Not really. They have been supporters for "Vorratsdatenspeicherung" / "stock data saving" / data retention for quite some time and now realize that the populace is not amused by the NSA shenanigans.
So in their infinite wisdom, they replaced it with "Mindestspeicherfristen" / "minimum storage limit" / data retention.
Exactly. It's pure spin, the content stayed exactly the same, they just replaced some words. Apparently done well enough, to confuse even Spiegel Online.
It's also important to note that this shift in wording predates the whole Snowden/NSA story. It is conveniently interpret in its light, now that the NSA in political discourse. Also note that Germany is facing federal elections in just a few months...
Why, even the Spiegel article says right at the beginning that it's just playing with words for the sake of elections:
"But for this change of course to be more than just an election ploy, the government should however advocate a change in the EU Directive in Brussels. Which prescribes a six-month storage of traffic data - and the Union confirms in other parts of its election manifesto that it holds onto the fundamental goal to implement the Directive. "Minimum retention period" is spoken in the Union for two years already - and means nothing but data retention."
This has been in force since 2006. The storage is required by law.
"member states will have to store citizens' telecommunications data for six to 24 months stipulating a maximum time period. Under the directive the police and security agencies will be able to request access to details such as IP address and time of use of every email, phone call and text message sent or received. A permission to access the information will be granted only by a court."
One big difference, though, is that this does not happen in secret. Everybody knows about it, and the member states can decide to implement it. Thus the voter could even (in theory) vote for a party that pleads to not implement said directive.
Though I think, again, the biggest difference is that it did not happen in secrecy but in a open and more democratic manner.
Also, the collection has to be implemented by each communication company itself (as opposed to by the police or secret service), so no central storage of data and no easy data-mining and network-building across the data sets of indviduals.
And you have all the usual data protection rights like requesting a full copy of all stored data from each company. In theory you should also always be informed afterwards when your data was retrieved due to a warrant.
That said, I'm still very much against this kind of data collection. Data protection starts at data parsimony. And you never know who'll have access and who watches the watchers etc.
Just a quick background - that is the EU legislation that made the "Vorratsdatenspeicherung" in Germany appear on the political agenda. The comment shortly stating "not in Germany" however is partly right. The Data Retention Directive applies to Germany, too.
To explain this further, one needs to know how EU legislation works. As it is a supranational state conglomerate, a lot of its legislation is not immediately binding. This is how "EU Directives" differ from "EU Regulations". The latter are directly applicable, binding law. But the Directives need to be realized by EU member states doing legislation of their own. They have some degree of freedom for doing so.
Arguably, Germany didn't have the freedom to not push forward with its own realization of that Directive. However, it is disputed that the Data Retention Directive is actually conforming to EU law - and that was not checked in court yet to its full extent. So the matter is highly political in its nature. The EU Commission, which watches over the implementation of the Directives, is currently in a legal battle over sanctions regarding the non-implementation.
Germany is not alone here, however. Other EU member states postponed an implementation, too.
Additionally, 'not implemented in Germany' is not entirely correct. It was implemented by the Great Coalition a couple of years ago, then declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court shortly after. So all upcoming formulations of data retention will have to comply with those constitutional requirements.
In addition to what others have already said, the summary at the end is somewhat misleading. The directive does not lay down any rules for access by law enforcement or intelligence agencies. It only requires ISPs to store the data, not to grant law enforcement or intelligence agencies access. Such access would still be subject to national law (i.e., warrants and such).
The primary concern is not that data retention will directly lead to law enforcement going on big data harvesting operations, but that the chilling effect from having that data stored outweighs the practical benefits that law enforcement would derive from it.
A particular concern in Germany is the interaction with §98a+b of the Code of Criminal Procedure [1] and similar laws enacted by the states, which allow for not just particularized warrants, but dragnet searches ("Rasterfahndung"). While such a search still requires a (non-secret) court order and is allowed only under a limited set of circumstances, there is an undeniable chilling effect associated with it.
Child abuse is not happening on the internet or mobile phone though, but usually at home. No internet surveillance is going to change any of it. You'd have to start installing cameras in every child's living rooms.
It has been able to for a while! Check out the cluster module, processes listening to the same port are load balanced and communication between processes is obviously (since each process only has 1 thread due to the event loop) done by message passing.
Technically spakeaing: no, and it never will. Single-threading is by design, so the best bet is to run several processes, each using one core (see the other answer to your comment).
Were there ever really common peek and pokes that would change programs?
Yes, "poke 53280,0" would directly write address 0xd020 to 0x00 which then e.g. would turn the border black on the C-64. But those were addresses in the mapped custom chips. More like setting a pixel on a modern GFX card by poke and less changing a program.
The later development of expansion cartridges to give you more lives in games or enable a cheat-mode there would a kind of peeking and poking, but hardware based etc.
Ironically, just like for the American plea bargaining, the risk of the German system is hardest for those actually innocent. The differential between falsely confessing and not might not be as much as in the American system, but in the end it has the same effect. The innocent face even longer imprisonment if they insist on their innocence, in Germany it just works over the rehabilitation angle. The prison system will judge the refusal to show remorse and not trying to make amends as sign of lack of rehabilitation which will lead to a full imprisonment without early release, as opposed to the guilty case who is probable to get out after I think 60% of his time.
First of all, if native JSON parsing exists, jQuery will use that.
The validation code they use in case there is no native JSON implementation available is borrowed from Douglas Crockford's json2.js ( https://github.com/douglascrockford/JSON-js/blob/master/json... ) which was the inspiration for the native JSON implementations and should really be correct by now, both in terms of correctness but also circumventing regexp weaknesses in some engines.
It's still the Wrong Way™. You want to parse JSON, you write a lexer that recognizes its symbols and a parser that consumes them and spits the JS equivalent. Otherwise you are playing an eternal game of whack-a-mole with the JS eval parser. No. Just no.
If you can find a case in which the validator fails, it's wrong. Otherwise, if it's looks like a JSON parser and works like a JSON parser, i.e. is indistinguishable from a "proper" parser, it makes no sense but satisfying OCD to rework it.
Note that the code is now only a work-around for older browsers. Every modern browser supports native JSON parsing anyway.
Because the publishers want their cake and eat it. They want to be found by Google, but Google should pay them for it. Because they're awesome and the protectors of culture and everything good and right.
