You can be certain they’ve dotted their eyes, crossed their tees, all oversight has been sought and nobody’s rights have been violated. I’ve worked with Dutch firms before and there’s no short cuts where privacy is concerned.
From my experience, a lot of companies will pay lip service to privacy, but when it comes time to comply, things can drag on. Just enough plausible deniability until someone holds your nose to the grindstone.
I'm Dutch and my liberal and even anarchist background makes me angry about these trends.
But this is what Dutch people want. Increased and more heavy handed Police enforcement, less oversight, and broader duties is exactly what voters have voted for. Dutch elections have moved the political landscape to the far right. And in the Netherlands (and many EU countries), "far right" goes hand-in-hand with increased and heavier police presence (though often without increased funding). Edit: this has been an actual "promise" to voters by parties who were voted in place on a.o. this exact promise.
So I'm not suprised. And also think "this is exactly what we asked for".
The media is scaring them into accepting these measures, which is standard practice in totalitarian states, by the way. Create a climate of fear, and introduce draconian measures which the public will then accept. And that is how a democratic society slowly becomes authoritarian, it plays out very slowly over decades.
In the Netherlands, "the Media" and "far right" are often direct opposites, at least, that's how the far right wants it to look. Data shows that "far right" gets more media time than many other parts of the political spectrum, yet they keep saying this media "censors" them.
Without the immigration controversy the right would not have gained control. With it, it's almost inevitable. This is a major political force throughout the west, driving the popularity of Trump, Brexit, Alternative for Germany, etc. It's just part of the cost of large immigrant flows and needs to be factored into those policies.
I have been struggling to understand the immigration controversy. My understanding is a lot of the hate is related to refugees, which don't seem to be too high numbers wise?[1]
There are conservatively 100x as many economic migrants as true refugees, many of whom enter through the same immigration routes and are devout Muslims who hold beliefs that are incompatible with western legal systems.
In 2014 there were 13 Salafist mosques in the country which rose to 27 in 2018. The number of Salafist preachers was more than doubled in the same time span, from 50 to 110 according to the Dutch counter-terrorism authority (NCTV).
In 2019, an investigation by the Nieuwsuur TV programme and the newspaper NRC, investigated fifty mosque schools, obtaining educational material from ten Quran classes given by fundamentalist organisations. The investigation showed that children were taught that infidels go to hell. Punishments against homosexuals and "enemies of God" were glorified. In an ideal Islamic state operating under sharia law, heretics would be punished by the death penalty, adulterers stoned and magicians killed by the sword. Children were warned against having social contacts with non-Muslims. [0]
At least in the Netherlands the majority of immigrants are of Dutch and European descent, e.g. Polish, Romanian or Bulgarian seasonal workers. I am sceptical that those are devout Muslims and use the same immigration routes as e.g. Syrian refugees. More likely they just hop in the car and drive, since that's legal within the Schengen area.
That's misleading. Those aren't immigrants in recent era's. Which is what you imply. Turkish, Morrocan and Surinam immigrated to NL in the '70s and '80s. That's 40 years ago, almost two generations. Many of them never immigrated but were born in NL. (and their parents too)
This is literally a breakdown of immigrants by country of birth. The numbers of “people with a migrant background”, as they are usually known, are much higher. Most major cities in the Netherlands, including Amsterdam and Rotterdam, are no longer majority Dutch by ethnicity.
If you click through to the source that Wikipedia is citing [1], you can see that it's counting 1st and 2nd generations, and are indeed categorised as "people with a migrant background" ("met migratieachtergrond").
It also shows that 1.889.704 people (10.74%) have a non-Dutch European background.
Also note that these numbers are about people currently here. The percentages will be different if you look at movements in the past year.
No. It isn't. Immigration has an effect on demography, but they aren't the same. "Immigration background" has the "background" word in there, specially to distinguish it from actual immigrants!
You can keep pasting your list in this thread, but that doesn't change the fact that most immigrants (again: different from demography) are from Europe, are Christian, are "white" and immigrate because they were asked (!) to come and work here.
TBC: we aren't discussing immigration in the deep history (because then, except for the Sami, all Europeans are migrants from "northern india"), nor that from several generations ago, but recent migrants. i.e. people whom themselves migrated.
To copy from my comment deeper in the chain [1], from the same source:
Non-Dutch European (10.74%)
Dutch (74.77%)
Of course, these are people that are currently in the Netherlands. Obviously when it comes to migrants (which I was talking about), the percentage of Dutch people will be lower, and the other percentages will be higher.
Sorry, but this is misleading at best, and an outright lie at worst.
The majority of immigrants is from the EU, directly followed by European descend (Ukraine). There are those from "western countries" like the US, Canada, Australia and so on. The vast majority actively recruited to come work in IT/startups, other knowledge-jobs, healthcare or "logistics". Farm work too, though that's seasonal so more complex to calculate.
The amount of "muslim immigrants that cause problems" is in the hundreds, at most. It's truly insignificant, unless their "ideals" are so opposite to yours that every individual becomes a problem. But that says more about your personal stance than about the actual problems.
> "muslim immigrants that cause problems" is in the hundreds, at most
Talking about outright lying, eh?
Its like you forcefully trying look at the issue as close as possible to ignore reality of the big picture.
Today's problems will be bigger tomorrow. Its about trends and where its going, NOT where it is now.
The trend of illegal and legal immigration from muslim (and african) countries will not slow down. Their countries will be producing poor, desperate people forever. Its a fallout of cultural shift in philosophy abandoning science (look up al-Ghazali). EU countries will either regulate migration or will have to somehow deal with ever increasing muslim population.
Muslim culture is not accommodating it doesnt assimilate. You don't have to guess that its happening, you have examples in France and Germany. Where Moroccan, Turkish communities created their own bubbles a parallel socialites at odds with the host countries. Where are Polish minorities in France? Where are Czech ones in Germany? Why we never had a terrorist attack by polish migrant(s) for making jokes about every pole being carjacker? Immigration from within EU self assimilates as EU cultures are pretty much variation of same base culture. That happens automatically.
Talking about Dutch or Belgian (not 100% sure), they released economical statistics about migrants by avg impact of given groups. EU migrants net positive gains for economy. Muslim and african avg net negative. You might spin the facts and feel good stories but it doesnt change the reality. Reality obvious to middle and lower classes who are actually first to experience the outcomes of that. Its mad to think that an average citizens will not turn to right wing. Then left is wondering how is right on the rise across all eu?! its baffling
There are plenty of outspoken Muslim community people openly saying they will out-breed their host population and take over. And you dont need that much. 10% of population is significant enough to elect their own politicians, as they will always get votes from religious block. adding fuel right into far-right bonfire
Nobody is learning from mistakes of others. No-go zones in sweeden were a right wing made up propaganda 5 years ago. A reality nobody is even questioning now.
All religious fundamentalism is at odds with modern civilization. Leaders of all faiths should be preaching continuously that their church and state must be distinctly separate.
They are not. Edit: the net-total that the entire "problem issues" are about, is some thousands of people. On a population of 17 mln thats "nothing".
It's an entirely fabricated and inflated "issue", that was invented purely by politicians who want to use the fear and outrage (that they themselves caused!) for win. Both by elected parties, who deliberately defunded or scaled down on immigrant issues, knowing this caused problems - that they then could use as "proof" that there are problems, and by non-elected parties.
Some clear signs are that strong anti-immigration parties did very well in villages and cities that have zero to no immigrants: clearly shows that it's more fear than actual felt pain.
Just the "regular" right has also (or perhaps even more strongly) proudly cultivated a "tough on crime" image over the years. Think Fred Teeven, Ivo Opstelten.
I'm assuming that it's mostly "plofkraken", people placing explosions near ATMs to break them open and then run away with the money. They've been on the rise in recent years.
Part of this is because the liberal parties are painting concern about crime as a “far right” concert. Well, if you are concerned about crime, and the far right is the only one really talking about it, then people are going to vote far right.
Literally all of these doorbell cameras are mounted illegally: the law forbids them to have public spaces visible in them, yet everybody points them horizontally towards the street.
Nobody cares about that either (but me).
Really, I think as soon as the street is visible, you have no good argument to stop police from getting a copy.
> the law forbids them to have public spaces visible in them
The law is not that binary. The law says it's not allowed _unless_ you have a "legitimate interest". What qualifies as a "legitimate interest" is up to a judge to decide.
> It doubt it'll ever be argued for doorbells. Security cams, that's another story.
Since the camera in the "doorbell" is recording continuously I highly doubt it's anything else then a (security) camera in the eyes of the law. I highly doubt a little button on it which makes it do "ding-dong" changes anything about that.
The point of the device is to enable the owner to see who's at the door. Any other ability (seeing far outside of the zone right at your door) seems to me to not be the purpose of the device, but a side effect that's therefore not legitimate.
Of course the police are able to collect evidence during criminal investigations. Brexit aside I'm sure the Dutch have this enacted in law like the UK. The police are obviously going to ask nicely and if that fails force you by legislation they are empowered to use. And if they're sending you legal speak forms that's more likely procedure to keep things above board rather than something malicious to scare you. Get a grip!
> And if they're sending you legal speak forms that's more likely procedure to keep things above board rather than something malicious to scare you
Google translate of the original article (https://www-bnr-nl.translate.goog/nieuws/juridisch/10538281/...) says “There is a legal reason why the police use coercive measures so liberally. “The police must make progress,” the Public Prosecutor's Office indicates. If the police voluntarily requests images, they may not be usable as evidence.”
So, yes, there seems to be a legal reason. Not that I understand it, but it may be because it’s not entirely legal, maybe even fully illegal for citizens to video the street in front of their house because of privacy laws.
I'm unsure of the legal side here but in the UK the police are required to provide proof of where the evidence came from and it's provenance for it to be admissible in court. This can mean the person in control of the evidence becoming a witness to speak in court to the veracity of the of the evidence, especially if only a copy was taken from the owner so as not to leave the owner without the original thing (ie, a phone used to record something).
As the article states, refusal can result in a fine or three-month prison sentence. If you film a crime, the defendant will be provided with your full name and address.
Considering that Dutch gangs have gotten quite trigger-happy over the last few years and routinely assassinate lawyers, (assumed) whistleblowers, and witnesses, if your camera happens to be recording at just the wrong time you might have too choose between either 3 months of jail time or getting killed.
1. Why would dutch gangs attack people who produce evidence? Presumably it's to dissuade other people from producing evidence, but if the people are compelled to do so I'm not really sure what purpose it serves.
2. Is "I might get hurt" a valid reason to refuse to testify and/or ignore a subpoena? At least in the US you can be compelled to testify against others, as long as it doesn't implicate yourself or you're given immunity.
> For example, footage from a doorbell camera was used as evidence in the fatal stabbing of a woman in Hengelo on 24 December 2019...
A cop not seizing that recorded evidence is neglecting their duty full stop. If you're worried you might record a murder/attempt murder and then have to provide that evidence the answer is not to have the camera recording a public place then.
I mean what's the reason for these cameras if not to provide evidence of crimes commited against the owner at the doorstep. You cant have it both ways.
I know at least two people who bought such a doorbell for the sole reason of "being able to talk to the package delivery guy when I'm not at home". And not for security or to aid police in murder cases.
I think these two people are naïve at best. But I think it's wrong to assume everyone who buys such a camera, thinks about "providing evidence of crimes".
Unfortunately the law doesn't care whether you're ignorant of the law or not. Whilst it might not be a consideration for the purchaser the simple fact is that should you be required by law to provide footage you have to provide it, certainly for UK and, from the article, Netherland residents; like it or not.
The article is clickbait as best. It's trying to make out standard police procedure is some kind of state overreach. Now I know it's fashionable to critique the police for everything so this sort of nonsense is commonplace but seriously if you were subject to sone form of crime where the only evidence/line of enquiry was on someone's doorbell cam and you pointed that camera out to the police, what would be your reaction if the police turned round and said: "yeah nothing we can do the owner said no"? You'd be on here rightly critising that truly ridiculous situation.
> “If you could provide images, that would be very nice,” they told her. She gave them her email address and, within a few hours, received a demand email containing threatening legal language. She had to submit images within seven days. Refusing is a punishable offense. “I wasn’t even sure I had images, so I’m worried about what will happen if I can’t provide any,” she told BNR.
This is clearly not okay. I don't think the police would take her to court either, it would be far too much cost to prove that she was knowingly withholding information.
> Refusing a demand for footage is a punishable offense that can lead to a fine or a prison sentence of up to three months.
How can they prove that you are refusing? What if my camera simply didn't detect motion, or I didn't pay my cloud subscription to have it uploaded and it was lost? The camera itself could be a fake and there to deter criminals.
In the UK, at least where I live, the police know that they will get nowhere by making such demands.
>How can they prove that you are refusing? What if my camera simply didn't detect motion, or I didn't pay my cloud subscription to have it uploaded and it was lost? The camera itself could be a fake and there to deter criminals.
If they really wanted to get you, all of the above can be proven with a bit of legwork. For instance, the service provider can be subpoenaed for logs (for whether the recording occurred, or whether you issued a delete command) and/or subscription information.
What would be considered normal is if the police kindly requests the footage and the citizen, that is otherwise unrelated to the case, has the option to refuse or cooperate.
What also would be normal is if the police requested a judge to order someone to hand over the footage. That way a judicial officer has tested and weighed the legality and legal interests before forcing, again, a citizen that otherwise has no relation to the case.
In common law systems this is what is called a subpoena and considered part of discovery, in civil law systems there’s no term for this because there’s no formal discovery process and these kinds of things are decided on a very limited case by case basis.
Before 2018 it was the case that a prosecutor would have to make the demand and effectuate seizure.
This is still not ideal because it is without judicial oversight, but at least it was a (semi-)officer of the court and someone with proper legal training.
The Dutch however decided that since 2018 the police could do this themselves. Which is decidedly not ok.
Especially because refusal directly leads to criminal penalties, that are hard to fight against because the penalties are directly linked to the refusal, not to the legitimacy of the seizure.
Similar to how in the US you can be arrested for resisting arrest, even if there’s no sufficient legal foundation for the underlying arrest that you “resisted”.
It creates a self-fulfilling criminal act with little to no judicial oversight. This it’s an erosion of rights, an increase of the police state and definitely warrants a story.
Moreover, the clear goals of the article linked on HM as well as the underlying Dutch source article is to inform people who have these cameras that there are potential risks on having these cameras, risks that most don’t know about. Again, a worthwhile reason to report on this.
The article can at best be described as clickbait. A better title would be: police given powers to do their job effectively.
What you're suggesting would not work in reality. And if it was a reality I'm sure you'd be complaining even more about how the police can't solve anything or do their jobs properly or how you see fit whilst at the same time advocating even more limits on their powers.
I would imagine it was changed in 2018 because the current way it was working simply wasn't working.
> The article can at best be described as clickbait. A better title would be: police given powers to do their job effectively.
This purely opinion. I can’t do anything with this other than to strongly disagree with you.
> What you're suggesting would not work in reality.
What I’m suggesting is already reality in the US and is reality for most other things in the Netherlands, as well as the reality in most EU countries.
In the US the judicial overview has in many cases eroded to rubber stamping by judges, so I wouldn’t go as far as to state that “it works”, but when I practiced law in the Netherlands and a handful of times in other EU countries I indeed considered things to “work” just fine the way they were.
> And if it was a reality I'm sure you'd be complaining even more about how the police can't solve anything or do their jobs properly
You’re gish galloping and doing a pretty poor job at it because you’re making assumptions on my moral framework without knowing the first thing about me.
I wouldn’t complain about the police not being able to solve anything because I’m more concerned about police powers being expanded at the expense of civil rights so “law & order” politicians can score a few points.
I was educated in law school with the philosophy of rather having 10 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person ending up behind bars and till this day I still hold that to be a virtue to strive for.
So no. I’m not in the slightest concerned about police being able to solve crimes.
> I would imagine it was changed in 2018 because the current way it was working simply wasn't working.
Like I said, it’s merely a consequence of politicians wanting to look tough on crime while quietly eroding away what little safeguards there are.
You could’ve just said something to the effect if “I’ve got nothing to hide” and called it a day, instead of presenting your opinions and assumptions as if they have any merits as arguments.
I hardly think my short and to the point replies to your rambling nonsensical musings are gish galloping, however appreciate your attempts at characterise my replies as such to cover your own use of this same technique, ad hominem though it was.
Your points themselves are opinion too, but since your opinion seems to be predicated on wanting a useless policing structure I doubt we'll agree on much. You could have just said something to the effect of: defund the police.
Needless to say people like you are all for the police having no power, or not existing, until you're the victim of a crime.
You seem to neither know what a gish gallop is nor what an ad hominem is.
So this is not going to be very productive.
> Needless to say people like you are all for the police having no power, or not existing, until you're the victim of a crime.
Perhaps it’s best if next time you focus more on crafting solid arguments that can stand on their own and less so with being concerned about trying to predict who I am or what I espouse.
At the risk of feeding the troll... Damn it, I can't resist.
> You seem to neither know what a gish gallop is nor what an ad hominem is.
Actually applies directly to you. With the exception you definitely don't know, or are so stuck up your own arse you can't identify them in your responses.
> Perhaps it’s best if next time you focus more on crafting solid arguments that can stand on their own and less so with being concerned about trying to predict who I am or what I espouse.
Again directly applies to you. Further I'm predicting nothing, I'm confident in all my assessments of you, and your character, none of which impresses me. You do, however, have an impressive lack of self awareness; you should work on that.
One thing about this topic is that while I worry about these sorts of things... I also suspect that most people willingly hand over footage.
I just don't think your average doorbell camera owner cares quite like some of us do about the ramifications.
The email in this case(s) sounds off but I wonder if most folks would have sent in the video anyway.
Also:
How often is this footage "useful" for anything?
I have some family where they outfitted their house with a lot of cameras. There is a fairly high level of crime in their area, and a moderate amount of serious crime.
The local cops ask for footage fairly frequently and they're happy to give it. I just wonder if it is useful all that often. I see some footage show up once in a while but it's hardly ever the kind of evidence that proves much at all.
I’ve got a couple of cameras and while they are useful for knowing something is immediately up, the footage isn’t useful since the police aren’t interested in going after petty thefts these days. The footage would only be part of an investigation that isn’t going to happen.
Since a lot of our problems are just people high on drugs looking for porch booty, I wish I could have some verbal message go out when it spotted someone (like “get off my lawn!”). It just has to take the place of me yelling out my window at 2AM to ward someone off.
We are talking about addicts having a bad drug crisis, so it doesn't really need to be far off from that. If it was a straight thinking thief, then ya, it wouldn't be worth it.
Frankly, a Tesla in Sentinel mode isn't far off (my parking port isn't fully enclosed, and most of the problems I have is with unhoused neighbors door checking my car and looking for things to steal there) from what I'm looking for, but I went with another kind of car instead without as nice of a tech package.
At best, if you need to make an insurance claim, the video proves that something was stolen. I guess if you need to get cops involved to write a report for your insurance, they have to collect evidence in a certain way in case it needs to be used in court. Cops probably don't need this specific duty, but it's who we've given it to.
At worst, it gives probable cause for cops to hassle people who might meet the description of someone in the video. Yes, these cameras aren't always the best quality, so a lot of people will probably meet the description.
This happened recently. My one neighbor's car was stolen in front of my house. The cops asked me for the footage. I obliged at the request of my neighbor. My other neighbor got questioned for meeting the description of the perp. The only similarity was skin tone...
In the Netherlands it is not allowed to make recording of public spaces in the manner that these doorbell cameras can do when they view a public space. At least not with a permit, and, probably, also not without a sign that a camera surveillance is active. Neither are you allowed to store those recordings.
The solution seems to be to use a doorbell camera that does not record (store) any footage and that is shielded and/or focused such that public spaces are not included.
Has that changed recently? (I haven't lived in the Netherlands for 10 years). AFAIK it is perfectly legal to do that if you believe you need it for security.
Thanks for your addition. I understand that you do not need a permit, but you do need to make clear that the camera is needed for some security reason. I think that many people who buy a doorbell camera are not doing that for a security reason and probably do not have a good security reason, but just install it because it is handy, for example, to talk with people delivery goods or answer strangers ringing the bell without having to leave the living room.
In The Netherlands ( this is where Dutch people live ) it is not legal to point a security camera at the public road/space. The link is in Dutch, sorry about that.
In theory, at least (and there's an exception if there's no other option, I believe). In practice, there are camera doorbells everywhere, and they're pointing at the street.
I'm in Belgium and we have the same law, so I'm willing to assume the nuances of this law are also similar: Not being allowed to point at public space only applies to always-on security cameras, which a video doorbell technically is not. We've had video doorbells for a good while and this was never an issue until Ring and the likes came along with cloud backups that essentially make a video doorbell a security camera.
I'm afraid this is one of these laws that'll never get enforced or reviewed, especially considering it's turning out to be in law enforcement's advantage.
It's not only in the Netherlands, but in the European Union, as this stems from the GDPR.
That particular principle of data minimization regarding cameras filming public space seems to be mostly enforced in Spain, according to https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ (search for "camera")
The source article the English article is based on actually touched on this.
It seems that enforcement of the privacy law is purposefully lacking so that the cops can white wash, what would otherwise be illegal, through seizure.
The same claims can be made about cameras made in the west, and as somebody living in the west, I prefer to have my video streamed to some random Chinese guy than to somebody from my government.
It's a good point about paranoia, the random Chinese guys don't give a shit about you, you're generally insignificant. To your own government you are slightly insignificant but they may take more of an interest.
I've always found "Chinese state surveillance" a strange argument.
As long as I don't visit China, why would I bother more about chinese databases that I end up in, through my Huawei router or Ali-express electronics (non of which I have. It's purely fictional), than about national, Europol, or American databases that I end up through my American-synced google photos/docs/contacts/gmail, or European agencies filming me on the street?
Put differently: The CCP getting my data is creepy, but hardly a problem in practice, whereas the EU or America getting that data has direct and practical implications.
(TBF: I replaced my Huawei router with a Fritz! Box because I'm afraid of leaking to the CCP. I don't use TikTok but instead Youtube/Reddit/etc for the same reason but if I think about it: did I really improve my privacy and security of my online data?)
its not about your individual data, but the geopolitical implications of rival/adversarial nations having a significant volume of friendly-nation user data
But that also is not my individual responsibility. Why should I bother about TikTok or My Huawei router? On a geopolical scale that makes no sense.
Yet at the same time, I am directly impacted by privacy infringements or malevolent compliance (cookie banners) by privacy infringing companies from the US or the EU.
I'm surprised it's not mentioned that doorbell cameras that record are of dubious legality. It's not permitted (afaik) to record public spaces like that, https://www.bnnvara.nl/kassa/artikelen/de-slimme-deurbel-ruk... "Je mag alleen het privéterrein van je eigen woning filmen met de camera van de slimme deurbel" / "You can only film the private space of your own residence with the camera on a smart doorbell"
So your package is stolen, you have video of the criminals. you post it online for the police to catch the criminals. The police punish you for violating the criminal's rights? lol what?
You haven't linked to a reputable news source, but even they are not asserting there is a problem with recording and sending it to the police. The problem is posting it to everyone.
That's the law in the UK too, not that anyone follows it.
From memory. And this could potentially be wrong, but I thought that a police officer explained to me once that for video evidence to be valid in court it had to be seized and not volunteered. So that this means in this context is that it's not personal, they just want the evidence to be usable in the end therefore it has to be technically seized, i.e. forced from you with an order. Even if you were volunteering it.
However... there are many more things in the Dutch criminal justice system to be worried about. They invented this word called "undermining", which is supposed to say that the criminal underworld is undermining society. It's really just inspired from the rights grab that the word "terrorists" gave after 9/11, and fact this seemed to have been formed around the same time and have been inspired by it.
Anyway, they formed a way to deal with this "undermining" and that was by using a co-ordinated approach where there is an intelligence agency called "The RIEC" which is deliberated formed without a human legal representative which puts the whole structure outside of the law. You can't take them to court. They co-ordinate the activities of the police, the council, the tax department, a large list of entities that simply do as they are told from this organisation.
And to go along with this they invented a concept called "An intervention", which is a activity by the co-ordinated parties that is supposed to "interfere" with organised crime. They have given up on actually finding evidence and convicting criminals they want to interfere with them. However, they also don't need evidence and who they target don't even have to be criminals, a hunch is good enough apparently. In order words whoever they wish, or perhaps anyone that sleighted or upset them as well.
However, what an intervention can be and who it can apply to is very broad. So they can commit a series of criminal offences against innocent people and others (Colateral damage) with impunity. And they do... For years at a time, with no oversight and no consequences.
I'm more concerned with megascale foreign companies having access to them. At least the police are accountable to the government which is accountable to the people.
109 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 187 ms ] thread"Dutch companies also collected tweets and violate privacy law" - https://malwaretips.com/threads/dutch-companies-also-collect...
"Dutch National Police violated data privacy in using European information system" - https://nltimes.nl/2023/12/20/dutch-national-police-violated...
"Political parties violating privacy law with tracking cookies" - https://nltimes.nl/2023/11/08/political-parties-violating-pr...
But this is what Dutch people want. Increased and more heavy handed Police enforcement, less oversight, and broader duties is exactly what voters have voted for. Dutch elections have moved the political landscape to the far right. And in the Netherlands (and many EU countries), "far right" goes hand-in-hand with increased and heavier police presence (though often without increased funding). Edit: this has been an actual "promise" to voters by parties who were voted in place on a.o. this exact promise.
So I'm not suprised. And also think "this is exactly what we asked for".
In the Netherlands, "the Media" and "far right" are often direct opposites, at least, that's how the far right wants it to look. Data shows that "far right" gets more media time than many other parts of the political spectrum, yet they keep saying this media "censors" them.
https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&h...
Government often hides embarrassing truths but it doesn't mean that every utterance from office is a lie.
YMMV depending on the who is doing the talking.
The far right hasn't really been in power yet. It's the "regular" right (VVD, CDA) that have governed on a "tough on crime" platform.
1: https://ind.nl/en/about-us/statistics-and-publications/asylu...
In 2014 there were 13 Salafist mosques in the country which rose to 27 in 2018. The number of Salafist preachers was more than doubled in the same time span, from 50 to 110 according to the Dutch counter-terrorism authority (NCTV).
In 2019, an investigation by the Nieuwsuur TV programme and the newspaper NRC, investigated fifty mosque schools, obtaining educational material from ten Quran classes given by fundamentalist organisations. The investigation showed that children were taught that infidels go to hell. Punishments against homosexuals and "enemies of God" were glorified. In an ideal Islamic state operating under sharia law, heretics would be punished by the death penalty, adulterers stoned and magicians killed by the sword. Children were warned against having social contacts with non-Muslims. [0]
[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_Netherlands
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_Netherland...
Population of the Netherlands by country of birth (2022)
It also shows that 1.889.704 people (10.74%) have a non-Dutch European background.
Also note that these numbers are about people currently here. The percentages will be different if you look at movements in the past year.
[1] https://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/nl/dataset/37325/tabl...
You can keep pasting your list in this thread, but that doesn't change the fact that most immigrants (again: different from demography) are from Europe, are Christian, are "white" and immigrate because they were asked (!) to come and work here.
TBC: we aren't discussing immigration in the deep history (because then, except for the Sami, all Europeans are migrants from "northern india"), nor that from several generations ago, but recent migrants. i.e. people whom themselves migrated.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39119632
1: https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/dossier/asylum-migration-and-integr...
Every non-European country on this list besides Suriname is majority Muslim.
Also, note that your data appears to reflect only registered immigrants.
The majority of immigrants is from the EU, directly followed by European descend (Ukraine). There are those from "western countries" like the US, Canada, Australia and so on. The vast majority actively recruited to come work in IT/startups, other knowledge-jobs, healthcare or "logistics". Farm work too, though that's seasonal so more complex to calculate.
The amount of "muslim immigrants that cause problems" is in the hundreds, at most. It's truly insignificant, unless their "ideals" are so opposite to yours that every individual becomes a problem. But that says more about your personal stance than about the actual problems.
Every non-European country on this list besides Suriname is majority Muslim.
Talking about outright lying, eh?
Its like you forcefully trying look at the issue as close as possible to ignore reality of the big picture.
Today's problems will be bigger tomorrow. Its about trends and where its going, NOT where it is now.
The trend of illegal and legal immigration from muslim (and african) countries will not slow down. Their countries will be producing poor, desperate people forever. Its a fallout of cultural shift in philosophy abandoning science (look up al-Ghazali). EU countries will either regulate migration or will have to somehow deal with ever increasing muslim population.
Muslim culture is not accommodating it doesnt assimilate. You don't have to guess that its happening, you have examples in France and Germany. Where Moroccan, Turkish communities created their own bubbles a parallel socialites at odds with the host countries. Where are Polish minorities in France? Where are Czech ones in Germany? Why we never had a terrorist attack by polish migrant(s) for making jokes about every pole being carjacker? Immigration from within EU self assimilates as EU cultures are pretty much variation of same base culture. That happens automatically.
Talking about Dutch or Belgian (not 100% sure), they released economical statistics about migrants by avg impact of given groups. EU migrants net positive gains for economy. Muslim and african avg net negative. You might spin the facts and feel good stories but it doesnt change the reality. Reality obvious to middle and lower classes who are actually first to experience the outcomes of that. Its mad to think that an average citizens will not turn to right wing. Then left is wondering how is right on the rise across all eu?! its baffling
There are plenty of outspoken Muslim community people openly saying they will out-breed their host population and take over. And you dont need that much. 10% of population is significant enough to elect their own politicians, as they will always get votes from religious block. adding fuel right into far-right bonfire
Nobody is learning from mistakes of others. No-go zones in sweeden were a right wing made up propaganda 5 years ago. A reality nobody is even questioning now.
It's an entirely fabricated and inflated "issue", that was invented purely by politicians who want to use the fear and outrage (that they themselves caused!) for win. Both by elected parties, who deliberately defunded or scaled down on immigrant issues, knowing this caused problems - that they then could use as "proof" that there are problems, and by non-elected parties. Some clear signs are that strong anti-immigration parties did very well in villages and cities that have zero to no immigrants: clearly shows that it's more fear than actual felt pain.
> As the mayor of Amsterdam, I can see the Netherlands risks becoming a narco-state
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/05/amster...
Nobody cares about that either (but me).
Really, I think as soon as the street is visible, you have no good argument to stop police from getting a copy.
The law is not that binary. The law says it's not allowed _unless_ you have a "legitimate interest". What qualifies as a "legitimate interest" is up to a judge to decide.
A fact is: nobody takes care of this, so I cannot feel very bad for the police asking for the data.
Since the camera in the "doorbell" is recording continuously I highly doubt it's anything else then a (security) camera in the eyes of the law. I highly doubt a little button on it which makes it do "ding-dong" changes anything about that.
Of course the police are able to collect evidence during criminal investigations. Brexit aside I'm sure the Dutch have this enacted in law like the UK. The police are obviously going to ask nicely and if that fails force you by legislation they are empowered to use. And if they're sending you legal speak forms that's more likely procedure to keep things above board rather than something malicious to scare you. Get a grip!
Google translate of the original article (https://www-bnr-nl.translate.goog/nieuws/juridisch/10538281/...) says “There is a legal reason why the police use coercive measures so liberally. “The police must make progress,” the Public Prosecutor's Office indicates. If the police voluntarily requests images, they may not be usable as evidence.”
So, yes, there seems to be a legal reason. Not that I understand it, but it may be because it’s not entirely legal, maybe even fully illegal for citizens to video the street in front of their house because of privacy laws.
As the article states, refusal can result in a fine or three-month prison sentence. If you film a crime, the defendant will be provided with your full name and address.
Considering that Dutch gangs have gotten quite trigger-happy over the last few years and routinely assassinate lawyers, (assumed) whistleblowers, and witnesses, if your camera happens to be recording at just the wrong time you might have too choose between either 3 months of jail time or getting killed.
2. Is "I might get hurt" a valid reason to refuse to testify and/or ignore a subpoena? At least in the US you can be compelled to testify against others, as long as it doesn't implicate yourself or you're given immunity.
> For example, footage from a doorbell camera was used as evidence in the fatal stabbing of a woman in Hengelo on 24 December 2019...
A cop not seizing that recorded evidence is neglecting their duty full stop. If you're worried you might record a murder/attempt murder and then have to provide that evidence the answer is not to have the camera recording a public place then.
I mean what's the reason for these cameras if not to provide evidence of crimes commited against the owner at the doorstep. You cant have it both ways.
I think these two people are naïve at best. But I think it's wrong to assume everyone who buys such a camera, thinks about "providing evidence of crimes".
The article is clickbait as best. It's trying to make out standard police procedure is some kind of state overreach. Now I know it's fashionable to critique the police for everything so this sort of nonsense is commonplace but seriously if you were subject to sone form of crime where the only evidence/line of enquiry was on someone's doorbell cam and you pointed that camera out to the police, what would be your reaction if the police turned round and said: "yeah nothing we can do the owner said no"? You'd be on here rightly critising that truly ridiculous situation.
This is clearly not okay. I don't think the police would take her to court either, it would be far too much cost to prove that she was knowingly withholding information.
> Refusing a demand for footage is a punishable offense that can lead to a fine or a prison sentence of up to three months.
How can they prove that you are refusing? What if my camera simply didn't detect motion, or I didn't pay my cloud subscription to have it uploaded and it was lost? The camera itself could be a fake and there to deter criminals.
In the UK, at least where I live, the police know that they will get nowhere by making such demands.
If they really wanted to get you, all of the above can be proven with a bit of legwork. For instance, the service provider can be subpoenaed for logs (for whether the recording occurred, or whether you issued a delete command) and/or subscription information.
What would be considered normal is if the police kindly requests the footage and the citizen, that is otherwise unrelated to the case, has the option to refuse or cooperate.
What also would be normal is if the police requested a judge to order someone to hand over the footage. That way a judicial officer has tested and weighed the legality and legal interests before forcing, again, a citizen that otherwise has no relation to the case.
In common law systems this is what is called a subpoena and considered part of discovery, in civil law systems there’s no term for this because there’s no formal discovery process and these kinds of things are decided on a very limited case by case basis.
Before 2018 it was the case that a prosecutor would have to make the demand and effectuate seizure. This is still not ideal because it is without judicial oversight, but at least it was a (semi-)officer of the court and someone with proper legal training.
The Dutch however decided that since 2018 the police could do this themselves. Which is decidedly not ok.
Especially because refusal directly leads to criminal penalties, that are hard to fight against because the penalties are directly linked to the refusal, not to the legitimacy of the seizure.
Similar to how in the US you can be arrested for resisting arrest, even if there’s no sufficient legal foundation for the underlying arrest that you “resisted”.
It creates a self-fulfilling criminal act with little to no judicial oversight. This it’s an erosion of rights, an increase of the police state and definitely warrants a story.
Moreover, the clear goals of the article linked on HM as well as the underlying Dutch source article is to inform people who have these cameras that there are potential risks on having these cameras, risks that most don’t know about. Again, a worthwhile reason to report on this.
What you're suggesting would not work in reality. And if it was a reality I'm sure you'd be complaining even more about how the police can't solve anything or do their jobs properly or how you see fit whilst at the same time advocating even more limits on their powers.
I would imagine it was changed in 2018 because the current way it was working simply wasn't working.
This purely opinion. I can’t do anything with this other than to strongly disagree with you.
> What you're suggesting would not work in reality.
What I’m suggesting is already reality in the US and is reality for most other things in the Netherlands, as well as the reality in most EU countries.
In the US the judicial overview has in many cases eroded to rubber stamping by judges, so I wouldn’t go as far as to state that “it works”, but when I practiced law in the Netherlands and a handful of times in other EU countries I indeed considered things to “work” just fine the way they were.
> And if it was a reality I'm sure you'd be complaining even more about how the police can't solve anything or do their jobs properly
You’re gish galloping and doing a pretty poor job at it because you’re making assumptions on my moral framework without knowing the first thing about me.
I wouldn’t complain about the police not being able to solve anything because I’m more concerned about police powers being expanded at the expense of civil rights so “law & order” politicians can score a few points.
I was educated in law school with the philosophy of rather having 10 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person ending up behind bars and till this day I still hold that to be a virtue to strive for.
So no. I’m not in the slightest concerned about police being able to solve crimes.
> I would imagine it was changed in 2018 because the current way it was working simply wasn't working.
Like I said, it’s merely a consequence of politicians wanting to look tough on crime while quietly eroding away what little safeguards there are.
You could’ve just said something to the effect if “I’ve got nothing to hide” and called it a day, instead of presenting your opinions and assumptions as if they have any merits as arguments.
I hardly think my short and to the point replies to your rambling nonsensical musings are gish galloping, however appreciate your attempts at characterise my replies as such to cover your own use of this same technique, ad hominem though it was.
Your points themselves are opinion too, but since your opinion seems to be predicated on wanting a useless policing structure I doubt we'll agree on much. You could have just said something to the effect of: defund the police.
Needless to say people like you are all for the police having no power, or not existing, until you're the victim of a crime.
So this is not going to be very productive.
> Needless to say people like you are all for the police having no power, or not existing, until you're the victim of a crime.
Perhaps it’s best if next time you focus more on crafting solid arguments that can stand on their own and less so with being concerned about trying to predict who I am or what I espouse.
> You seem to neither know what a gish gallop is nor what an ad hominem is.
Actually applies directly to you. With the exception you definitely don't know, or are so stuck up your own arse you can't identify them in your responses.
> Perhaps it’s best if next time you focus more on crafting solid arguments that can stand on their own and less so with being concerned about trying to predict who I am or what I espouse.
Again directly applies to you. Further I'm predicting nothing, I'm confident in all my assessments of you, and your character, none of which impresses me. You do, however, have an impressive lack of self awareness; you should work on that.
I just don't think your average doorbell camera owner cares quite like some of us do about the ramifications.
The email in this case(s) sounds off but I wonder if most folks would have sent in the video anyway.
Also:
How often is this footage "useful" for anything?
I have some family where they outfitted their house with a lot of cameras. There is a fairly high level of crime in their area, and a moderate amount of serious crime.
The local cops ask for footage fairly frequently and they're happy to give it. I just wonder if it is useful all that often. I see some footage show up once in a while but it's hardly ever the kind of evidence that proves much at all.
Since a lot of our problems are just people high on drugs looking for porch booty, I wish I could have some verbal message go out when it spotted someone (like “get off my lawn!”). It just has to take the place of me yelling out my window at 2AM to ward someone off.
Frankly, a Tesla in Sentinel mode isn't far off (my parking port isn't fully enclosed, and most of the problems I have is with unhoused neighbors door checking my car and looking for things to steal there) from what I'm looking for, but I went with another kind of car instead without as nice of a tech package.
At best, if you need to make an insurance claim, the video proves that something was stolen. I guess if you need to get cops involved to write a report for your insurance, they have to collect evidence in a certain way in case it needs to be used in court. Cops probably don't need this specific duty, but it's who we've given it to.
At worst, it gives probable cause for cops to hassle people who might meet the description of someone in the video. Yes, these cameras aren't always the best quality, so a lot of people will probably meet the description.
This happened recently. My one neighbor's car was stolen in front of my house. The cops asked me for the footage. I obliged at the request of my neighbor. My other neighbor got questioned for meeting the description of the perp. The only similarity was skin tone...
It's called "Camera in Beeld". Basically, private citizens can register their camera with the police so they know who to ask when looking for footage.
The solution seems to be to use a doorbell camera that does not record (store) any footage and that is shielded and/or focused such that public spaces are not included.
https://blog.iusmentis.com/2019/12/18/voor-de-laatste-keer-d...
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/overvallen-straatro...
I'm afraid this is one of these laws that'll never get enforced or reviewed, especially considering it's turning out to be in law enforcement's advantage.
That particular principle of data minimization regarding cameras filming public space seems to be mostly enforced in Spain, according to https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ (search for "camera")
It seems that enforcement of the privacy law is purposefully lacking so that the cops can white wash, what would otherwise be illegal, through seizure.
They can, and those are valid claims.
As long as I don't visit China, why would I bother more about chinese databases that I end up in, through my Huawei router or Ali-express electronics (non of which I have. It's purely fictional), than about national, Europol, or American databases that I end up through my American-synced google photos/docs/contacts/gmail, or European agencies filming me on the street?
Put differently: The CCP getting my data is creepy, but hardly a problem in practice, whereas the EU or America getting that data has direct and practical implications.
(TBF: I replaced my Huawei router with a Fritz! Box because I'm afraid of leaking to the CCP. I don't use TikTok but instead Youtube/Reddit/etc for the same reason but if I think about it: did I really improve my privacy and security of my online data?)
But that also is not my individual responsibility. Why should I bother about TikTok or My Huawei router? On a geopolical scale that makes no sense. Yet at the same time, I am directly impacted by privacy infringements or malevolent compliance (cookie banners) by privacy infringing companies from the US or the EU.
Here in Canada, police have the opposite viewpoint: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12953465/Canada-war...
So your package is stolen, you have video of the criminals. you post it online for the police to catch the criminals. The police punish you for violating the criminal's rights? lol what?
Doorbell cameras are in public recordings with no reasonable expectation of privacy.
They made the news because they are incorrect.
That's the law in the UK too, not that anyone follows it.
Anyway, they formed a way to deal with this "undermining" and that was by using a co-ordinated approach where there is an intelligence agency called "The RIEC" which is deliberated formed without a human legal representative which puts the whole structure outside of the law. You can't take them to court. They co-ordinate the activities of the police, the council, the tax department, a large list of entities that simply do as they are told from this organisation.
And to go along with this they invented a concept called "An intervention", which is a activity by the co-ordinated parties that is supposed to "interfere" with organised crime. They have given up on actually finding evidence and convicting criminals they want to interfere with them. However, they also don't need evidence and who they target don't even have to be criminals, a hunch is good enough apparently. In order words whoever they wish, or perhaps anyone that sleighted or upset them as well.
However, what an intervention can be and who it can apply to is very broad. So they can commit a series of criminal offences against innocent people and others (Colateral damage) with impunity. And they do... For years at a time, with no oversight and no consequences.