Politics · 20 June 2010 ·
Fnording the BP oil spill
German blogger and fnording specialist Fefe has digged out a couple interesting facts related to BP’s oil desaster. Thus BP’s CEO Tony Hayward has sold BP shares worth £1.4 million weeks before the catastrophe to finish off his mortgage for his house. This alone would not be newsworthy, if BP hadn’t been aware of problems with the Deepwater Horizon already in February. Make of that what you will, although personally I tend to believe in coincidence…
Either way, Hayward claims that he had not been aware of anything whatsoever. The Houston Chronicle has a number of well-entertaining quotes by Mr Hayward:
- “I was not involved in that decision. So it is impossible for me to answer that question.”
- On the money saved with certain well design decisions: “I’m afraid I can’t recall that.”
- On the time saved by some decisions on the well: “I don’t recall that either, I’m afraid.”
These are just three, and Houston Chronicle has some more, if you like. Such things never cease to amaze me. Managers and CEOs of large companies always claim that their extraordinary wages are due to their enormous responsibility they take for the company. Yet when something actually goes wrong they shy away and claim to have not been involved at all. So what are they being paid for, if I may ask? Being blissfully ignorant? Of course a CEO cannot possibly be involved in all decisions, yet at the same time it is his/her responsibility to ensure that his/her subordinates are, and act in a responsible manner. But maybe that is the key to the problem — companies are mainly responsible to their stakeholders, and not the public (or even the environment). Thus, decisions taken try to maximise profitability on the cost of responsibility. Yet at the same time free marketeers claim that we need even less regulation.
The most entertaining quote however is this one:
“With respect […] we drill hundreds of wells around the world,” Hayward told Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas. “Yeah, I know,” Burgess shot back. “That’s what’s scaring me right now.”
And just to keep you entertained, this brilliant sketch by John Clarke and Bryan Dawe:
Politics · 17 June 2010 ·
Icelandic Modern Media Initiative
There are not enough good news in this world, the bad ones are far more common. in the field of civil rights and press legislation, how many good news are you able to recall for the past one year, and how many bad ones? How often do you hear about a legislation being passed that will actually increase civil rights?
Right now I feel we have come to a point where even deferring legislation that is effectively reducing freedom is seen as a success, as in the halt of the British ID-card scheme or the German web filtering attempts against child pornography. (Noteworthy, that the very secretary Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger who ruled out access blocking against child pornography now thinks it’s appropriate against copyright infringement [DE]) In the meantime we hear about restrictions in the freedom of speech all the time. Let’s take Turkey’s recent ban of a number of Google services as an example, which now not only includes youtube.com, but also translate.google.com, books.google.com, google-analytics.com, tools.google.com and docs.google.com. And whilst officially legal reasons are the reason for the unavailability of these services, semi-officially things might speed up with a little bit of tax money, according to an article by the Hurriet. I don’t know what’s worse. But before we start bashing our Eastern Neighbours, we should try to remove the beam in our eyes than complain about the splinter in theirs. British libel laws are amongst the worst in the Western world and have severely inhibited press coverage about the Trafigura scandal through the imposition of super-injunctions. And similarly, BP is restricting access to their wee little oil spill for journalists, so that they can effectively control what pictures are released from the area. I could recall all these events and cases without straining my memory too much, yet examples of the opposite are rare, and right now there is only one serious initiative that at least attempts to tackle these issues and increase the freedom of the press or civil liberties. (some may have noticed that I have used these two terms interchangeably, and frankly for me they are. Citizens can only exercise certain liberties if they are well informed, which requires a free press)
When last in August last year the Icelandic television station RÚV was about to air news regarding a scandal surrounding the infamous Kaupthing bank (Read up on the background), the bank prevented the broadcast legally with an injunction. All RÚV was able to report was that there was one story they were not allowed to share, but people should inform themselves on wikileaks.org, the original source of their information. Just a note for UK readers — if this had happened here and Kaupthing had used a superinjunction they wouldn’t even be allowed to report this!
In response, a bipartisan, cross-party alliance started working on the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative (IMMI), a comprehensive piece of legislation that intends to combine the most progressive press legislation of various countries, thus creating the by far most liberal press law. There is also a dedicated website for the IMMI with a snippet from Al-Jazeera News, which sums it up pretty well:1
Nevertheless I remained sceptical, history has taught me to be. Far too often such legislation won’t leave the stage of proposal and will be repelled. Also, the notion of a bipartisan coalition seemed utopian, if not unthinkable to me (at least in this area of legislation), knowing only British and German party politics. But now it seems that the
“IMMI has passed! The Icelandic government unanimously supports press freedoms and will put IMMI into law! More soon.
— wikileaks
Wikileaks remains as cryptic as ever, yet according to the timeline on the IMMS website, on the 15th of June the
“Proposal will be processed from the general committee. [And the] Proposal will be voted for by all Parliamentarians.”
Good news, which are also confirmed by the Independent. I am curious what impact this will actually have on the national Icelandic press and the international press, which has the potential to benefit from the IMMS as well. Thus, according to the Independent article, there are rumours that even the German weekly Der Spiegel and ABC News are considering using the increased freedoms in Iceland, and it is hoped that there will be knock-on effects to other countries as well. I am more than optimistic, yet I cannot disband all scepticism. I wonder whether the effects will be as significant, and what role this new piece of legislation will play during Iceland’s EU membership talks. Yet it is a stunning law, a sign of hope. Please excuse my pathos, when I put up a wee Iceland playlist:
Benni Hemm Hemm, bennihemmhemm.com – Retaliate
Seabear, www.seabearia.com – I’ll build you a fire
Björk, bjork.com – Declare Independence
Sigur Rós, sigur-ros.co.uk – Starálfur
1 Isn’t that a Sigur Rós sample that’s looped in the background at around min 3.20?
Politics Media · 27 March 2010 ·
One Picture is Worth Ten Thousand Words
Don’t get me wrong, I wish him all the best. Maybe he can raise the quality of the Sunday Times a wee bit.
Politics · 30 September 2009 ·
Interpreting the results of Germany's federal elections
The results of Sunday’s federal elections lead to a new centre-right coalition government which is economically much more liberal than the previous government. The Free Democrats were proclaiming drastic economic reforms during their electoral campaign and the Christian Democrats already indicated that they wanted to end the unpopular Grand Coalition with the Social Democrats for similar reasons. I try to explain the current strands of debate in Germany, and assess whether Merkel will now turn to Thatcherite positions.
The following text was a reply to a friend of mine asking me for my view on the German elections. It turned out to be rather lengthy, and I thought it might be worth putting it online
As you might have guessed I’m not too happy about the results. My main electoral goal—if I might say so—was to keep the Christian Democrats out of government. That didn’t happen. Also, in the elections in Schleswig-Holstein they managed to form a coalition with the Free Democrats, giving them the majority in the second chamber, the Bundesrat. However, this essentially also means the loss of the two-thirds majority in the Bundestag, making it more difficult to change the basic law.
What happens now, is not clear. I am just as curious as you are, essentially. The first statements of intention by the FDP and CDU are pointing towards the following:
- According to the weekly Der Spiegel, there will be cutbacks in the support for renewable energies and the running time of nuclear power plants is going to be extended. Interestingly, Der Spiegel argues that this will mainly pose a threat to solar power and coal fired power stations. Wind energy will reach the level of self-financing soon, and there is less tough competition due to the size of the plants. The German solar industry on the other hand now faces not only cheaper producers form China, but an even more difficult home market. The coal industry on the other hand will loose out to the fierce competition posed by the extended lifetime of nuclear power plants.
- The FDP intends to cut back on civil rights restriction and the internet censorship law introduced the by the former grand coalition. However, it is unlikely that they will be able to do that retrospectively. It’s much more likely that they will only be able to prevent further laws aimed in reducing civil liberties. It seems that Wolfgang Schäuble, former secretary of the interior will be replaced. He was one of the driving forces behind the supposedly anti-terror legislation that is responsible for the worst liberty cutbacks in recent German history, although Otto Schily under the SPD)/Green coalition already laid the foundations. (Schily, a fierce proponent of biometric fingerprints in passports is now supervisory board member of two companies for biometric technologies) Interestingly, a paper leaked from his ministry recently that suggested further legislation, pushing in the same direction as usual. It is not clear whether the FDP will be able to defend their position against the pressure of the CDU. In the last CDU-FDP government they failed to do so, and I have my doubts: To me it appears that they are more concerned about taxes than civil rights and liberties. On the other hand, the FDP consists of two wings: The socio-liberal wing and the economically-liberal wing. Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, who belongs to the former, resigned under chancellor Kohl over a law introducing acoustic observation in private domain (“Großer Lauschangriff”), is likely to get the department of justice in a new government—which would give hope for the future. Furthermore, the FDP is now much stronger than in their last coalition and might be able to put more pressure not the CDU. Time will only tell whether they’ll use it right.
- A side note about Schäuble: He will presumably get a position in the European Commission, where he has the potential to bring about mischief to the rest of Europe, too, with the backing of a strong Conservative fraction in the European Parliament.
- Regarding the social system I have no idea what will happen. On the one hand the social system in Germany is deeply rooted in society. It will be hard to weed out. However, already under chancellor Schröder advances were made that went further than under the previous government lead by the Christian Democrats. Some commentators argue that only a left-wing government like the one under Schröder could have implemented these reforms; the extra-parliamentary protest would be much bigger under a centre-right coalition. Also, different wings within both, the Christian Democrats as well as the FDP play a role again. In the FDP some wings are indeed not so much concerned about radical free marketism, in the Christian Democrats, there is a deep fear that too radical cutbacks will alienate voters. (Generally I perceive this party as a party lead by fear) Particularly the Bavarian CSU would be most hesitant about this. (whilst being the loudest to proclaim tax cuts at the same time) Furthermore both parties rejected criticism that they stand for cutbacks in the social system, proclaiming that they simply want to make it more sustainable. However, we will definitely not get a minimum wage and it is likely that the division between private and public health care will increase.
- Similar to Thatcher, the privatisation of the German railway will presumably go ahead. Advances were already made under the previous government, but the Social Democrats insisted on privatising only 25% (I might be wrong on that number though, but the Government certainly kept a majority share) However, this will probably be conducted different to the British privatisation. Instead of splitting up the Deutsche Bahn, it will be privatised as a whole. It is unclear what this means for the future.
- The German Pirate Party scored 2%. It will be interesting to see how the party will continue to develop and whether it can retain its momentum. In the weeks before the elections it was able to attract enormous attention from the media, considering its size and electoral share. On the other hand, it has become the seventh-biggest party in Germany, after the Greens. (Christian Democrats and the Bavarian Christian Socialists are counted as two distinct parties, although they are part of one faction in the federal parliament) and is still growing. It’s not clear whether it will be able to continue attracting voters. This probably depends on the legislation of the future governments, too: If continues to limit civil rights and is generally internet-unfriendly, it is likely to do so. Otherwise I don’t know whether voters will find further incentives to vote for the Pirates. It will certainly be interesting to observe their development.
- The Social Democrats are shattered, at least for the moment. In a way that’s terrible. But being out of government also means that they will be able to rebuild themselves and get back to their “core values”. The old guard behind the drastic social reforms might has to step back. There’re rumours that Steinmeier just resigned and will not stand for party leader, as he intended immediately after the elections. However, a shift to the left is not risk-free—the new Left party (A merger of the successor of the Socialist Unity Party, PDS, and the young left party WASG) gained in strength significantly, and filled this formerly empty space. And looking back to Labour in the ’80s, such an approach seems very dangerous, but this is neglecting different conditions in Germany. Either way, if they have chance at all, it is probably only together with the Left Party and the Greens. Hence it is unlikely that the new SPD leadership will dismiss that option in advance, as they’ve done during this year’s electoral campaign, due to the history of Die Linke as the successor of the former Socialist Unity Party of East Germany. Interestingly, the fiercest opposition against such a coalition came from the western parts, where the Left Party mainly consists of defected Social democrats, disappointed with the social cuts introduced under chancellor Schröder and not former SED-members. Either way, I wouldn’t write of the Social Democrats yet, they are still strong in some Bundesländer, and they won the election in Brandenburg. (Without losing votes in fact) In my view their key problem is that they lost touch with the regular party members, and strengthened top-down decision-making processes. This made it almost impossible for the party’s base to influence major political decisions.
Speaking of Brandenburg, that’s the place the good news come from:
- The SPD will form the government, presumably with the CDU as in the previous government or with the left.
- The Green party made it into the parliament.
- The Nazi-Party DVU did not.
So, well, to sum it up… I’m not sure what will happen next. On the one hand I am slightly optimistic that it won’t be as bad as I expect it to be. Maybe the new government will not be as bad as Thatcher’s, particularly considering the liberty-focused FDP and the lazy and overaged CDU. On the other hand I’m very pessimistic—it might be even worse. I haven’t made up my mind yet and I’m looking into the future with a morbid curiosity…
Politics Personal · 12 January 2009 ·
All hope's not lost...
…yet. But there isn’t much left.
2008 has passed. A year that saw the abuse of anti-terror laws. With regard to that I want to refer to Anne Roth’s talk at the 25C3 last year, which is also available as video. New laws were introduced, in Germany we got the telecommunication interception and data retention law and our beloved secretary of the interior also got his Christmas present—extended rights for the federal prosecution service (BKA), including the right to spy out use remote forensic software to spy out computer hard drives without the knowledge of the suspect. Initially I hoped the Social Democrats hadn’t lost their mind, but I was mistaken. The arbitration commission worked out a few minor ammandments, most noteworthy the requirement of a judicial decree in order to carry out a remote forensic search. However, judges already lack time to work through applications for house searches, according to the 25C3 talk by Constanze Kurz and Ulf Buermeyer: They have about 20 minutes to consider each case.
On the other hand, according to the German IT newspaper C’T, the Swedish interception laws have been drastically down-sized and partially its effects have been reversed, with civil liberties now being strengthened. I have to add that the Scandinavian countries always amaze me. Whilst being far from perfect, they still seem to be politically much more sensible than their southern neighbours.
But then, this faint hope is torn apart by new plans in the UK: The plans for the new Interception Modernisation Programme become more and more disturbing: Albeit only retaining information on who called or emailed whom and when, this information can reveal a lot about a person. Bringing on the example of Andrej Holm again, who was accused of being a member of a suspected “terrorist organization” (the whole construct is hideous, a military car was set on fire. That might be bad, but doesn’t make a terrorist organization). One of the reasons he was drawn into the case was that he knew people who were suspected to be involved in the incident. This means that simply knowing someone who is suspected to be involved in some sort of terrorist activity could make you one of the suspects. Terrorist activity as become a very broad term, apparently including the destruction of GM crops. The threat of such false connections is beatifully illustrated by The Sainsbury’s Lesson, where Sainsbury’s used their Nectar Card to data mine and profile their customers. The data was then used to send promotions to customers, based on their buying habits. If your buying habits would o with a pregnant couple, you might get lucky enough and they would sent you baby clothes. Uuups, wrong connection. Thus the false positive rate is potentially dangerous and due to humans being humans, will remain high. And I don’t even want to imagine what would happen if this information gets into the wrong hands.
Apart from that there are more great things about the Interception Modernisation Programme. The estimated costs are £ 12bn and a private companies will be assigned to collect and process the data, according to The Register.
It is specifically this what drives me nuts: It’s not just that we are fighting shadows, no, because of that we’re loosing balance. Unlike in Sweden, there are no attempts to strengthen civil liberties. There are only calls to “remove obstacles”. But often these “obstacles” are barriers that protect civil liberties and privacy. Are we willing to pay that price? Shouldn’t we at least say, that if it is necessary to take a right away, that we gain a new one? What about a wee bit of bargaining? Are we that cheap? Is this the day of the big sell out?
All this has left me in a state of despair. I tell myself, hey, it can’t be as bad as you think. Time will pass, and just like the UK survived the IRA terror and Germany the RAF’s, this phase of international terrorism will pass, and with it all these exaggerated security measures. But then, will we ever make any progress? Is one enemy replaced by another one, just as an excuse to justify extremist policies. In the beginning I used to belittle the international terrorism scare. I am far from denying that there is a threat. But I want policies that work. I want to tackle the roots of the evil, and I don’t want to pay with our freedom and get a placebo, like CCTV surveillance, which is “A total fiasco”, according to Scotland Yard. In a book on psycho-therapy, Paul Watzlawick gives the example of a man who sits on a bench and constantly claps his hands. He is asked why and answers that he does it to chase away elephants, as you can clearly see there are no elephants around, therefore he is very successful in what he is doing. I see Mr Schäuble clapping his hands against terrorism, too. Though… he’s not clapping his hands, he’s playing with the fundamentals of the German constitution. I don’t feel like digging out Radio Yerevan Jokes yet, but I do not see much that would make it stop. Yes, our federal court seems like our slow but mighty protector. But theoretically it’s time for a political change. But it seems that change is slower than a federal court. In Germany, the Christian Democrats are currently the leading party and I fear the Free Democrats—their likely coalition partner—will loose their regained conscience as soon as they are part of the government. The Pirate Party is still negligible.
The same story in Britain: Nu Labour has increasingly become like the Tories under Thatcher. I remember Labour volunteers distributing badges saying “I still hate Thatcher”. Well, Ms Thatcher seems to be back in Office. The recent policies seem to be her reincarnation. And what’s the alternative? The Tories?! Let me get this straight: We should turn to the Tories to save us?! There is a fundamental flaw there! And I see no hope of it getting resolved, unless the LibDems can get hold of power. But until that happens… hell froze over.
Politics is no fun. I should focus on Psychology in my studies, and drop Politics, because there is at least some form of progress in Science. I don’t see that much of it in politics. All this can be summed up in a snippet from a conversation with one of my flatmates, albeit being about something else:
She: “Is it that bad?”
Me: “Nae, it’s much worse!”
comment! [1]
Politics · 26 November 2008 ·
Banana Politics
How regimes rely on bananas.
Last year, I proposed the hypothesis that the survival rate of commmunist states correlates to the availability of bananas. If bananas are available countries tend to survive longer. This applies particuclarly to communist ones. Let me give you some examples: The German Democratic Republic sufffered under chronic banana shortages and collapsed after only 40 years. Cuba on the other hand survived, I suppose mainly due the fact that they are in fact a banana producing country. In fact, I propose that the reason for resistance in East Germany was the lack of bananas. So this is my theory. Now don’t confuse me with facts and examples of South American countries.
Besides, if you take this post serious, I will give you a banana.
Politics · 26 November 2008 ·
You must watch this!
Absolutely hilarious: Mark Thomas!
If there is anything that can save the British society then it is this:
There is enough to worry about.
Thanks to Anna.
Politics · 18 November 2008 ·
Hope
Not only Obama promises hope, but also the Social Democrats in Saxony. They decided to veto Mr Schäubles recent reform of the federal police, the BKA. With the resulting abstention vote of Saxony in the Bundesrat, the law seems to be blocked—at least temporarily.
Good news from Germany! Recently, the introduction of more and more surveillance laws and initiatives to limit civil rights left me in a state of despair. But there is hope, at least temporarily: The Social Democrats in Saxony decided to veto the infamous BKA) -bill. The law included secret video surveillance in flats, installation of a so called `Bundestrojaner’, a spyware programme which would inspect the hard drive of suspects without their knowledge; as well as giving the federal police powers that are normally found only in secret services. Additionally doctors and other secret carriers can be subjected surveillance, and that under certain circumstances police can carry out surveillance without consulting a judge.
The bill has already passed the Bundestag, (German parliament) and will be put forward in the upper chamber, the Bundesrat, on November 28. However, it is very likely that it will veto the law. Up to very recently, it seemed that the bill would pass the Bundesrat with, with 35 votes pro and 34 contra1. But on Sunday, Saxony’s Social Democrats announced that they will not support the law, whereas the coalition government of Social Democrats and Christian Democrats gov will cast an abstent vote, which leads to 31 pro/38 contra the law.
The battle is far from over though. Once the law is rejected it will be forwarded to a arbitration commission that will redraft the law in order to resolve the conflict. I doubt the law will be completely rejected. Instead, I fear, there will be minor amendments leading to a compromise. But on the other hand—I hope that the Social Democrats will overcome their subordination to the Christian Democrats and will develop an independent and more sensible approach to inner security, that acknowledges civil rights.
But on the other hand, many similar laws were passed on Länder as well as federal level, such as the telecommunications act which will put EU-law into practice to retain all telephone connections for three months. With regard to this, my only hope is the federal court. But Britain on the other hand does not have such an institution, and its government is trying to do its best to prove George Orwell right.
This craze about giving up our liberties to gain marginal amounts of security has to come to an end. If you want to prevent deaths, then wasting resources and freedoms in the fight against low-probability threats such as international terrorism is not effective.
If you really want to do something, it’s probably much more sensible to avoid car accidents, but then—who gives a damn about that anyways:
“A total of 27,800 people were killed or seriously injured on Great Britain’s roads on weekdays during 2002, or an average of 107 people each day.”
1 Most of the votes against the bill are in fact abstentions due to coalition governments in the Länder where either Greens or Liberals would oppose the law. If a coalition government on Länder level cannot agree on an issue, the vote will be counted as abstention. However, to pass a bill in the upper chamber the bill has to receive a majority of the total votes in its favour.
Politics Personal · 16 November 2008 ·
Hobbes...
A short rant about Hobbes
As I am currently writing an essay on Hobbes’ commonwealth I vividly remember the first lecture on him. Our lecturer started by explaining Hobbes’ state of nature, a condition in which people will fight each other, because they cannot trust each other. In order to overcome this condition, people must unite and form a common wealth. So far I find his ideas quite sensible. But then it gets weird: On top of this state, there should be a sovereign with absolute power. Right… He goes over to explain that this sovereign is supposed to carry out the will of all members of the commonwealth. However, my objection is that this very sovereign is just as egoistic as anyone else, thus why should he be bothered about what the remaining people think? Hobbes argues that because if he doesn’t they will revolt, but in the same breath also notes that even if he is an incredibly bad ruler they should not revolt because warre is what they should avoid by all cost.
That’s the short and admittedly incomplete version. I know I am ignoring a large part of his argument, but this is not my contribution to the debate, this will be expressed in my essay much nicer.
But in the end, my course mate Linnea seems to have the better interpretation after all.
comment! [1]
Politics · 1 October 2008 ·
Paranoia
German authorities have once again arrested terror suspects on vague grounds. A rant.
Security is one thing. Paranoia is another. Or, as the Guardian puts it: “‘Terrorism’ has two faces. There are real threats and real terrorists, and then again there is a realm of nameless fears, vague forebodings and irrational responses.”4 Right now, I think the latter is the one we should be most concerned about…
German security forces have once again arrested two terror suspects with a lack of evidence. One of the main pieces of evidence was a letter that was interpreted as a suicide note—which was used to justify immediate action, as it was feared that an attack was imminent. In fact this letter simply seems to be a farewell letter by the soon-to-be wife of one of the suspects. And although both suspects have been under surveillance for quite a while now, the police did apparently not know about this, stating that the suspect had “no commitments” and was therefore even more likely to commit a suicide attack.1
This incident is only one of many other recent cases where people have been arrested and the cases been blown up in the media. But it seems that not only the media is to be blamed but also the BKA, the German Federal Police as well as other governmental agencies.3 The most popular case is probably the one of the so called “Sauerland-group”: Some incompetent wanna-be terrorists mess around with chemical substances, not having an idea what they actually wanting to do and how they want to accomplish it. They get caught through their own stupidity but are then called “super terrorists”2 And the obvious links to Al-Quaida turn out to be non-existent and whilst the group itself is rather insignificant, but highly overrated.3 If these are the super terrorists we have to worry about, I am actually relieved. What’s the fucking point? Where’s the success? But this is not why I am frustrated.
I am frustrated because incidents like that are used to push forward telecommunications surveillance, the erosion of civil liberties and to change the power balance of police and state—all this in order to “fight terror.” To make things worse even the current laws are pushed to their boundaries—the worst case probably being the one of Andrej Holm, a professor at the Humboldt University, Berlin who was suspected to be a member of a radical left wing group. Why? Because he googled words like “gentrification,” was intellectually capable of “authoring sophisticated texts4“ and switched off his mobile regularly… For this alone he was under surveillance for more than one year and later arrested.56
I can only shake my head in despair. What the heck are they doing?! If state security is abusing its powers already, then giving them even more powers can’t be right, can it?
1 http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,581493,00.html
2 http://www.stern.de/politik/deutschland/:Sauerl%E4nder-Terroristen-Deutschland-Superterroristen/637945.html
3 http://www.wdr.de/themen/global/webmedia/webtv/getwebtvextrakt.phtml?p=400&b=006&ex=2
4 http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2007/aug/21/highereducation.uk1
5 http://www.heise.de/newsticker/Durch-Google-Suche-in-die-Einzelhaft-Update—/meldung/94714
6 http://www.taz.de/index.php?id=start&art=3471&id=deutschland-artikel&cHash=5218eee73a