German minister predicts collapse of governments

[um@c2.org (Ulf Moeller)]

 German Minister of Justice: Governments' attempts to regulate the
 internet on their own are nonsensical, technically and economically.
 National states are obsolete. A crypto ban cannot be enforced.

The German news magazine DER SPIEGEL features a story about the internet, with
33 pages of the usual hype. However, there is a remarkable interview with the
German Minister of Justice, Edzard Schmidt-Jortzig:

The minister says that he is not glad about always having to talk about
control when concerned with the internet. According to him, the internet has
been getting on without any special laws. The discussion about pornography and
blocking programs reminds him of the discussion about the "dangerous device
TV" in his youth.

The state has legitimate interests in regulations, he says, but it is
"nonsensical, when those attempts are restricted to one country. The internet
has no borders. What is illegal in one state will simply be served to the net
elsewhere." He admits that in a way he is happy about that: "This whole
discussion still is at its very beginning."

Conceivably, providers could be obliged to block pages with illegal contents
to their customers, Schmidt-Jortzig says. However, such a step, performed by
the government on its own, would hardly make sense technically and
economically: Instead of going through the exteme effort of controlling the
contents, providers would simply move to countries such as Andorra,
Liechtenstein or Luxemburg. That would only increase telephone bills for the
customers, but Germany would lose many innovative businesses and jobs.

Propaganda from overseas could only be avoided by a world-wide convention or
UN treaty, but he does not expect any such things for the next 10 years.
Facing the development of technology, "our thinking in national categories
is no longer adequate. That way, we will not be able to control the net. I
rather think that we will have to say good-bye to the idea of enforcing
German law on the internet."

Of course, Nazi propaganda or child pornography would remain illegal in
Germany, but the question were if it can be enforced. "I can already imagine
those users sending their paroles and pamphletes to the net from Luxemburg,
deriding the helpless German authorities. I don't really think that
is great, but I don't see any solution."

"I think the internet with its unlimited possibilites of communication and its
anarchistic structure is one of the most amazing challenges the state
currently has to face. Faster than we would have thought, the traditional
national state will prove obsolete. A legislation ending at the borders of a
certain territory will be increasingly hard to defend." He knows that many
will find it difficult to bear, says Schmidt-Jortzig, "but we cannot outlaw
the internet only because it does not fit with the conception of life of some
[people living in yesterday's world]. Not even the Chinese can."

The idea of the global citizen in the internet, who no loger has to cope with
national ideas, is a nice vision, he says, but still very unrealistic. For
some time, national states would remain authoritative and defend their
function. "But I am afraid that this stuggle will eventually fail."

Schmidt-Jortzig says that the Bavarian prosecutors' proceed against CompuServe
has been absolutely legitimate, but if they will be sentenced were a totally
different question, because the accused had no way of verifying every internet
resource.

In a global community, there could be something like a net police. German
controls however, would be totally senseless today: "If I really were to
regulate the internet with laws and prohibition in spite of all argumentation,
then I would certainly need such control, a new federal Data Police. But I
think nobody would have such absurd an idea, as everyone knows that would
also mean the death of this innovative business field in Germany."

The state could not care for fully effective privacy on the net, but may have
to inform about the threads towards privacy. Schmidt-Jortzig does not see any
reason for banning encryption software the police cannot break: "Why should I
outlaw that on this still rather insecure media, people encrypt their private
mail, and be it only the results of the federal league." - "Even if I
wanted to, I could hardly enforce that ban. You can download encryption
programs for free on the internet. Meanwhile, there even is software that
allows you to undetectibly hide a message in normal e-mail. The state is
participating in a persuit race that it cannot win at all. Of course that does
not exempt us from having to try to persue in the beginning."

Asked about criminals using encryption, he says that he knows there will be
large scepticism if the state gives up that quickly. "Only, I am afraid that
those who work against this development will eventually have to lay down
arms. Any attempt to find a national solution will fail."