) tolerance to at least be (25:51) involved in considering (25:52) what kind of behavior (25:54) is very harmful (25:56) to the individual.
(25:59) But as we know (26:00) for example in Finland (26:03) for example (26:04) spitting one's own (26:05) breath is not (26:07) a crime. (26:09) Even though it is one of the most harmful (26:11) things you can do to your own life. (26:15) Yes.
(26:16) And in a certain way (26:17) we get to Janne's link (26:19) also for example in terms of (26:21) criminal proceedings. (26:22) In a way it feels a bit absurd (26:24) that if the idea (26:27) even though I don't otherwise (26:28) take criminal proceedings (26:30) but if the idea that (26:32) we protect individuals (26:34) from committing (26:36) criminal offences (26:37) then all the other ways (26:39) you can physically harm yourself (26:42) or spitting one's own breath (26:44) are completely legal. (26:45) In a way it is Janne's paradox.
(26:48) Yes, we have (26:50) quite large market forces (26:52) who dare to (26:54) eat a huge amount of sugar. (26:59) It is quite harmful (27:01) to our individuals. (27:03) But maybe we came quite far (27:05) from the (27:08) CSAM (27:08) bill.
(27:10) These are still (27:12) the basic requirements (27:14) in this matter as well. (27:16) Thank you for that. (27:18) Maybe a short (27:19) one minute (27:21) about what Janne said.
(27:27) Well (27:28) in that sense (27:30) I don't have (27:31) much more to say. (27:37) Of course it depends (27:39) on how (27:41) the listeners (27:42) perceive (27:44) the central themes (27:46) that we have discussed (27:50) most of all (27:51) in terms of (27:53) the properties (27:55) or the effects (27:58) of the bill (27:59) still (27:59) they focus (28:03) precisely on (28:03) that this is (28:06) harmful to society (28:08) this does not solve (28:10) the problem (28:11) we have (28:14) and it is also (28:18) invaluable (28:20) Alright, we'll put the package in. (28:22) Peter, many thanks for the interview.

(28:24) Thank you. (28:25) Vaalit podcast is now running. (28:28) All supporters of Vaalit podcast (28:30) can buy their own interview.

(28:32) If you want your own podcast (28:34) episode, contact (28:35) vaalit at puhemedia.fi (28:38) In the first episode (28:39) I interviewed Niko Haapala. (28:42) Niko Haapalainen is the (28:43) municipal election candidate in Tampere. (28:46) If you are from Tampere, (28:48) watch Niko's interview.

(28:49) So if you are from Tampere, (28:52) watch Niko's interview. (28:54) The link can be found in the episode description.
#################

END OF VIDEO

14.7.2026
Part 6

6 FINLAND CHAT CONTROL 2024 oj8Kj8oXfS4zMgVP

(0:00) The whole name, the whole date of birth, personal information, all kinds of information. (0:06) So, through these new digital identities, we can even show that I am of a certain age. (0:12) So, I have lived 15 years or 18 years or whatever, without having to reveal my exact date of birth to the service provider.
(0:21) On the other hand, the basic thing that we talked about earlier is that not all service developers would take advantage of these. (0:30) Or still, anyone can make their own application. (0:34) Part of the application is not a company, but some kind of a company's surplus.
(0:39) So, how would that work in practice? (0:42) Would that be aimed specifically at those big companies? (0:48) Because a law that somehow obliges all messaging applications to operate in a certain way, would seem a bit strange. (0:58) Yes, you are absolutely right. (1:00) The thing is that we have proposed, we have a fairly long list.
(1:06) There are actually ten different proposals, which are good and affordable. (1:13) Most of which is possible with this law, or with the law that is currently in force. (1:20) We will get to that sooner or later.
(1:22) But then there are, of course, these others as well. (1:25) But all in all, among all the things that should be done to solve this problem, (1:33) it is in such a way that, as a certain politician, probably many of you know him well, (1:39) but without mentioning his name, he said that the same lipstick does not suit melon and lemon. (1:46) This was precisely because certain services fit certain new methods better, (1:54) and certain requirements.
(1:56) And to others, then again, some others. (1:58) For example, these that I brought up, these typically fit perhaps these larger ones. (2:05) When then again, for example, if I go back to the beginning, (2:12) when I mentioned that we have two areas in this problem set.
(2:17) The other is the inappropriate approaches, and the other is the material production. (2:23) Because when the material is already there, then it is a means of exchange. (2:29) It's like a commodity, even if it's not necessarily a euro or a dollar, (2:37) what it might be.
(2:38) It's like, for example, this kind of oral leather type of business. (2:43) Give me that material, I'll give you this as well, and so on. (2:46) But all in all, this business and this material distribution, (2:51) it is again practiced on the other side, for example, in a dark network.
(2:54) And there are completely different strategies, (3:01) authorities and plans for those owned by the Navy Administration. (3:04) Just as it is now being done effectively, (3:08) to prevent illegal smuggling. (3:10) So there are somehow their own things.
(3:13) Then there are their own things for large vessels, (3:16) and then there are their own things for smaller ones, (3:20) which can work better in that context. (3:25) It is important to remember that the central point of the social problem (3:35) is where the first victim or the first victimization is born. (3:43) And now, if we understand this, then we can decide quite well, (3:49) and in fact, this is known from research as well, (3:52) that these people, these individuals, (3:58) they operate and operate on the basis where others are.
(4:03) So the victims, potential victims, children. (4:06) And they are in these large, generally used services, (4:11) not in any borderline, (4:13) but on the basis of a central message exchange. (4:19) And that's why it's important that we focus on those active activities (4:24) in these different entities in such a way that they affect.
(4:28) Yes, if you think about it like that, (4:31) there can be separate applications where these people, (4:37) who have the material from the child, (4:39) exchange that material in between. (4:41) But then there is precisely that, (4:45) if you think about where that material originally, (4:47) or how it gets its start, (4:49) then there is always an interaction with those children, (4:53) which would then be very important, (4:56) that there would be a lack of opportunity for that, (4:59) so that there would not be the material that distributes it forward. (5:02) Yes, just like that.
(5:04) And one suggestion that we have taken quite well, (5:07) is that when we think about how harmful follow-ups (5:13) there are in society more broadly, (5:15) and that is that, for example, in Finland, (5:18) we now unfortunately have this situation, (5:22) where law enforcement or the authorities, (5:24) for example the police, (5:25) cannot act covertly on the prevention of these crimes. (5:31) That is, to appear as a young person or a child, (5:39) so that these kind of seducers (5:46) would be much easier to find. (5:50) In the United States, this seems to be possible.
(5:53) And it is in the law. (5:54) In our neighborhood, the pretty good results are from that. (5:58) Because then, if we think about the entire user population, (6:03) that is, everyone in Finland is a social media user, (6:11) or a user of these big news platforms, (6:13) certainly by throwing at least three and a half million, (6:17) most of them Finns, all in all.
(6:19) So, if there is someone there, (6:23) who appears as a child, but is actually a police officer, (6:32) then it is not very harmful to other users. (6:37) Versus the fact that all people, all media, (6:40) would be investigated in advance. (6:44) Yes, those two can be easily seen.
(6:47) In my opinion, it is possible to understand the logic (6:52) behind that. (6:54) Then again, I guess that someone might throw (6:57) a counter-argument to that. (6:59) That if the authorities in their own actions (7:01) dare to commit crimes against others, (7:04) then it is problematic in itself.
(7:07) And then how do those two things then balance each other. (7:11) Because in the same way, it could be thrown that (7:13) if it was approved or approved there, (7:16) would it be okay then that the authorities (7:19) would start, for example, to buy or sell drugs (7:23) and then use it to harass those who buy or sell. (7:25) How much would the authorities be allowed, (7:30) or in this case the police, to commit crimes (7:35) or do things that would encourage others to commit crimes? (7:40) Yes, it is a kind of constant discussion level, (7:46) which is very important to maintain in the future.
(7:52) This is a kind of inquiry that is necessary (7:55) if these kinds of changes are going to be considered (7:59) at the practical level. (8:02) And luckily that is the case. (8:04) But we can of course now, at this table, (8:08) as I have already said, that this is actually the case (8:10) for other types of crime.
(8:12) So yes, in Finland too, the police act covertly (8:17) in the case of other serious crimes, (8:19) such as homosexual crime, mental crime and many others. (8:23) This is done, and this has been accepted in society. (8:29) So this inquiry has already been done (8:31) in the case of these crimes and types of crime, (8:37) and it is known how it is practiced (8:39) and where the boundaries of action are, (8:42) what is incitement and what is actually (8:45) a confession of a crime.
(8:50) Of course, there is quite a big difference (8:56) in the end. (8:58) But all in all, in this discussion, (9:02) we don't necessarily need to go too far into that, (9:06) because we have mechanisms in place for that, (9:09) but it is of course a very important point. (9:12) And then there is perhaps what, if you think about (9:15) the arguments that have been answered, (9:17) that if then someone, for example, (9:21) appears as a minor or as a child, (9:24) and then an adult talks to him, (9:26) then has a crime actually occurred (9:29) if he had not been a minor? (9:31) And in the same way, I think there was also (9:33) something that was answered, (9:34) that if this goes a little past the subject, (9:37) but that someone had cheated on another person (9:41) in such a way that it was a pleasant (9:45) crime, which was still only a minor, (9:49) but then still, and would it be like (9:52) that person got some kind of punishment (9:53) for some fraud, which in a certain way (9:56) can be said to be quite exciting, (9:57) that you get a criminal punishment for not (9:58) selling a real crime.
(10:00) But now I don't remember that the person (10:03) who had bought this, (10:05) did he get any follow-up at all, (10:07) because in fact, he didn't buy the (10:10) crime if he had just gotten some (10:11) punishment for it. (10:13) So in itself, in my opinion, that is (10:14) quite, even again, I can well understand (10:18) why this kind of covert action is then (10:20) practiced in certain situations, (10:22) and I don't say that I would initially (10:24) be against it, but I think it is (10:26) still such a, if you think a little (10:30) more broadly, philosophically, (10:32) or so, it is still a reason to think (10:36) about where the limit of the crime (10:38) accusation is then drawn. (10:40) Is it enough that a crime could have (10:43) happened here, or should there (10:46) actually be a crime? (10:48) Yes, just like that.
(10:49) And that is a very, very important (10:52) area or whole here. (10:57) In my opinion, it is also the case that (10:59) we should not leave these things (11:02) entirely to our own experts, (11:06) but we do need more discussion in (11:08) society about such things, (11:11) because here it is also the (11:14) matter of respect. (11:16) I myself think that there are a lot of (11:19) opportunities for success in the (11:20) follow-up of the accusers, when the (11:24) respect and consideration is done (11:26) carefully, so that we can avoid (11:30) a very harmful and serious (11:32) phenomenon, (11:35) such as, for example, the victimization (11:39) of children.
(11:40) In that sense, but it is not a (11:43) left-handed thing, of course. (11:47) And from what you said, (11:54) how can it then be done (11:56) so that we are fortunately in the (11:58) realm of justice, and above all, (12:08) there is a lot of knowledge and ways (12:13) to deal with such things in the (12:15) If I take now, for example, (12:17) that now, for example, the latest (12:22) school shooting in Finland, which (12:24) happened in Viertola, Vantaa, and the (12:27) pre-investigation material has now (12:28) become public here yesterday and today, (12:33) and there is, in a certain way, one (12:36) aspect of a similar phenomenon, (12:40) and that is, for example, the (12:42) planning and preparation of a (12:47) Has it been based on, and (12:50) what mechanisms have been used in (12:54) its criminalization, or a similar (12:57) thing, for example, the criminalization of (12:59) crimes related to terrorism, (13:03) or the criminalization of actions, (13:07) so there are the same elements (13:09) have been considered, how it should be (13:12) so that it is carried out sufficiently (13:15) limitedly, but still sufficiently (13:17) effectively, its main measure. (13:21) In my opinion, it is completely (13:23) justified that if someone plans and (13:27) prepares for committing a crime, (13:30) it would be better for society that (13:33) the action is stopped before the (13:36) person has carried out this act.
(13:40) Yes, I feel that this is an issue that (13:42) everyone, without a doubt, agrees on, (13:44) that if it is possible to somehow (13:49) stop it, then you don't want to wait (13:51) until someone has been murdered and (13:53) after that you can say, okay, now a (13:55) crime is happening, you don't have to (13:56) think about whether it was just a (13:57) plan or not. But still, in my opinion, (14:00) it is essential to think about where (14:05) the line is, that if someone, for (14:09) example, in a coma, shoots something, (14:14) just shoots something that doesn't (14:16) really mean anything, will it be fulfilled? (14:19) So that the authorities can say that (14:22) now we are really, really sure that (14:25) this is a justified suspicion, so I feel (14:27) that there must be some kind of a limit (14:30) that no matter what, they can't (14:33) put a stop to it. (14:34) Yes, that's right, and that's how it is, (14:36) that we have both in the legislation (14:40) for example in the criminal law (14:42) statute, there are very precisely these (14:47) different kind of assumptions and these (14:49) elements that are then called (14:56) identification as a crime, if (14:58) such a fine word is used.
But the (15:01) point is still that also in terms of (15:05) official actions, there are (15:08) there are different levels of suspicion, and when we take into account the entire criminal process up to the trial, (15:14) we actually have quite a lot of other, higher levels of suspicion, (15:20) which have to be overcome before a person is brought to trial for a crime. (15:26) The fact that the authorities start to investigate something has to have a certain level to it. (15:32) It can't be anything, and then it goes to the final level, (15:36) that the judge finds that there is no other reasonable suspicion left, (15:44) that this person would not have done this crime.
(15:49) And then I started to think about it. (15:50) This was the first thought that came to mind. (15:52) Soon I will argue against myself.
(15:54) But the thought that came to mind was that, (15:57) okay, in principle, the authorities could miss out on things before they were illegal. (16:04) You shouldn't necessarily require a direct link to that. (16:07) But on the other hand, when you think about it, (16:09) if something is not actually illegal, (16:14) is it possible for the authorities to miss out on it? (16:17) If someone acts according to the law at that moment, (16:21) is it possible for the authorities to come in between and say, (16:24) now this is going to be stopped? (16:27) How do you deal with that? (16:29) And that's exactly what I started to think about, (16:31) in these hidden cases.
(16:35) Because I'm sure all reasonable people think that (16:41) if the authorities had the opportunity to ensure that children would be used in a good way, (16:46) and not just wait until someone acts and then they are arrested, (16:52) if there were such pre-possibility opportunities, (16:55) it would be good to use them. (16:56) Of course, this again returns to the theme of this episode, (17:01) that how totalitarian actions are required (17:06) so that certain crimes can be prevented, (17:08) that's one thing. (17:09) But if we find ways (17:11) where we don't have to use authoritarian or totalitarian means of surveillance, (17:21) where we can prevent crime, (17:24) then those are great.
(17:27) Yes, yes. (17:27) And if we somehow try to bring that together (17:32) to the end of this theme, (17:36) I would say that the levels of seriousness of different actions (17:47) are usually related, (17:51) or in practice, they should always be related (17:55) to those action alternatives. (18:00) So, if I take a childlike example, (18:08) that in the street of disorderly behaviour, (18:11) which involves threatening behaviour and so on, (18:14) there is a lack of preventive police in Finland as well.
(18:21) And we don't expect that to go terribly badly for someone, (18:25) but the means by which it is lacked (18:28) are not necessarily the same as what would be used, (18:32) for example, in a situation where someone would be (18:35) already trying to take another person's life. (18:40) So, there are very clear... (18:44) Or let's say, for example, (18:46) even though there has been a lot of talk in Finland (18:49) about criminal activity and so on, (18:52) there are those action alternatives, (18:56) but they are not the same as those (18:59) that are included in these gangs (19:02) for the study of individual people's serious crimes, (19:06) or even in advance, maybe, (19:08) if it is necessary or possible to do it before it happens. (19:14) Like, for example, if we take the drug trade or something, (19:19) of course, we want to do it in such a way (19:21) that the drugs are put in the hands of the authorities.
(19:25) That the trade is not allowed to take place (19:27) if it is known where and when it happens, (19:29) so that the drugs end up in either street shop, (19:32) even if the seller would have been responsible for it. (19:38) And so on. (19:39) There are a lot of those, (19:41) and it would certainly be a really good episode.
(19:45) One quick point about the cover operation. (19:48) I just remembered what you said. (19:49) I think it was also a good example, (19:51) this threatening situation on the street.
(19:54) At least you could imagine a law (19:58) where the authorities would have the right (20:01) to practice a cover operation (20:03) and somehow face the person who then, (20:07) or try to find out who it is, (20:09) even if it was not yet, (20:12) that even in that situation, (20:14) there would not have been a crime. (20:15) That final crime. (20:17) That final crime.
(20:18) Somehow to make such a law (20:20) in a bit of the same way, (20:21) when this goes a little bit to another theme, (20:28) but for example, (20:29) at the moment, (20:30) using cannabis is legal, (20:32) but in Helsinki, (20:34) it is not necessarily allowed. (20:37) But in principle, (20:39) an official would have the opportunity (20:42) to resort to it. (20:43) In Portugal, (20:46) the law is such that (20:49) the official has the right (20:52) to somehow guide the person (20:53) to help.
(20:56) So in a similar way, (20:57) one might think that it would be (20:59) very difficult to respond, (21:01) or I don't know, (21:03) maybe someone can come up with an argument, (21:04) but even a law that would then (21:05) give the official the opportunity (21:08) to do a cover operation, (21:10) and if there is a person (21:11) who is not systematic, (21:14) or who does not practice it systematically, (21:16) that some big crime league boss, (21:19) but in a certain sense, (21:21) a simple officer, (21:22) then the official would have the opportunity (21:25) to guide that person (21:28) to some help, (21:29) or to some extent, (21:31) in such a way that it would stop its operation. (21:34) Or something like that. (21:35) And yes, we actually have those in Finland.
(21:38) There are several (21:38) types of crime, (21:42) or criminal use. (21:43) There are various types of (21:46) criminal use, (21:47) according to the law. (21:48) In Finland, there is also (21:52) such a mechanism.
(21:55) But if you put it all together, (21:57) even if this CSAM law (21:59) would not pass, (22:02) you could say that (22:03) there are other ways (22:04) to deal with the original problem, (22:08) that is, the use of children, (22:10) and the use of materials (22:12) to spread the material. (22:13) There would be means to avoid that. (22:15) Yes, that's right.
(22:17) However, the fact that in the (22:19) sexual mind, the adult (22:21) is interested in the child, (22:26) medically speaking, (22:27) I dare say that (22:28) it can be held (22:31) as an exception. (22:34) And through that, (22:36) there is also (22:38) treatment for that. (22:38) But if a person (22:41) really does or (22:42) tries to do things (22:45) stably, where there is (22:46) this victim, which (22:48) is a question of protecting (22:49) all the time, (22:52) that is, what we can (22:54) and what we should do in society (22:56) so that we (22:58) don't have (22:59) victims of this kind of action.
(23:02) It's in the core (23:04) all the time. (23:06) And in that sense, (23:08) that those (23:10) people who (23:14) hunt down (23:16) victims, attract (23:19) children (23:20) as a victim, (23:23) so (23:24) I take it (23:26) as a reasonable thought (23:28) that (23:29) we carefully (23:31) figure out what we could (23:33) still do (23:36) stably (23:37) in that (23:39) situation. (23:41) And then it comes to my mind (23:42) that, well, in the US (23:45) apparently this kind of (23:46) cover-up is practiced, but there (23:48) it is also (23:51) read that there may be some (23:53) individual people or small groups (23:55) who actually (23:57) start to hunt down (23:58) these bad guys.
And then (24:00) sometimes even in such a way (24:02) that then they go to keep bad (24:03) and so on. Although I feel that (24:06) the moral of an average person (24:09) may be such that (24:10) if then already some child (24:12) gets mixed up in a fight, then it (24:14) may not necessarily be such a thing (24:16) that would make me feel worse (24:18) about it. But basically (24:19) such a situation where people (24:22) take the law into their own hands (24:24) was the basic reason for whatever.
(24:26) I can say that it is (24:30) and it is (24:31) precisely (24:32) a risk for it to grow if (24:34) officials then don't take care of (24:36) their own money well enough and (24:38) take care of their own property well enough. (24:40) So that's why it could be based on (24:42) that officials really should (24:44) think about those (24:47) effective means, (24:48) not those things that just look good on paper, (24:51) but truly effective means (24:52) so that they don't end up in a situation (24:54) where then the citizens (24:56) themselves would start hunting these. (24:58) Yes, just like that.
(24:59) In a certain way, (25:02) the vaga cup is (25:04) what you described, (25:06) that if (25:07) some social (25:09) processes and structures (25:12) don't (25:14) solve (25:15) such important problems, (25:18) then there is a risk that (25:19) then in society an event (25:21) will be dictated, that it will be (25:23) solved by other means, (25:25) and loneliness is (25:27) a kind of restrictive (25:29) national activism, (25:31) if you could (25:31) call it that. (25:35) But of course, (25:38) to some extent, (25:39) and here we will also come to (25:41) the properties (25:42) of these media platforms, (25:46) that it, for example, (25:47) makes it easy to (25:50) notice (25:53) that they are (25:54) it is very (25:56) important, (25:57) just because you don't need it yourself, (25:59) because (26:02) those different, (26:04) especially those (26:05) scamming companies, (26:07) they have such huge (26:08) numbers (26:10) that (26:11) there is no sense (26:16) in them, (26:16) and it might not even (26:17) succeed with such (26:21) national (26:24) vigilantism (26:24) or whatever terms (26:26) are used for it. (26:27) It is important that information is (26:30) passed on, that it ends up (26:31) as a systematic process, (26:33) and ultimately, (26:34) these criminal organizations (26:35) are dismantled, as it happens.
(26:40) And then again, (26:42) if we think that, (26:43) but of course, such national (26:44) activism can also be useful, (26:46) like, for example, these (26:47) misdemeanors, (26:49) to which official resources (26:51) or law enforcement resources (26:53) have not been used much (26:55) lately, (26:58) like, for example, (26:59) bicycle theft, or some (27:00) vehicle theft, and such. (27:03) And in those, (27:04) such media platforms (27:07) have even been quite effective, (27:09) that people (27:11) have actively, (27:14) for example, (27:15) tried to find on the internet (27:17) for example (27:19) bicycles or donated cars (27:21) or something. (27:23) So if a bicycle or a car has been stolen, (27:25) then where is the (27:27) sales announcement on the matter? (27:29) Yes, for example.
(27:31) But the point is still (27:33) that there must (27:35) be reasonable (27:37) and easy-to-use (27:39) ways to get (27:41) the matter somehow (27:42) to an appropriate decision. (27:45) So that (27:47) a citizen (27:48) would not have to (27:51) try to get (27:52) the stolen car (27:54) from someone's (27:57) yard. (27:58) It is more likely to have a worse (28:00) follow-up than a good follow-up.
(28:03) Generally speaking. (28:04) Yes, I have three (28:07) themes that come to mind here. (28:10) Now we are probably (28:11) already at the end of the episode, (28:14) otherwise, but (28:14) one argument (28:16) against CSM (28:18) that I have come across is that (28:21) this in the end games (28:22) really does not serve (28:25) the original purpose, (28:26) that there would be a thing that (28:28) would look good on paper, and then (28:30) politicians could say that (28:32) now we have done something, (28:34) but in practice, however, (28:35) it would not change anything.
(28:38) Another thing that still came to mind (28:40) is what do you think (28:41) in today's (28:44) society, (28:45) in today's world, (28:46) the responsibility of parents
############################

14.7.2026
Part 5

5 FINLAND CHAT CONTROL 2024 oj8Kj8oXfS4zMgVP

(0:00) There are some strong assumptions that you don't necessarily need to wait 20 years, (0:04) because it may be that three years is enough. (0:08) Because in Finland, the political system creates a gap of four years, (0:14) so it is quite possible that it will happen in that cycle. (0:19) And it has actually happened.
(0:21) If we think a little over a year ago, or a year and a half ago when we had the last elections, (0:28) we had a clear change of focus. (0:35) So we went, I don't want to say from the side, (0:39) but let's say that from the other side, the scale has changed in this big picture. (0:46) And not only that, but now if we talk about politicians, (0:55) fortunately here in Finland, for example, in terms of this legislation, (1:03) or maybe in some other way, (1:08) we, for example, have been very interested and wanted to understand things from a deeper perspective.
(1:18) This has not necessarily been the case in all other EU member states. (1:24) Because if we look at, for example, the number of states that support this proposal, (1:29) it is quite large, and there are also states from which we would not have initially believed. (1:35) How can it be possible that they have decided that this kind of system is a good idea.
(1:43) But fortunately for us it has been the other way around, (1:46) and even now, at the best of times, this legislation is in the hands of the parliament. (1:57) And there is some, for example, in the election commission work, (2:03) there are clear indications that we have the desire and the ability to make long-term wise decisions in the center of political decision-makers. (2:17) In front of such questions, where we have to, in a situation where we have important values, (2:25) which have to be weighed, that which one goes forward, or which one is more important than the other.
(2:34) And this is very, very important. (2:39) It is very encouraging. (2:41) Fortunately, there are other EU member states that take a very, very close look at this and other things.
(2:52) But I would still say to your thought that it is certain that times and political winds change, (3:09) let's say, faster than the air, perhaps slightly slower than the weather, but not much of a difference. (3:18) I would say that probably faster than slower. (3:24) Yes.
Well, what if your association is clearly critical of this legislation, (3:32) and I can say that in the name of openness, it also relates to this very critically, (3:37) which probably has also been seen in some of your own questions. (3:43) But I also understand those who then say that, well, okay, now this law is not, or if you think that this law should not be done, (3:54) then it is not the original problem, if you think about child sexual abuse, (4:00) and specifically its material spread on the web, that it does not disappear anywhere. (4:04) So are there, on the other hand, some solutions that would go hand in hand with this privacy, (4:15) with which then these problems could be solved more efficiently today? (4:19) Yes, I will answer briefly to the end of your question that there are those, and we can talk about them in a moment.
(4:28) I would like to first take at least a couple of things before that. (4:35) One is that it is true that we relate very critically, (4:41) we respond, so to speak, to these general mass surveillance measures and proposals without the suspicion of crime, (4:59) as is usually the case, because our intention, as through our members, (5:04) is ultimately to support and be involved in developing a better digital life. (5:13) Our digital life is not as high-quality as our real life in this hand-to-hand world, (5:22) and our rights would not be fulfilled there in the near future at the level that we are used to elsewhere.
(5:33) And before that, there is still a lot of work to be done. (5:36) Actually, one question in between, when you just said the term mass surveillance, (5:41) is this the core of your criticism or response, or is it just one part of them? (5:48) But it is precisely the idea that now we should build a system (5:53) in which people would be monitored without any suspicion. (5:59) Is that the core? (6:04) Well, in this case, I would like to speak in the form of a layered hamburger.
(6:10) So it has more than one core. (6:13) I don't know how many cores there are in the end, (6:19) and how manly each one is, how much attention they require. (6:23) Other cores may be thicker than others, (6:25) but mass surveillance is definitely one of these cores.
(6:31) The other one, which is actually part of it, (6:37) is that in a free and democratic society like Finland, (6:48) the focus of official control will be on the basis of suspicion. (6:58) Not in the way that everyone is monitored at the same intensity all the time. (7:07) But people's own choices and actions will be monitored.
(7:12) And from there the indicators will rise, (7:15) to whom the official action is directed. (7:21) And this is perhaps the thickest part of the core. (7:29) And because the legislation does not really have the capacity (7:33) to provide such a possibility in the proposed form.
(7:36) But then there are precisely other cores, (7:39) one of which is, for example, (7:44) any type of official control. (7:48) If, for example, we assumed that we had a way of acting (7:52) in which surveillance could be directed to those people, (8:00) to whom we suspect the sexual abuse of a child, (8:08) or the possession of material related to it, (8:11) i.e. to enjoy this material, (8:14) then the mechanisms that the legislation produces (8:25) must be predictable in terms of effect. (8:30) So in no way should such legislation be created (8:36) if we don't know what happens when it starts to be applied.
(8:40) And that's the second core here. (8:46) The third core is perhaps even bigger in the sense that (8:53) it's not just the perspective of mass surveillance, (8:58) but it's that we have a well-functioning, (9:03) already, one might say, hundreds of years (9:08) developed human and basic rights system. (9:12) That is, a model of what values are the most important (9:15) that must be protected in society.
(9:18) So that whole must be protected, (9:25) protected from all good influences as well. (9:31) And that's because, for example, (9:35) economic activity is also based very broadly on trust. (9:44) And the way of life works on the basis of trustful messaging.
(9:52) Some secrets are more important than others. (9:55) Let's talk about company secrets or something like that. (9:58) But the daily interactions and interaction that we have, (10:03) they don't belong to three parties.
(10:06) They don't belong to competitors, (10:07) and they don't belong to anyone. (10:12) So the things that belong, (10:13) they are told on the web pages and in the news (10:17) and in social media and so on. (10:23) So that also brings to mind that if there was a target, (10:26) such a surveillance agency, (10:28) which, in practice, (10:31) would have access to all possible company secrets.
(10:35) And even if initially the system was not built (10:39) to read every single message, (10:42) but if the system is built, (10:45) as previously stated, (10:47) it's easy to add things to it. (10:49) So if there was a target (10:51) that would have access to all company secrets, (10:55) then you could say (10:58) that it would probably also increase the risk of corruption quite a lot, (11:01) because the target that would have access to it (11:06) would probably be quite a lot of providers of money or company secrets. (11:12) So if you think about what are the means (11:15) to reduce corruption, (11:17) it is to build such systems (11:20) in which officials cannot act in the wrong way.
(11:25) Or even if there is always a possibility for certain misuses, (11:28) you could say that such systems are being built (11:31) in which the misuses would not be extremely large. (11:35) Yes, definitely. (11:38) And if I think about your original question a little further, (11:44) then it's not even just about us, (11:50) although we are perhaps quite visibly present in this matter (11:54) precisely for that reason, (11:56) because our field of work is the one that produces (12:02) the elements of security for other actors in society, (12:06) in what way we can trust digital systems, (12:11) digital information systems.
(12:15) But we are, as a system, (12:19) one of the sectors of technology industry, (12:23) and we have, as a technology industry, (12:24) Finland's largest sector, (12:29) in the sense that, (12:31) if we think about the Finnish business sector, (12:36) more than half of our revenue (12:41) comes from technology industry companies in Finland, (12:46) and about one third comes from gross domestic product. (12:50) So our entire economic well-being (12:53) has been built on this stock for a very long time. (12:57) In addition, of course, there are other sectors, (13:01) such as, for example, TV and broadcasting, (13:07) i.e. the Finnish network operator and other sectors.
(13:11) They also understand quite well, (13:12) because for them, of course, (13:13) this digital e-mail is like everyday life. (13:16) They understand the risks and dangers, (13:19) what is there. (13:21) There are a lot of other actors, of course, (13:23) so I wouldn't be alone in this.
(13:27) But then, if I go to the question (13:32) of what would help. (13:35) So if we think that (13:38) if this kind of regulation doesn't go through, (13:40) then what could be the current (13:45) or easily developed solutions (13:48) that could be used? (13:50) Yes. (13:53) There are perhaps two aspects (13:55) that I would like to bring up.
(13:57) One is what this legislation (13:59) as a whole contains. (14:03) In fact, there are quite a lot of elements (14:06) that are very profitable. (14:08) Profitable.
(14:10) And those that are already being left in advance. (14:14) So now that I'm talking about following up, (14:17) anticipating, (14:18) we know that these actions (14:20) would have a positive effect (14:23) on our problem (14:24) that we are solving here. (14:27) So we are not in any way (14:28) against this whole legislation, (14:32) but only those (14:36) very harmful and dangerous (14:42) elements that it contains.
(14:46) Which are, for example, (14:48) the entirety of this early warning. (14:53) And the other thing is that (14:56) outside of this legislation (15:00) there are, of course, a lot of actions (15:02) that can be done. (15:04) Which, of course, in this way (15:07) it progresses in any way, (15:09) so there will be no change, (15:12) but they should be advanced (15:13) in some other way.
(15:16) Can you give some examples of the legislation (15:19) about the things that you think (15:20) could be profitable? (15:22) Yes. (15:22) And we have actually offered them (15:24) very broadly as well. (15:26) For example, (15:27) for those who are against (15:27) this legislation.
(15:31) We have been involved from the very beginning (15:33) when the European Commission (15:36) has already started to prepare this, (15:38) and then also during the European Parliament (15:40) process, (15:42) and now during the process of these (15:43) member states, (15:45) and so on. (15:47) They have been offered, (15:49) and some have actually been (15:52) quite good responses, (15:53) but many times in the legislation (15:55) the accuracy (15:57) and precision is a very (15:59) central issue. (16:01) And one thing that we have (16:03) considered very profitable (16:05) is that we could (16:07) rather write down (16:10) for example (16:11) the planning principles (16:16) What things (16:18) have to be above all (16:19) when these products (16:21) are offered.
(16:22) What kinds of things (16:24) should be there. (16:26) For example, (16:28) the easy and fast (16:35) reporting possibility (16:36) specifically for (16:37) maintaining these services. (16:39) A bit the same way as (16:41) in many services (16:42) through, for example, (16:42) Verkkoseläimen.
(16:46) You can report (16:49) that if you notice (16:50) something, (16:51) for example, (16:52) that this is inappropriate. (16:54) Or even on social media platforms (16:56) you can typically report (16:57) some inappropriate content. (16:59) But would those be (17:02) things that would be written (17:03) in the law, (17:04) that would then require (17:06) these applications, or what is it in practice? (17:10) Yes, exactly that.
(17:11) And then maybe even more centrally (17:12) when we talk about how (17:14) children can... (17:16) Because this kind of functionality (17:17) suits any kind of content (17:20) that is... (17:22) If a user notices that someone (17:24) is trying to cheat or (17:25) something like (17:27) for example (17:29) fraud related (17:31) cheating and (17:33) stealing money from people (17:36) in a different (17:36) way (17:36) or in a different way (17:39) then this kind of (17:42) mechanism suits that as well. (17:44) But then there are these child-friendly (17:45) planning principles as well. (17:48) Which relate to (17:50) the fact that there are technical (17:51) implementation ways, for example (17:52) to make it easy (17:55) for parents to monitor, (17:57) i.e. the ability to monitor (18:00) safe basic (18:03) settings (18:04) like for example (18:06) that (18:06) in a service (18:09) you can't send (18:11) messages to anyone (18:15) and (18:17) age is monitored (18:18) in such a way that (18:19) for example an adult (18:22) can't approach (18:23) if there is no mutual (18:24) contact or (18:26) these kinds of features.
(18:29) Of course it depends on (18:31) the messaging service (18:33) which and where (18:34) is the best. (18:36) But then there is for example (18:37) something that is already under (18:39) Europe's work, (18:40) the digital identity (18:43) which is still being (18:47) during this year. (18:50) And the basic principle is (18:51) that all Europeans (18:53) will have a fundamental (18:59) right to (19:01) and the state offers (19:03) tools to maintain (19:04) this kind of digital identity.
(19:07) And the central (19:09) functionality is (19:10) that (19:11) to identify (19:14) someone, i.e. some (19:16) features that we have, (19:19) we don't do it anymore (19:20) like we used to. (19:22) If we think that we wanted (19:23) for example tobacco or alcohol (19:26) or some age-restricted product (19:28) to buy from a store, (19:30) we used to show (19:31) a personal identification (19:33) as a whole. (19:35) There is the whole name, (19:37) there is the whole date of birth, (19:39) there is a personal ID, (19:40) there is all kinds of information.
(19:42) So through these new digital identities (19:45) we can even indicate (19:46) that I am of a certain age, (19:49) that is, I have completed 15 years (19:50) or 18 years or whatever (19:52) without having to show (19:54) to the service provider (19:56) my exact date of birth. (19:58) On the other hand, the basic thing (20:01) that we talked about earlier (20:02) is that not all (20:04) software developers would use them. (20:07) Or still, anyone can (20:08) make their own application.
(20:10) Part of the application (20:11) is not a company's, but a company's (20:14) superior. (20:15) How would that work in practice? (20:19) Would that just be (20:20) aimed at those big companies (20:22) in the future? (20:24) Because a law (20:26) that somehow obliges all (20:28) messaging applications (20:30) to work in a certain way (20:31) would seem a bit strange. (20:34) Yes, you are right.
(20:37) The thing is (20:38) that we have proposed (20:40) we have a long list (20:42) there are actually 10 different (20:46) proposals (20:46) that are good (20:48) and affordable things (20:49) most of which are possible (20:51) with this law or the law (20:53) that is in force (20:54) that we get in advance. (20:58) But then there are (20:59) these others as well. (21:01) But all in all (21:02) in all of these things (21:05) that should be done (21:06) in this problem-solving (21:09) is in such a way that (21:10) as a politician (21:13) probably many of you know (21:15) without mentioning the name (21:16) that the same lipstick (21:18) does not fit (21:19) a melon and a lemon.
(21:22) Here it is precisely (21:24) that certain (21:26) services are suitable for certain (21:28) new methods (21:30) better and certain requirements (21:32) and then again for others. (21:34) For example these that I (21:36) brought up, these are typically (21:38) suitable for (21:40) bigger ones (21:42) than then again for example (21:43) if I go back (21:45) quickly to the beginning (21:48) when I mentioned that we have (21:49) two areas (21:52) in this problem-solving (21:53) the other is the inappropriate (21:55) approaches and the other is (21:57) the material production (21:59) because when the material (22:01) is already there (22:03) it is a means of exchange (22:05) it is like a commodity (22:07) even if (22:09) it is not necessarily (22:11) euro or dollar (22:13) what it can be (22:14) for example
#####################

13.7.2026
Ursula von der Leyen und der uneingeschränkte Zugang der Feudalmacht


EU-Kommissionspräsidentin Ursula von der Leyen:

"Der Status quo, in dem wir es den großen Tech-Unternehmen erlauben, uneingeschränkten Zugang zu unseren Kindern erlauben", führe zu Schäden, betonte die Kommissionspräsidentin.

ORF:

"Die Kommission hat bisher immer betont, dass die Durchsetzung zusätzlicher Verpflichtungen für Onlineplattformen in die Zuständigkeit Brüssels falle."


Wer schützt die Bürger, 450 Millionen Menschen, vor dem uneingeschränkten Zugriff in selbst ihr intimstes Privatleben, ihre Schrift und ihre Sprache?


https://orf.at/stories/3436049/
[aus juristischen Gründen ungekürzt]
[*quote*]
-----------------------
ORF.at

Kommission prüft Mindestalter für Social Media
Online seit heute [13.7.2026], 10.38 Uhr

EU-Kommissionspräsidentin Ursula von der Leyen hat heute in Brüssel zusammen mit Expertinnen und Experten einen Bericht mit Empfehlungen zur geplanten Einführung eines Mindestalters für soziale Netzwerke präsentiert.

,,Wir werden uns den Bericht sehr genau ansehen und nach dem Sommer einen Vorschlag vorlegen", kündigte von der Leyen an. Das Expertengremium sprach sich für ein Verbot für Kinder unter 13 Jahren aus.

,,Es muss ein Mindestalter geben, ab dem sich Kinder auf Social Media anmelden können", sagte von der Leyen. In Österreich plant die Bundesregierung konkret ein Social-Media-Verbot für unter 14-Jährige. Mehrere EU-Länder planen ähnliche Verbote.

Suche nach Kinderschutz

Das Panel habe eine der größten Herausforderungen für die Regierungen geprüft: wie man Kinder schützen kann und welche Normen und Regeln dafür geeignet wären, so von der Leyen. Es liege auch an den Eltern, Kinder zu schützen und zu entscheiden, wann diese ihr erstes Smartphone erhalten.

,,Der Status quo, in dem wir es den großen Tech-Unternehmen erlauben, uneingeschränkten Zugang zu unseren Kindern erlauben", führe zu Schäden, betonte die Kommissionspräsidentin.

Zuständigkeit in Brüssel

Neben Österreich planen zahlreiche EU-Länder eine nationale Altersgrenze für Instagram, TikTok und YouTube. Die Kommission hat bisher immer betont, dass die Durchsetzung zusätzlicher Verpflichtungen für Onlineplattformen in die Zuständigkeit Brüssels falle.

Laut dem EU-Gesetz für digitale Dienste, dem DSA, müssen Minderjährige und ihre Sicherheit, ihre Privatsphäre und ihre privaten Daten online bereits besonders geschützt werden.

Der DSA ist seit zwei Jahren in Kraft und soll Onlineunternehmen dazu zwingen, stärker gegen illegale und hetzerische Inhalte im Internet vorzugehen. Für von der EU-Kommission als besonders große Onlineplattformen bezeichnete Unternehmen gelten zudem noch strengere Auflagen, etwa für Google, Facebook, TikTok, Instagram und X.

red, ORF.at/Agenturen
-----------------------
[*/quote*]

13.7.2026
Bärbel Bohley 1991 zur Machtergreifung der Machtergriffenen:


https://www.tichyseinblick.de/daili-es-sentials/ausweitungen-verfassungsschutz/
[ZITAT]
[*quote*]
-----------------------
[...]
Aber eigentlich hätte man es wissen können, denn wie sagte laut Bericht von Chaim Noll Bärbel Bohley bereits 1991:

[***quote***]
-----------------------
Die gründliche Erforschung der Stasi-Strukturen, die Methoden, mit denen sie gearbeitet haben und immer noch arbeiten – das wird in die falschen Hände geraten. Man wird diese Strukturen genauestens untersuchen, um sie dann zu übernehmen. Man wird sie ein wenig adaptieren, damit sie zu einer freien, westlichen Gesellschaft passen. Man wird Störer auch nicht unbedingt verhaften. Es gibt feinere Möglichkeiten, jemanden unschädlich zu machen. Aber die geheimen Verbote, das Beobachten, ... die Angst, das Isolieren und Ausgrenzen, das Brandmarken und Mundtotmachen derer, die sich nicht anpassen, wird wiederkommen – glaubt mir. Man wird Einrichtungen schaffen, die viel effektiver arbeiten, viel feiner als die Stasi. Auch das ständige Lügen wird wiederkommen und die Desinformation...
-----------------------
[***/quote***]

Sie sollte Recht behalten.

[...]

-----------------------
[*/quote*]


1991, das war 2 Jahre nach der "Wiedervereinigung" der vereinigten faschistischen  Feudalisten...

Im übrigen:

"Wenn der Faschismus wiederkehrt, wird er nicht sagen: «Ich bin der Faschismus» Nein, er wird sagen: «Ich bin der Antifaschismus»"

(Ignazio Silone)



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GSXQpbeXEAA-5pL?format=jpg&name=small

mehr:
https://www.journalist.is/folia/index.php?topic=109.msg441#msg441

13.7.2026
'Steinmeier in Krefeld, oder: Auf Augenhöhe in Guantanamo'


Was die Überparteilichkeit angeht, die offensichtlich einer Parteilichkeit weichen soll, ist die Unparteilichkeit gegengestellt? Oder wie darf man das verstehen, daß parteilich, unparteilich oder überparteilich ein deutscher Staatsbürger mit Namen Murat Kurnaz in Guantanamo VIER JAHRE LANG WEITERGEFOLTERT WURDE, obwohl

"obwohl die Amerikaner zu diesem Zeitpunkt schon bereit waren, den für sie wertlosen Deutschtürken freizulassen, weigerten sich deutsche Behörden, den Gefangenen aufzunehmen - und überließen ihn weitere vier Jahre in Guantanamo seinem Schicksal."

Die Quelle:

https://www.allaxys.com/~kanzlerzwo/index.php?topic=10466

[*quote*]
##############################################
Thymian

Steinmeier in Krefeld, oder: Auf Augenhöhe in Guantanamo
« on: February 02, 2019, 03:47:09 PM »

https://www.bundespraesident.de/SharedDocs/Reden/DE/Frank-Walter-Steinmeier/Reden/2019/02/190202-Krefeld-Gelebtes-GG.html

[*quote*]
Der Bundespräsident (Link zur Startseite)
    Bundespräsident Frank-Walter Steinmeier
    Reden und Interviews
    Reden
    Empfang für Aktive der politischen Bildung

Empfang für Aktive der politischen Bildung
Krefeld, 2. Februar 2019   Änderungen vorbehalten. Es gilt das gesprochene Wort.

Bundespräsident Frank-Walter Steinmeier hält eine Ansprache (Archiv)

Vor einem Jahr um diese Zeit war ich mir ziemlich sicher, dass es schwierig werden würde, alle Landeszentralen beziehungsweise den Landesbeauftragten und die Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung unter einen Hut – oder sagen wir passender: unter einen Schirm – zu bekommen. Denn das hieß ja: 17 politisch unabhängige Häuser, 17 unterschiedliche Konzepte, was ""Demokratie ganz nah"" bedeuten kann. Liebe Frau Springenberg-Eich, lieber Herr Krüger: Ich habe mich geirrt – und das mit großer Freude!

Unser gemeinsamer Ideenwettbewerb zum 70. Jubiläum des Grundgesetzes war schon auf dem Papier sehr dynamisch, und heute hier in Krefeld wurde greifbar: Politische Bildung ist so viel mehr als ihr Image! Die meisten denken doch an Regalmeter Bücher, Bücher, Bücher oder an den – leider oft erfolglosen – Versuch des Lehrers in der Schule, die Definition von Erst- und Zweitstimme in die Köpfe zu kriegen.

Ich glaube, hier im Saal sind wir uns einig: Das alles ist wichtig, aber es reicht nicht, um in einer Zeit wie der unseren, wo die Demokratie zunehmend unter Druck gerät, zu vermitteln, was unser politisches Modell und sein Fundament – das Grundgesetz – so wertvoll macht. Vor allem reicht es nicht, um in allen Altersgruppen, auch jenseits der Schulen, Mitstreiter im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes zu finden.

Politische Bildung muss sich auf den Weg machen, muss hingehen zu den Menschen, ganz gezielt auch zu denen, die bisher von solchen Angeboten nicht erreicht werden oder nicht erreicht werden wollen: weil sie sich ""der Politik"" fern, entfremdet oder abgehängt fühlen, weil sie sozial benachteiligt sind oder weil sie aus ihren Herkunftsländern politische Partizipation oder einen Ansprechpartner, der sich als überparteilich versteht, einfach nicht kennen. Für die Demokratie fehlen sie alle.

Zur nüchternen Realität gehört auch: Kontaktaufnahme in diese Richtungen funktioniert nicht oberlehrerhaft. Wenn ich meine Briefpost oder die Kommentare auf meiner Facebook-Seite lese, dann möchten die meisten Bürgerinnen und Bürger in unserem Land alles andere als belehrt werden. Was sie sich wünschen, das ist: gehört werden, ernstgenommen werden, beteiligt werden.

Allerdings glauben viele von ihnen nicht daran, dass ""die Politik"" ihre Anliegen versteht oder überhaupt wahrnehmen will. Es gibt ganz offenkundig einen Vertrauensverlust bis hin zu den aggressiven Stimmen, die ""das System"" als solches infrage stellen. Für politische Bildung geht es derzeit also nicht nur um Formenvielfalt oder Reichweite, es geht um ihren inhaltlichen Kern, ihre Substanz.

Als ich mich entschieden habe, den Ideenwettbewerb auszurufen, war der Geburtstag unserer Verfassung mehr als ein Anlass, er war ein wichtiger politischer Anstoß. Ich bin überzeugt: 70 Jahre Grundgesetz sollten uns mehr wert sein als Verlegenheitsveranstaltungen, mehr wert als reine Pflichterfüllung. 70 Jahre Grundrechte sollten den Bürgerinnen und Bürgern etwas sagen, etwas mit ihnen zu tun haben. 70 Jahre Grundgesetz zu beachten und öffentlich sichtbar zu würdigen, ist gerade in dieser Zeit von großer Bedeutung. Politisch Verantwortliche landauf, landab sind dabei, ihr Verhältnis zu den Bürgerinnen und Bürgern, ihre Zielgruppen und eigenen Programme neu zu überdenken, ganz besonders die Frage: Wie lässt sich Vertrauen in die repräsentative Demokratie neu stiften? Um dafür parteiübergreifend eine Grundlage zu schaffen, brauchen wir das große Netzwerk der Bundes- und Landeszentralen mehr denn je. Und wir brauchen Mut!

Mit Mut meine ich zum Beispiel: alte Versprechungen mit neuem Leben füllen, etwa die viel zitierte Begegnung auf Augenhöhe. Als Diplomat habe ich oft erlebt, wie schnell sich das sagt und wie schwer es im Alltag einzulösen ist. Bei meinen Inlandsterminen als Bundespräsident empfinde ich es ähnlich. Wenn ""die Politik"" zu Gast ist, steht da meistens eine Bühne mit Rednerpult, Sender- und Empfängerrolle sind festgelegt. Und selbst wenn ausdrücklich zum Dialog eingeladen wird, glückt er nur selten. Flüchtlingshilfe, Pflegenotstand, Kinderarmut: Sie kennen die Liste der hochemotionalen Themen.

Gerade vor diesem Hintergrund hat mir der Beitrag der Landeszentrale Nordrhein-Westfalen bei unserem Ideenwettbewerb so gut gefallen: Demokratie im Quartier, ein Werkstatt-Tag, bei dem ganz unterschiedliche Teilnehmer gleichberechtigt an einem Tisch oder an einer Pinnwand zusammenkommen. Jeder kann alles sagen, solange die Grundregeln konstruktiver Kommunikation eingehalten werden.

Wenn es der Emmaus-Gemeinde auf diese Weise gelingt, Menschen mit und ohne Obdach ins Gespräch zu bringen, ist das schon ein Wert an sich. Wenn Anwohner sich sogar entscheiden, im Viertelsrat mitzuwirken, um gemeinsam mit Vertretern der Stadt das nächste Straßenfest zu planen oder wilde Müllplätze in den Griff zu bekommen, dann hat unser demokratisches Miteinander mehr gewonnen, als eine perfekte Definition von Erst- und Zweitstimme je bewirken könnte. Ja, vielleicht wird dann auch deutlich, dass wir – wir alle als Bürgerinnen und Bürger einer Demokratie – unsere Gesellschaft gestalten können und dass unser Wahlrecht ein Ausdruck von Bürgerstolz sein kann, selbst die Richtung der Politik zu bestimmen, jedenfalls mitzubestimmen.

Wir werden auf dem Podium gleich mehr darüber hören, wie die sogenannte aufsuchende politische Bildung mit Leben gefüllt wird. Aber ich möchte Sie, liebe Gäste – auch für die Saaldiskussion – herzlich bitten, die Probleme nicht zu verschweigen, vor denen Sie bei Ihrer täglichen Arbeit stehen. Wie funktioniert es beispielsweise an den Schnittstellen, wenn Haupt- und Ehrenamt kooperieren müssen? Oder wenn politische Bildung sich so weit hinein in die Gesellschaft bewegt, dass die Grenze zur Sozialarbeit erreicht oder sogar überschritten wird?

Was mich umtreibt, ist außerdem die Frage: Mit welchen Worten beschreibt man solche Initiativen? Die Bundeszentrale wird dankenswerterweise eine kleine Publikation, ein Pocket-Format, herausbringen, um die Projekte aller Landeszentralen zu dokumentieren. Ist dort dann vom sogenannten ""Problemviertel Krefeld-Süd"" die Rede, um Außenstehenden klar zu machen, warum die Demokratie-Werkstatt genau dort entstand und Artikel 1 des Grundgesetzes genau dort diskutiert wird? Oder findet sich eine andere Formulierung, die Fakten nicht schönfärbt, aber trotzdem ein wichtiges Ziel erreicht: Differenzieren statt Diffamieren?

Dieser Balanceakt ist mir so präsent, weil mich mein nächster Besuch auf Einladung der Landeszentrale Sachsen-Anhalt nach Halle-Neustadt führen wird. Ein Wunsch ist mir schon im Vorfeld übermittelt worden: Es wäre gut, wenn der Bundespräsident mal einen Tag lang alles vergessen könnte, was er über Halle-Neustadt gelesen hat, und sich vor Ort anhört, wie es dort wirklich ist. Das will ich gern tun.

Zuhören können, vor allem: zuhören wollen, das setzt eine Bereitschaft voraus, die wir in vielen Teilen unserer Gesellschaft öfter und deutlicher einfordern müssen. Oder neu entwickeln, in sozialen Medien beispielsweise. Bei allen Vorzügen, die sich dort für den Austausch eröffnen: Soziale Medien verführen auch dazu, permanent zu senden. Zuweilen Dinge, die man im persönlichen Gespräch nie über die Lippen bringen würde. Ich möchte die Digitalisierung unserer Kommunikation aber deshalb nicht rückabwickeln, im Gegenteil. Ich will eine Diskussionskultur beflügeln, bei der gewisse Grundregeln der Auseinandersetzung von allen geachtet werden – online wie offline. Und wenn wir uns über diese Regeln nicht einig sind, dann müssen wir eben die Regeln selbst zum Gegenstand der Diskussion machen. Ich glaube, hier liegt gerade für politische Bildung ein riesiges Arbeitsfeld, eines der wichtigsten für unsere Demokratie überhaupt, um kompromissfähig zu bleiben.

Ein erster Schritt wäre, dass wir uns alle in diesem Prozess als Lernende verstehen. Ich jedenfalls werde das heute tun und nachher nicht auf dem Podium sprechen, sondern Zuhörer sein.

Lieber Herr Bremer, es freut mich sehr, dass Sie gekommen sind, um uns einige wissenschaftliche Einblicke zum Thema ""Demokratie ganz nah"" zu geben, insbesondere zur Perspektivumkehr bei der Ansprache von Erwachsenen: nicht warten, wer nachfragt. Anbieten, anbieten, anbieten! Frau Menke vom Bundesausschuss Politische Bildung e. V. wird aus der Warte des Ehrenamts sicher viele praktische Beispiele ergänzen. Frau Springenberg-Eich und Herr Meyer haben heute im Tagesprogramm schon bewiesen, dass sie sehr genau wissen, wovon sie sprechen. Und auch unsere Moderatorin bringt eigene Erfahrungen zur politischen Bildung mit: Liebe Frau Boysen, Ihr Stichwort ""Vagabundenakademie"" hat meine Frau und mich neugierig gemacht.

Nicht nur wir beide, im besten Fall der ganze Saal soll von der versammelten Expertise etwas mitnehmen und in Bund, Länder und Kommunen weitertragen. Es ist natürlich kein Zufall, dass alle drei föderalen Ebenen im Programm vertreten sind. Geschätzte Partner: Vielen Dank für die fruchtbare Zusammenarbeit – und nun Bühne frei!

© 2019 Bundespräsidialamt
[*/quote*]


Das hat DER BUNDESPRÄSIDENT, auch bekannt als Frank-Walter Steinmeier, heute in Krefeld gesagt, schreibt das Bundespräsidialamt. Vorausgesetzt natürlich, daß er sich an den Text gehalten hat.

Wer hat den Text wohl geschrieben?

Und wer hat dem Schreiber die Hand geführt?

Die Realität, die tägliche, in der wir leben, ist so bizarr geworden, daß es angesichts des Wahnwitzes der Politik schwer fällt, der Politik eine andere Konsistenz als der eines Irrenhauses zuzusprechen, eines Irrenhauses, in dem die Irren die Wächter sind. Oder eben ......... die Politiker!


Zur Realität und zu den Bürgern meint Steinmeier laut seiner Rede:

"Zur nüchternen Realität gehört auch: Kontaktaufnahme in diese Richtungen funktioniert nicht oberlehrerhaft."

Das sagt er, der sich hier mal wieder zum Oberlehrer aufspielt.


In dem vielen dummen Geschwätz, das Steinmeier da von sich gibt, fehlt etwas. Deswegen ist es notwendig, so ist die Art des Hauses, sich den Text ganz anzusehen, und dabei nichts auszulassen. Wovon Steinmeier nichts sagt? Von Murat Kurnaz sagt er nichts. Dafür einen Satz, der nicht nur in Deutschland die Menschen an die Decke springen läßt:

"Mit Mut meine ich zum Beispiel: alte Versprechungen mit neuem Leben füllen, etwa die viel zitierte Begegnung auf Augenhöhe."

Auf Augenhöhe? Auf Augenhöhe mit Guantanmo?

Dann sagt er noch:

"Flüchtlingshilfe, Pflegenotstand, Kinderarmut: Sie kennen die Liste der hochemotionalen Themen."

Nichts über Guantanamo.


Im Spiegel erschien 2007 ein Artikel über Murat Kurnaz. Den muß man lesen:

[*quote*]
    Nachrichten
    Politik
    Deutschland
    Kurnaz-Buch: Memoiren aus dem Lager des Leidens

Kurnaz-Buch Memoiren aus dem Lager des Leidens

Schläge, Amputationen, Folter - mehr als fünf Jahre lebte Murat Kurnaz in einer Umgebung, in der Qualen Alltag waren. Jetzt hat er ein Buch über seine Zeit in US-Haft und dem Lager Guantanamo geschrieben. Darin erhebt er auch neue Vorwürfe gegen deutsche und US-Soldaten.

Von Yassin Musharbash
Freitag, 20.04.2007   15:38 Uhr

Berlin - Eines vorweg: Was Murat Kurnaz aus Guantanamo berichtet, ist teilweise so unglaublich, dass man fast Widerwillen verspürt, ihm zu glauben. Dabei haben die beiden Journalisten Oliver Schröm und Uli Rauss Recht, wenn sie in ihrem Nachwort schreiben: "Die Aussagen des 24-Jährigen aus Bremen... stimmten bis ins Detail überein mit dem, was im mittlerweile sehr umfangreichen Bestand an Dokumenten und Berichten über Guantanamo verfügbar ist."

Ex-Häftling Kurnaz: Der schreckliche Alltag wird vorstellbar
AP

Ex-Häftling Kurnaz: Der schreckliche Alltag wird vorstellbar
Und doch bleibt schwer zu fassen und noch schwerer zu verdauen, was der Deutsch-Türke mit Hilfe seines Ghostwriters Helmut Kuhn zu Papier gebracht hat.

Nur ein Beispiel: Kurnaz berichtet von einem jungen "Käfignachbarn", einem Saudi-Araber, dem US-Ärzte beide Beine amputiert haben. Nun sitzt er in Guantanamo mit eitrigen Stümpfen, "der Verband, der darumgewickelt war, hatte sich rot und gelb verfärbt". Verzweifelt versucht der Mann, auf den Toiletteneimer zu klettern. Doch die Wärter verprügeln ihn, statt ihm zu helfen: Es ist verboten, den Draht zu berühren, an dem er sich aufrichten will.

Kurnaz schreibt, es sei gang und gäbe gewesen, dass die Militärärzte Häftlingen mit voller Absicht zu viele und falsche Gliedmaßen abnahmen. "Ich wollte um keinen Preis auf die Krankenstation", heißt es an einer Stelle. "Ich wollte meine Zähne, Finger und Beine behalten."
[*/quote*]

mehr:
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/kurnaz-buch-memoiren-aus-dem-lager-des-leidens-a-478489.html


Das Buch von Murat Kurnaz:



https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51N8BrMFkWL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

   Murat Kurnaz
   "Fünf Jahre meines Lebens. Ein Bericht aus Guantanamo"
   Rowohlt Berlin, 16,90 Euro
   ISBN-10: 387134589X
   ISBN-13: 978-3871345890


Es gibt auch eine CD zum Anhören:



https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51-04VX3kML._SY446_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    Audio CD
    Der Audio Verlag
    ISBN-10: 389813637X
    ISBN-13: 978-3898136372

[*quote*]
Fünf Jahre meines Lebens: Ein Bericht aus Guantanamo. Lesung Audio-CD – Hörbuch, 1. Mai 2007
von Murat Kurnaz (Autor), Gabi Rüth (Regisseur), Paul Sonderegger (Sprecher)
[*/quote*]


Zum Buch:

[*quote*]
Als der junge Deutschtürke Murat Kurnaz, in Bremen geboren und aufgewachsen, Anfang Oktober 2001 nach Pakistan reist, um eine Koranschule zu besuchen, ahnt er nicht, welches Martyrium ihn erwartet – und dass er seine Familie viereinhalb Jahre nicht wiedersehen wird.

Bei einer Sicherheitskontrolle wird er wenige Wochen nach seiner Ankunft festgenommen und von der pakistanischen Polizei gegen 3000 Dollar Kopfgeld an die US-Streitkräfte verkauft. Er wird ins afghanische Kandahar gebracht, dort schwer gefoltert, und kurz darauf ins Häftlingslager Guantanamo geflogen. Bald finden die Amerikaner heraus, dass der junge Türke aus Bremen unschuldig ist – dennoch muss Murat Kurnaz mehr als 1600 Tage die Hölle von Guantanamo ertragen: Verhöre, Folter, Isolationshaft, Käfighaltung, viereinhalb Jahre fast ohne Schlaf. Erst 2006 wird Kurnaz entlassen. Er ist von den Torturen der Haft schwer gezeichnet.

Was er nach seiner Rückkehr nach Deutschland erfährt: Die deutschen Behörden wussten schon seit 2002, dass er unschuldig ist und in Guantanamo misshandelt wurde. Doch obwohl die Amerikaner zu diesem Zeitpunkt schon bereit waren, den für sie wertlosen Deutschtürken freizulassen, weigerten sich deutsche Behörden, den Gefangenen aufzunehmen - und überließen ihn weitere vier Jahre in Guantanamo seinem Schicksal....

In diesem Buch erzählt Murat Kurnaz seine unglaubliche Geschichte – ohne Hass, aber sehr klar und detailliert.
Im Mittelpunkt stehen die schrecklichen Erlebnisse in Kandahar und vor allem im Lager Guantanamo: Er schildert, wie er an Ketten stundenlang aufgehängt wurde, wie er beißender Kälte und brütender Hitze ausgesetzt wurde – und man ihn über sieben Wochen lang alle zwei Stunden verlegte, damit er nicht schlafen konnte. Er berichtet über das Vegetieren in Maschendrahtkäfigen, über Elektroschocks und Isolationshaft.
Neben diesen erschütternden Beschreibungen der unglaublichen Brutalität im Lager, die von Rückblenden zu Murats Leben in Deutschland unterbrochen werden, gibt Kurnaz auch ein genaues Bild des ,,Systems Guantanamo": einer Welt der Rechtlosigkeit und Willkür, in der Gefangene wie Tiere behandelt werden.
[*/quote*]


Kaufen Sie das Buch oder die CD in einem Buchgeschäft in Ihrem Wohnort.
BUY LOCAL! KAUFT IM ORT!


Zu dem Hörbuch gibt es diese Beschreibung:

[*quote*]
Murat Kurnaz - Fünf Jahre meines Lebens. Ein Bericht aus Guantanamo - 2007 - Hörbuch
160 views

HörspielBuch
Published on Dec 18, 2018

Als der junge Deutschtürke Murat Kurnaz, in Bremen geboren und aufgewachsen, Anfang Oktober 2001 nach Pakistan reist, um eine Koranschule zu besuchen, ahnt er nicht, welches Martyrium ihn erwartet – und dass er seine Familie viereinhalb Jahre nicht wiedersehen wird.
Bei einer Sicherheitskontrolle wird er wenige Wochen nach seiner Ankunft festgenommen und von der pakistanischen Polizei gegen 3000 Dollar Kopfgeld an die US-Streitkräfte verkauft. Er wird ins afghanische Kandahar gebracht, dort schwer gefoltert, und kurz darauf ins Häftlingslager Guantanamo geflogen. Bald finden die Amerikaner heraus, dass der junge Türke aus Bremen unschuldig ist – dennoch muss Murat Kurnaz mehr als 1600 Tage die Hölle von Guantanamo ertragen: Verhöre, Folter, Isolationshaft, Käfighaltung, viereinhalb Jahre fast ohne Schlaf. Erst 2006 wird Kurnaz entlassen. Er ist von den Torturen der Haft schwer gezeichnet.
Was er nach seiner Rückkehr nach Deutschland erfährt: Die deutschen Behörden wussten schon seit 2002, dass er unschuldig ist und in Guantanamo misshandelt wurde. Doch obwohl die Amerikaner zu diesem Zeitpunkt schon bereit waren, den für sie wertlosen Deutschtürken freizulassen, weigerten sich deutsche Behörden, den Gefangenen aufzunehmen - und überließen ihn weitere vier Jahre in Guantanamo seinem Schicksal.
In diesem Buch erzählt Murat Kurnaz seine unglaubliche Geschichte – ohne Hass, aber sehr klar und detailliert.
Im Mittelpunkt stehen die schrecklichen Erlebnisse in Kandahar und vor allem im Lager Guantanamo: Er schildert, wie er an Ketten stundenlang aufgehängt wurde, wie er beißender Kälte und brütender Hitze ausgesetzt wurde – und man ihn über sieben Wochen lang alle zwei Stunden verlegte, damit er nicht schlafen konnte. Er berichtet über das Vegetieren in Maschendrahtkäfigen, über Elektroschocks und Isolationshaft.
Neben diesen erschütternden Beschreibungen der unglaublichen Brutalität im Lager, die von Rückblenden zu Murats Leben in Deutschland unterbrochen werden, gibt Kurnaz auch ein genaues Bild des ,,Systems Guantanamo": einer Welt der Rechtlosigkeit und Willkür, in der Gefangene wie Tiere behandelt werden.
[*/quote*]


Zu meiner großen Überraschung ist diese Beschreibung bei YouTube, dem zum Internet-Parasiten Google gehörenden Konzern:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uoau6_PrIdU

4 Stunden lang kann man zuhören, was Murat Kurnaz berichtet.

VIER STUNDEN!

Man hätte nicht Steinmeier in Krefeld reden lassen dürfen, sondern das Hörbuch sprechen lassen sollen. Das wäre auf Augenhöhe gewesen mit den Bürgern. Damit sie erfahren, was "die da oben" anrichten.

« Last Edit: February 02, 2019, 07:07:21 PM by Thymian

.         Im Angesicht von Gewalt ist Höflichkeit gegenstandslos.
.         At face with violence politeness is pointless.

.         (User TNT in the former CDU forum)
--------------------------------------- * --------------------------------------- * ---------------------------------------
##############################################
[*/quote*]

13.7.2026
Die Parteilichkeit eines Herrn Steinmeier


Es begab sich im Lande D:

https://x.com/PeterBe70502113/status/2076366435450773712

[*quote*]
-----------------------
ÖRR Blog. @OERRBlog

Der überparteiliche Bundespräsident Steinmeier erklärt im ZDF Sommerinterview, er möchte nicht mehr überparteilich sein, sondern Stellung beziehen. #OerrBlog
Embedded video
[VIDEO:


https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/2076352842407837696/vid/avc1/1920x1078/JbNNdDx2bHIbvVZU.mp4 ]

-----------------------
Klara Namen *wgP* @PeterBe70502113

Demokratie ist kein SYSTEM, sondern lediglich EIN Daseinszustand,  der so, so, oder auch so sein kann, immer veränderlich.
Insofern ist seine *Beschreibung,  Sichtweise* völlig ungenügend, billig billigend, die UNVERÄNDERLICHKEIT! Insbesondere betrifft es auch seine ganz persönliche Vergangenheit .
DEMOKRATIE ist kein starrer, ewig andauernder Zustand eines Systems,  sondern ist ständiger Veränderungen unterlegen  - so wie seine Vergangenheit.
Vom einstig, sozialistischen Revoluzzer zum bürgerlich, versteinerten Grüßaugust.
Image



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HNC8ROYXoAA7CUG?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

8:01 PM · Jul 12, 2026
941 Views
-----------------------
[*/quote*]



Transkript:

[*quote*]
Steinmeier:

Es gibt heute einen erklecklichen Anteil, die wählen nicht richtig oder falsch, oder links oder rechts, sondern die wählen gegen das System der Demokratie. Und da ist die Frage der Überparteilichkeit nicht mehr ausreichend. Da muß Dazu muß man Stellung beziehen.                                                   
-----------------------
[*/quote*]


Die Bürger wollen das "System" der Unterdrückung nicht mehr hinnehmen.

Demokratie ist die Herrschaft das Volkes. Das Volk begehrt auf.

Schockschwerenot! Die Demokratie, die Herrschaft des Volkes, verstößt gegen das System!

Vielleicht sollte man die Überherrschaft der Überselbstherrlichen so beenden, wie das Volk, also der Souverän, es will. Es wäre, im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes, DEMOKRATIE, also die Herrschaft des Volkes.