Who moves in the Darknet, surfs under the radar. With the so-called Tor Browser you can access online services that are otherwise unreachable. In addition, it is harder for authorities and prosecutors than on the World Wide Web (WWW) to track down one. For whistleblowers and system critics in authoritarian states, the darknet is often the only chance to express themselves anonymously and to inform - his bad reputation has therefore not necessarily earned.
But the prospect of anonymity also attracts criminals. On portals in the Darknet is traded with weapons, drugs and medicines. Although perpetrators are caught again and again, the applicable law is no longer enough for individual states.
On Friday, the Federal Council therefore votes on whether the criminal law should be tightened with regard to operators of Internet platforms in the Darknet. These are the five most important questions and answers to the vote:
What is being voted on?
North Rhine-Westphalia and Hesse filed a bill in the Federal Council in January because they want to be able to crack down on operators of Darknet services. For this purpose, the criminal code is to be supplemented by a new offense, paragraph 126a (PDF).
The draft states that in the future users can be punished who offer Internet-based services to enable criminal offenses and whose "access and accessibility is limited by special technical precautions". The platform operators face imprisonment of up to three years if they illegally deal with weapons or drugs on their side.
Why do some countries demand harsher punishments?
The countries justify their suggestion that the operators of darknet portals with illegal products on offer offer a "low-threshold access to logistical infrastructures for committing crimes". This is a threat to public safety, they argue, and existing law does not provide sufficient opportunities for adequate prosecution.
If the Federal Council's Legal Affairs Committee is concerned, the law should even be tightened even further. The members of the panel request that paragraph 126a be extended to all pages on the Internet. In addition, not only operators of the pages should be punished, but also providers who provide servers, for example - but otherwise have nothing to do with the content of the pages. In addition, prosecutors should be given the opportunity to conduct online searches.
Are current laws not enough?
Anyone who operates a portal on which illegal weapons, drugs, medicines or child pornography are offered must expect consequences even under current criminal law. In the "Elysium" case, for example, the court sentenced four defendants to long prison sentences for making child pornography available. The "Elysium" server was controlled via the Tor browser.
Even after the shooting rampage in Munich in 2016, a platform operator had been charged with: Due to negligent homicide and assault, the Karlsruhe district court in December sentenced a man to a prison sentence of six years, on whose darknet platform the gunman had bought his gun.
What bothers critics about the paragraph?
Critics consider the paragraph too broad. Criminal lawyer David Schietinger says in a conversation with SPIEGEL: "The paragraph would severely limit civil liberties." In his opinion, too many cases fell under it, since even users could be prosecuted who only provide storage space. Hardly anyone would dare so much to offer a platform in the Darknet. "Indirectly, the new paragraph could be used to severely restrict or ban the Darknet," says Schietinger. "That's not the point."
more on the subject
For civil rights activists, journalists and whistleblowers, the Darknet is quite a useful device, says the lawyer. He thinks that the clause must be formulated much more precisely because otherwise the law is "not proportionate". The design endangered in addition to the darknet and classic websites. The wording in paragraph 126a "could also mean an e-mail provider or the operator of a classic online platform with password protection," explains Schietinger.
The Chaos Computer Club (CCC) also criticizes the design. The site netzpolitik.org said a spokesman that the draft mainly "rubber tarpaulins" contain. The clear goal is to criminalize operators and users of anonymization services.
Affected could then be websites that offer their offer in parallel in the Darknet. The "New York Times", for example, provides its articles via a gateway. Readers should also be able to access the page in countries where the website is blocked and location data is recorded. The social network Facebook also offers access via the Tor browser.
What happens if the Federal Council votes in favor?
Should a majority in the Bundesrat vote in favor of amending the law, the motion will first be forwarded to the Federal Government, which may comment on this. Within six weeks, the initiative will be forwarded to the Bundestag, where it will vote again. Only then is it possible for the clause to be enshrined in the Criminal Code.