Schwarz-rote Koalitionsgespräche: Daten vernetzen, Datenschutz schleifen
netzpolitik.org/2025/schwarz-r…
„Angriff auf die Demokratie“: Breiter Aufschrei für Erhalt der Informationsfreiheit
netzpolitik.org/2025/angriff-a…
Por qué las criptomonedas tienen valor
A mucha gente le cuesta entender por qué las criptomonedas tienen valor. Piensan que si no están respaldadas por un gobierno o por algo tangible, no pueden tener valor.
Las criptomonedas tienen valor porque los usuarios tienen confianza en estas. Ocurre algo parecido con el dinero fiduciario y el oro. Si nadie creyera que tienen valor, no valdrían nada. Pero ¿por qué hay gente tiene fe en Bitcoin y otras criptomonedas? Además de tener una red que ha estado funcionando sin mayores complicaciones desde 2009, Bitcoin tiene algo que lo diferencia del dinero fiduciario: es escaso. Nunca habrá más de 21 millones de bitcoines.
Por el contrario, los bancos centrales imprimen el dinero que quieren para dirigir la economía desde arriba. Como hay cada vez más dinero, este vale cada vez menos.
Es por ello que, medido en euros o dólares, Bitcoin cada vez es más valioso. Esta escasez digital fue creada en el protocolo de Bitcoin para mantener el valor de la moneda. Si bien es posible crear otra cadena de bloques similar a Bitcoin (al ser este un programa libre) y así crear más monedas, no todo el mundo adoptaría la moneda clon, pues el valor está principalmente en la comunidad de usuarios y en la confianza adquirida con los años. Existen multitud de monedas diferentes que tratan de competir con Bitcoin, pero solo tienen valor porque aportan alguna funcionalidad diferente y cuentan con una comunidad que las respalda.
¿Cómo puede ser algo digital escaso?
A diferencia de otros bienes digitales que pueden ser copiados y pegados sin límite, las criptomonedas funcionan de forma descentralizada con un mecanismo de consenso que garantiza su seguridad y escasez. Este mecanismo de consenso varía según la criptomoneda. El primer mecanismo de consenso utilizado se basa en un proceso conocido como prueba de trabajo, en el cual ordenadores llamados mineros compiten para resolver problemas matemáticos y así validar transacciones.
Como los mineros reciben recompensas económicas por minar, hay una gran red de ordenadores que mantienen la red descentralizada y funcionando las 24 horas, todos los días de la semana. La prueba de trabajo hace que sea casi imposible revertir o modificar una transacción una vez que esta es parte de la cadena de bloque. Como la red es validada por una gran cantidad de actores que reciben recompensas por su contribución y que tienen, por tanto, interés en el correcto funcionamiento de la red, no es económicamente viable acumular más del 50 % de la red para alterar la cadena de bloques maliciosamente.
Cada vez se emite menos
Cada cuatro años, Bitcoin reduce las recompensas que reciben los mineros a la mitad, por lo que cada vez se emiten menos monedas. Los mineros siguen recibiendo recompensas porque hay comisiones que reciben por validar transacciones. En el año 2140 la inflación de Bitcoin será del 0 %, es decir, no se emitirán nuevas monedas. Actualmente la inflación de Bitcoin es menor que la del oro, haciendo que sea uno de los activos más codiciados y que más aumenta de valor.
Ninguna entidad central puede controlar o confiscar tus bitcoines
Otro atractivo que hace que tenga valor Bitcoin es que no puede ser confiscado por banqueros ni por nadie. Tampoco se pueden revertir pagos, como ocurre en el sistema bancario tradicional. Si mantienes segura la clave privada, nadie podrá quitarte tu riqueza.
Permite comerciar internacionalmente
Gracias a la tecnología de cadena de bloque es posible comerciar con cualquier persona del mundo que tenga acceso a Internet. Las criptomonedas han ganado reconocimiento y usuarios a lo largo del planeta, con lo cual aumenta su valor.
Conclusión
Mientras que siga existiendo Internet y personas que valoren y crean en esta tecnología, Bitcoin y otras criptomonedas similares seguirán aumentando de valor a largo plazo, pues son deflacionarias. Las personas que atesoren dinero fiduciario, por el contrario, perderán poder adquisitivo con el tiempo si los bancos centrales siguen emitiendo más dinero.
Koalitionsverhandlungen: Union will Informationsfreiheitsgesetz abschaffen
netzpolitik.org/2025/koalition…
„Digitale Bücherverbrennung“: Diese Menschen retten Daten vor der Trump-Zensur
netzpolitik.org/2025/digitale-…
Koalitionsverhandlungen: Gruselprogramm für Grund- und Freiheitsrechte
netzpolitik.org/2025/koalition…
Social Media Doesn’t Want What’s Best For You : The Case of Musk and AfD
Ahead of the German national elections last February, Musk declared, on X (ex-Twitter) :
- “If you are unhappy with the situation, you must vote for change, and that is why I’m really strongly recommending that people vote for AfD” in support of AfD.
- “Only the AfD can save Germany,” to reiterate his support while re-posting a video from far-right political activist Naomi Seibt.
A German court ruled that the platform must immediately provide researchers with access to data on politically related content. One of the first major judicial tests of the Digital Services Act (DSA) and specifically its Article 40 on data access and scrutiny.
Varying researches showed that the algorithmic recommender system on X favours AfD content massively and disproportionally (see for example here). This suggests that Musk instructed his staff to align the platform to his personal political believes and to directly interfere in the German elections on 23. February.
Furthermore, there is evidence of Russian interference and misinformation having been spread and amplified by AfD supporters ahead of the German national elections (see here).
The take-away is that social media platforms, with obscure algorithms and no active content moderation are a fertile territory for manipulation.
As pirates, we advocate and call for the effective enforcement of the Digital Services Act, to prevent electoral manipulation in a member state, including through the application of fines. Furthermore, we underline the critical importance of transparency in algorithms especially the ones used by social media as our collective attention is their main trade and for concrete defence mechanisms to be setup to ensure the personal and digital integrity of users, subjected without their knowledge or consent to hostile influence operations.
Authored by Paul Diegel and Florian Roussel
The post Social Media Doesn’t Want What’s Best For You : The Case of Musk and AfD first appeared on European Pirate Party.
Koalitionsverhandlungen: Wo Union und SPD bei der Digitalpolitik streiten
netzpolitik.org/2025/koalition…
Neues aus dem Fernsehrat (110): Öffentlich-rechtliche und private Medien zwischen Wettbewerb und Kooperation
netzpolitik.org/2025/neues-aus…
Angriff auf Privatsphäre: Meta-Messenger führen KI-Assistenten in Europa ein
netzpolitik.org/2025/angriff-a…
Palantir: Wer jetzt bei Peter Thiel Software kauft, hat wirklich nichts verstanden
netzpolitik.org/2025/palantir-…
European Parliament Approves Resolution on European Defense: “It’s Time to Stop Relying on Others,” Says Gregorová
Strasbourg, March 12, 2025 – The European Parliament has today adopted a historic resolution on the White Paper on the Future of European Defense. The document emphasizes the need for Europe’s strategic autonomy, reducing dependence on third countries, and strengthening defense cooperation within the EU.
The resolution responds to current security challenges and explicitly identifies Russia and its allies – Belarus, China, North Korea, and Iran – as the greatest threats to the security of the EU and its partners. “We must strengthen our support for Ukraine, expand our defense capabilities, and ensure that Europe is not dependent on the whims of the United States or other powers. There is talk of hundreds of billions for defense, but without a clear plan, these are just empty words. We don’t need more declarations or summits – we need real investments that match the €15 trillion strength of the European economy. Now is the time to show authoritarians around the world that Europe doesn’t just talk – it acts. And we must act now – every day we lose is paid for with Ukrainian blood,” says Gregorová.
“Wars today are not fought only with tanks and missiles but also through disinformation, cyberattacks, and sabotage. I am glad that this resolution clearly states: we must also defend ourselves in the digital space. If we want to protect not only our borders but also our democracy, we need a unified European approach to countering hybrid threats – from cybersecurity to uncovering election manipulation,” warns Gregorová.
As part of the resolution, the European Parliament calls for the swift implementation of the “ReArm Europe” plan, which should ensure long-term investments in the European defense industry and strategic technologies. “If we don’t invest in defense now, we will pay much more in the future – and not just financially. Unpreparedness for the worst-case scenarios would cost us incomparably more than decisive and timely action. We need a clear plan, concrete funding, and real investments; otherwise, we risk not only our security but also our economic stability,” says Gregorová.
“If we are to have real defense capabilities, we must also invest in European arms production and modern military technologies. If we want to protect Europe, we must produce European weapons and send a clear signal to arms manufacturers and investors that this is a long-term commitment by our states,” Gregorová concludes.
The post European Parliament Approves Resolution on European Defense: “It’s Time to Stop Relying on Others,” Says Gregorová first appeared on European Pirate Party.
Urheberrechte: Universal Music erweitert Klage gegen Internet Archive
netzpolitik.org/2025/urheberre…
Pirates at the United Nations Office in Vienna, 2025!
We are pleased to present the following report from Kay Schroeder, PPI’s representative at the United Nations Office in Vienna. This year is the first time since before COVID that we were able to send representatives to all three UN offices (New York, Geneva, and Vienna). Please let us know if you would also like to visit the UN on behalf of PPI.
Report of Kay Schroeder on UNOV Meetings of the UNODC
The UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) invited its member states to attend the 68th Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) in Vienna, held from March 10th to 15th. This marked my first appearance as an ECOSOC consultant for Pirate Party International at an international conference, and I was eager to see what it would entail. I dressed in my best outfit (as shown in the picture) and arrived punctually by bike at 10 a.m. on Monday.
As it was the arrival day, most attendees were busy with accreditation, familiarizing themselves with the venue, and reuniting with colleagues. The main event took place in the Plenary Hall of Building M. On the first day, member states presented general statements outlining their perspectives on the UNODC’s work. It was quite a family atmosphere. People were respectful and most of them seemed to know each other for years. I enjoyed the relaxed atmosphere and the openminded intellectualism in the room. It appeared so unpolitical to me, very different from what I recognized in parliaments.
The 68th CND was chaired by Ambassador Shambhu Kumaran, India’s representative to the UN in Vienna.
The event’s agenda included six resolutions for adoption, outlined in the COW (Committee of the Whole) draft proposals. These proposals were deliberated in the COW sessions, chaired by Andranik Hovhannisyan, Armenia’s ambassador to Austria. Additionally, various side events hosted by member states provided in-depth perspectives on their respective challenges and proposed solutions. These sessions were essential for understanding the complexities underlying the negotiations, as drug-related issues differ significantly between countries.
While synthetic drugs were the primary focus, much discussion centered on the repercussions of decisions made during previous CNDs. One memorable side event, organized by the Colombian delegation, explored the environmental impact of cocaine regulation. They highlighted how the drastic reduction in coca cultivation—from 20,000 hectares to 2,000 hectares—had led to a sharp rise in cattle farming, increasing from 6,000 to nearly 600,000. This raised the critical question of which outcome posed a greater threat to the environment.
Environment besides was one of the critical points of the whole event. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), serving as the foundation for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, faced significant criticism and sparked ongoing disagreements regarding the proposals.
The side events were primarily organized by member states that had submitted proposals, often in collaboration with one another. As a result, these events were also joint efforts. Moreover, there were several lectures discussing the progress of drug management, treatment and prevention in specific countries.
The program was extensive, offering a wide array of insightful sessions. This made it necessary for me to carefully decide which events to attend, as all of them appeared highly engaging.
Throughout the week, the Committee of the Whole (COW) worked to refine the wording of each resolution, aiming to maximize the likelihood of their approval by the greatest number of members during the plenary session. The process strongly reminded me of the Liquid Democracy decision making approach, which we also encountered challenges with at Pirate Party Austria.
Each proposal underwent a series of revisions, as countries sought to add, remove, or rephrase elements until a final version emerged that could gain acceptance from all member states. Achieving unanimity proved to be a significant challenge at the UN, drawing notable criticism during Friday’s voting session. Nevertheless, the process unfolded as a continuous, real-time negotiation, much like the Liquid Democracy system, and faced similar challenges.
The importance of precise wording and language was paramount, particularly as each proposal faced opposition from different member states. To secure unanimity, it became evident that the proposals would need to be diluted to a point of near unrecognizability. The legalistic nature of the discussions, along with the increasing tensions throughout the week, was palpable. What began as a warm, familial atmosphere gradually evolved into a more professional and determined environment —still courteous in interactions but resolute in addressing the issues at hand.
The suspense reached its peak on Friday. It was voting day, and everyone was eager to see how things were unfolding. Certain side events were held privately for consultations, leaving the public uninformed about the progress. The COW faced certain expectations, particularly from the UNODC itself, which is acutely aware of the glaring failures in drug policy over recent years. The growing number of addiction-related impairments, particularly due to synthetic opioids like Fentanyl and Ketamine, as well as the rampant spread of pink cocaine—a drug cocktail containing MDMA, Ketamine, and various painkiller ingredients in South America—has led to harsh criticism of their own work.
This was accompanied by accusations directed at various countries, whether between consumers and producers (e.g., the US and China) or between advocates of legalization and proponents of prohibition. Decisions needed to be made, and resolutions had to be adopted. To keep it short. All proposals put forward by the COW were passed by a majority. However, the voting process highlighted weaknesses within the UN structure, similar to those seen in the EU. The U.S. government rejected all proposals, asserting that including the Sustainable Development Goals— viewed by them as a hidden global political agenda—was unacceptable under the principle of national sovereignty.
This critique arose despite the SDGs forming the foundation of the widely endorsed Agenda 2030.
Furthermore, the U.S. government fully rejected the Agenda 2030, calling for its removal during CND69. Argentina, with only one abstention, consistently aligned its decisions with those of the U.S. This stood out to me as a noteworthy and insightful example of advocacy in action.
The U.S. government’s proposal for removal, introduced as item 9, sparked extensive debate, highlighting the tensions among global interest groups. While the EU and its allies firmly opposed the proposal, it found support from the U.S., China, Russia, Iran, and Argentina. This clearly underscored a significant fault line between the states. The issue exposed weaknesses in the decision making, as the EU and its allies secured a majority in the vote due to their numerical advantage, despite not representing the relative population proportion. This outcome led to frustration among the other member states, as they also asserted their sovereignty of interpretation.
In my view, fostering greater cohesion in the future clearly requires institutional reforms, which can be achieved through further democratization.
Those are my findings of the CND 68. I hope you enjoyed the reading. Check out the pictures and stay alert for future updates on my work as ECOSOC consultant for PPI at United Nations.
For more in-depth information about the event, you can explore the CND Blog for live updates from the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs or visit the official page for the 68th Session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs.
CND Blog – Live reporting from the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs
Session 68 of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs.
pp-international.net/2025/03/u…
Tech-Souveränität im EU-Parlament: Demokraten gegenüber Rechtsextremen uneins
netzpolitik.org/2025/tech-souv…
Gesetz abgeschmettert: Französische Regierung wollte verschlüsselte private Kommunikation mitlesen
netzpolitik.org/2025/crypto-wa…
Panik, Provokation, Schallwaffen: Was geschah bei der Großdemo in Belgrad?
netzpolitik.org/2025/panik-pro…
Nicht mal die Evaluation klappt nach Plan: Deutschland schludert beim Whistleblower-Schutz
netzpolitik.org/2025/nicht-mal…
Jenseits des Marketingbegriffs: Was „digitale Souveränität“ für die öffentliche Verwaltung bedeutet
netzpolitik.org/2025/jenseits-…
Spionage-Apps: Neue Studie enthüllt Risiken von Spionage-Apps für Kinder
netzpolitik.org/2025/spionage-…
Projekte für Internetfreiheit: Open Technology Fund steht vor dem Aus
netzpolitik.org/2025/projekte-…
Mehr Informationen wagen: Wie eine europäische Medienplattform die Demokratie schützen könnte
netzpolitik.org/2025/mehr-info…
Whatever it takes: How a European media platform could protect democracy
netzpolitik.org/2025/whatever-…
Stellungnahme Vernehmlassung Bundesgesetz über das Verbot des öffentlichen Verwendens von nationalsozialistischen Symbolen
Die Piraten haben im Vernehmlassungsverfahren ihre Stellungnahme zum Bundesgesetz über das Verbot des öffentlichen Verwendens von nationalsozialistischen Symbolen eingereicht [1].
Die PPS lehnt den Entwurf als Ganzes ab und fordert dessen Streichung.
Grundsätzlich halten wir das geplante Gesetz für eine Symptombekämpfung einer falsch identifizierten Ursache.
Des Weiteren ist zu befürchten, dass der Entwurf zur weiteren Einschränkung der Meinungsäusserungsfreiheit, insbesondere das Verbot des öffentlichen Zeigens bestimmter Symbole. Dies könnte eine schleichende Einengung des Meinungsspektrums und eine gesellschaftliche Gewöhnung an Zensur begünstigen. Ein solches Gesetz könnte nicht nur zur Verschiebung des Overton-Fensters führen, sondern auch langfristig die Immunisierung der Gesellschaft gegen extreme Ideologien schwächen. Art. 261bis StGB bietet bereits ausreichende rechtliche Grundlagen und eine zusätzliche Strafnorm ist nicht verhältnismässig.
Darüber hinaus kritisieren wir die Widersprüchlichkeit des erläuternden Berichts, der die Probleme der Vorlage erkennt, aber dennoch ihre Umsetzung befürwortet. Statt auf Verbote und Symptombekämpfung zu setzen, sollte weiterhin Bildung und Prävention im Vordergrund stehen, um extremistische Ideologien zu entkräften. Ein Verbot könne zudem den öffentlichen Diskurs und die Erkennbarkeit extremistischer Strömungen behindern, was langfristig kontraproduktiv sei. Zudem ist die Vorlage ungeeignet, Antisemitismus wirksam zu bekämpfen, da sie sich auf die falschen Ursachen konzentrieren und zentrale problematische Gruppen unberücksichtigt lässt.
Ferner stellen wir die Sinnhaftigkeit des geplanten Gesetzes infrage, da es eine Strafnorm für Fälle einführt, die weder eine Ideologie verbreiten noch eine Person oder Gruppe diskriminieren. Der erläuternde Bericht selbst zeigt die Absurdität auf, indem er eine Lücke schliessen will, die de facto keine relevanten Rechtsverstösse umfasst. Da bereits bestehende Gesetze alle problematischen Fälle abdecken, wäre die neue Regelung nicht nur unnötig, sondern auch juristisch kompliziert, da sie weiterhin klare Abgrenzungen zu bestehenden Bestimmungen erfordern würde. Die PPS fordert daher, den Entwurf in dieser Form nicht weiterzuverfolgen.
Die Stellungnahme im Wortlaut.
[1] fedlex.data.admin.ch/eli/dl/pr…
Serbien: Was wir über die mysteriöse Waffe wissen, die in Belgrad gegen friedliche Proteste eingesetzt wurde
netzpolitik.org/2025/serbien-w…
Einladung Mitgliederversammlung PPS, 5. April 2025
Wir laden Dich herzlich zu unserer nächsten, ordentlichen Mitgliederversammlung 2025 ein.
Präsenzveranstaltung; keine online Teilnahme möglich.
Samstag 05. April 2025
Ort: kultur & kongresshaus aarau
10:00 Uhr : Welcome Desk, Zählung Stimm- und Wahlberechtigte
10:30 Uhr : Versammlungsbeginn
Traktanden
Die Traktanden werden spätestens eine Woche vor der MV kommuniziert.
Organisatorisches
Unsere Versammlungen sind öffentlich und alle sind herzlich willkommen, aber stimmberechtigt sind nur Mitglieder, die den Jahresbeitrag 2025 bezahlt haben.
Die Zahlungsinformationen findest du hier: Mitgliedschaft
Danke für deinen Beitrag!
Anträge
Anträge an die Mitgliederversammlung müssen bis Samstag, 22. März 2025 / 10:00 Uhr eingereicht werden und durch mindestens 2 Piraten (= Quorum gemäss Statuten) unterstützt werden. Wir bitten auch um Übersetzungen der Anträge ins Französische/Deutsche oder auf Englisch, damit möglichst alle verstehen, was verhandelt wird. Änderungs- und Gegenanträge sind bis 1 Woche vor der Versammlung einzureichen. Die Anträge werden im Redmine erfasst und sollten mindestens folgende Kriterien erfüllen:
- Antragstext mit Begründung
- Für Statutenänderungen: alter & neuer Text im Vergleich
- Liste der Unterstützer (Quorum)
An und während der MV sind nur noch Ordnungsanträge zulässig.
Wir freuen uns, dich und viele andere Mitglieder wiederzusehen!
Liebe Grüsse
Vorstand Piratenpartei Schweiz
Version française
Nous avons le plaisir de t’inviter à notre prochaine assemblée générale ordinaire en 2025.
Événement en présentiel; aucune participation en ligne possible.
Samedi 5 Avril 2025
Où: kultur & kongresshaus aarau
10:00 : Welcome Desk, comptage des votants et des éligibles
10:30 : Début de l’assemblée
Ordre du jour
Les détails de l’ordre du jour seront communiqués environ une semaine avant l’AG.
Organisation
Nos assemblées sont publiques et tout le monde est le bienvenu, mais seuls les membres à jour de leur cotisation 2025 ont le droit de vote.
Tu trouves les informations de paiement ici : Adhésion
Merci pour ta contribution !
Motions
Les motions à l’assemblée générale doivent être soumises au plus tard le samedi 22 mars 2025 / 10:00 et être soutenues par au moins 2 Pirates (= quorum selon les statuts). Nous demandons également une traduction des motions en français/allemand ou en anglais, afin que tout le monde puisse comprendre ce qui est négocié. Les motions et les contre-propositions doivent être déposés jusqu’à une semaine avant l’assemblée. Les motions sont saisies dans Redmine et doivent remplir au moins les critères suivants :
- texte de la motion avec justification
- Pour les modifications des statuts : ancien & nouveau texte en comparaison.
- Liste des soutiens (quorum).
Lors et pendant l’AG, seules les motions d’ordre sont autorisées.
Nous nous réjouissons de te revoir, toi et de nombreux autres membres !
Meilleures salutations
Comité directeur Parti Pirate