The production, acquisition and dissemination of hacker tools is punishable under § 202 c StGB. The manager of an IT security specialist company and a university teacher of computer science presented in the face of this fact the question of how they can practice their profession at all if in the use of hacking tools, their profession brings have to the prosecutor moves along, so to speak as a background process. Next, they put this matter to the Constitutional Court. In Solomonic fashion, the Federal Constitutional Court, the Board has not even accepted (BvergE, BeckRS 2009, 35 013). This both complainants should only halves be satisfied. The Federal Constitutional Court of First Instance said that the rule on hacker tools software includes only those developed with the intention of using them to commit crimes. It must be, the Federal Constitutional Court, this intention objectively manifested themselves. The mere suitability of programs for criminal purposes is not enough. It covers so no dual-use tools that can be used both to commit crimes as well as for legitimate purposes. That this is due basically to the complaint, both individuals had not presented.
The two complainants have now half full or half empty glass. Whether software they in the course of their legitimate professional activities as permitted use, was developed with the intention of using them to commit crimes, can hardly be excluded in any case. As a rule, should just such a software for the operator of an enterprise IT security be particularly interesting. Hackers are often more creative than their own employees, often subject to these hackers, but also any German criminal violence. Since virtually every hacker software even for legitimate purposes, namely to promote IT security can be used, probably with consistent application of the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, drain the provisions of § 202 c StGB substantially. All experience with a public prosecutor and criminal courts, it does not. There remains the courts and the lawyers left to resolve in practice, which is a dual tool, and when and how far the intention to use crime has manifested objectively. It would have been nice if the Federal Constitutional Court would have at least the issue of dual-use tool being taken closer position. This alone would have been within the meaning of the German IT specialists, for their German company law does not require restriction and security fears.
0 comments:
Post a Comment