(On my laptop, I'm just as likely to spend half a day writing a scraper or reverse engineering the javascript and apis to collect a dozen or two urls that I should have just jotted down in my notebook...)
It has conquered the 20 digit WiFi password in 6 font.
Pirating is theft. Pirating is inhumane.
I’m not saying “hey, go steal from content creators”. I studied multimedia and was a content creator myself. I pay for many of my media, but draw the line somewhere, e.g. do I think Disney deserves my money…
All this without going into the vast and comprehensive criticism that can be levied against Disney.
If you agree with their business antics and that they legally and ethically hold copyright rights to all their work, then I propose you pay them indeed. That’s fair. But then we’ll disagree on these terms, not whether I’m evil for not paying them.
Quad 1/8/9 isn't optimal alternative (too much centralization if everyone uses those by default) but running your own is easy.
edit: Thinking of it, anyone knows if it's possible to use that for OS-wide DNS resolves, not just for the browser?
I remember hearing someone complain on HN of their site getting blocked because it shared an IP with an illegal soccer livestream. I can’t imagine they’re doing this to IP blocks owned by CDNs like Fastly, CloudFlare, or CloudFront though. Or are they? Does this regularly break most of the internet for UK customers?
In the case that a blocked site resolved to a Cloudflare IP, it would likely be kicked off of Cloudflare, or geo-blocked for UK users (by Cloudflare).
https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2025/07/cloudflare-blo...
It looks like this is possible with Chrome-based browsers using a command line flag (--host-resolver-rules) or in Firefox settings. Is there a better way?
So why ControlD? Because I don't want to run my own piHole, basically. They maintain ad block lists that you can edit as you see fit to add things or relax things that may cause issues(which you can't do easily with public ad blocking dns servers).
Why ControlD then and not NextDNS? First, because their support was awesome when I had an issue. AFAICT it was the founder actually emailing me back and forth, and it ended up being my ISP's fault, but I only knew that based on research provided to me by support. Secondly, I got a good deal on a 5-year subscription at one point.
Happy to answer any questions, not affiliated but a fan of the service.
Trying to downgrade or strip extensions from any TLS 1.3 connection will simply break the connection.
0: https://community.fortinet.com/t5/FortiGate/Technical-Tip-Ho...
1: https://docs.broadcom.com/doc/symantec-ech-whitepaper (see page 8)
Edit: actually totally possible but you need build quantum computer with sufficient cubits first =)
(I remember using quantum algorithms to find prime factors 25 years or more ago, using the Quantum::Suppositions Perl module.)
The DNS filter setting on the FortiGate analyzes the DoH traffic and strips out the ECH parameters sent by the DNS server in the DoH response. If the client does not receive those parameters, it cannot encrypt the inner SNI, so it will send it in clear text.
(My phone screen is too small to look through the RFCs right now.)
Content piracy specific, mostly movies, blocked by public broadcaster orders: https://www.nksc.lt/doc/vasaris/siena-lrtk.txt, https://www.nksc.lt/doc/vasaris/siena-lrtk-2.txt, https://www.nksc.lt/doc/vasaris/siena-lrtk-3.txt
Of course I also use Firefox so mostly that just bypasses the system DNS entirely and uses dns over https.
I would be interested in paying a bit more if the ISP is better. In the Netherlands we always had xs4all, nowadays sorta morphed into freedom internet, which was started from a hacker magazine and kept the spirit, fighting surveillance and censorship while offering regular ISP services and then some. I'm not aware that Germany has such a thing so any step in the right direction would make me switch if I can get it (should be fine if it's available via Telekom's public network, we're currently on a virtual operator as well)
Seriously, thanks for updating that list and the nice instructions to circumvent. (3 clicks with firefox, without the need to install anything or type in anything by hand)
https://web.archive.org/web/20161013152120/https://support.c...
I also wonder if there is some kind of legal requirement for ISPs to engage in that kind of immoral, inhumane, and authoritarian censorship?
I get the “stealing is bad” argument, but far worse and an evil slippery slopes is depriving humans of their human right to free will.
The whole kinox thing was "common knowledge" among students a few years ago. And this was way before VPN providers became patrons of the arts.
Not sure what the state of it is now given that commercial streaming replaced a lot of both.
The anti-malware companies won't lobby government to block malware as that would cut into sales of their anti virus/malware.
Which is the correct way to do it (i.e. file a claim if you see someone violating copyright law). This just makes it easier for the ISPs
A.k.a. prosecution under existing legislation.
Meta, Flock cameras, Palantir. It's just a public-private partnership rather than purely state-owned enterprise, like the NSA/CIA/DoD.
In theory we have more distribution of power, but it's still surveillance and control that we have little say in.
December 2024, 31 comments - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42457712
The most commonly used index for example:
Some countries have stronger institutions against dictatorships than others but unfortunately we have seen that even the US isn't immune and that slides auch as in Poland and Hungary are possible.
There is always hope that things can turn around (as in Poland even though the road is hard and there are setbacks)
The biggest one being that most newspapers in the EU are state-controlled, Pravda-style, propagandist outlet pushing pro-EU narratives. Once you live across several EU countries and speak several languages, you can see how all the topics are synched and pushing the exact same narrative.
Basically: the EU is very good at producing people repeating that the EU is great.
To me the biggest problem is that the EU Commission is way too busy turning the EU into a totalitarian nightmare instead of trying to compete economically with the US and China. As a result in 17 years China's GDP went from $4 trillion to $20 trillion, surpassing the GDP of the eurozone (which only grew 25%: 25% vs 400%).
That's an abysmal failure and the EU is sinking and it shows anywhere you go to in the EU: cities are becoming shitholes at an alarming speed. And everything is done to try to damage control and prevent people from talking about what is ongoing.
The EU is heading straight into a wall (actually it already hit it).
I want out.
Asia is not so bad. Try Japan.
I do not miss Europe, so you could say it worked out for me.
The human and civil rights guaranteed by the US constitution are a complete joke in comparison, and most of them are not guaranteed directly constitution, but by Supreme Court interpretation of vague 18th century law that can change at any time.
Not that courts, legislators, and administrations haven't tried and succeeded in abridging them somewhat in any number of different ways for shorter or longer periods, but the text remains, and can always be referred to in the end. They have to abuse the language in order to abridge the Bill of Rights, and eventually that passes the point of absurdity.
No such challenge in Europe. Every "right" is the right to do something unless it is not allowed.
Is it draconian if no Government entity is involved? And the penalty is unavailability?
I thought draconian implies that the punishment is much too high in relationship to the crime.
Maybe the whole affair is more dystopian rather than draconian: ISPs block access to media even though no law or government asked them to just so they have less hassle with rightholders.
this is called "disinformation"
[1] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/13/court-confirms-germ...
[2] https://www.dw.com/en/germany-compact-press-freedom-right-wi...
[3] https://www.foxnews.com/media/germany-started-criminal-inves...
[4] Germany announces wide-ranging plans to restrict the speech, travel and economic activity of political dissidents, in order to better control the "thought and speech patterns" of its own people - https://www.eugyppius.com/p/germany-announces-wide-ranging-p...
Edit as reply to nosianu, because I am "posting too fast":
> Liar. Some demand it - but it is not considered by those with the power to actually do it, not even close.
On Monday, the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), which is currently serving as the junior coalition partner in Berlin’s conservative-led government, voted unanimously to begin efforts to outlaw [AfD]. - https://edition.cnn.com/2025/07/06/europe/germany-afd-ban-po...
The Jewish German intelligence chief trying to ban the AfD - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/12/09/jewish-ger...
I would not call the head of German intelligence and ruling coalition parties "not even close". Kindly save that liar label for yourself.
> The AfD happily participates in state and federal elections and is in the federal parliament (Bundestag).
"Considering" means they haven't done it yet. Some tried, but have not yet succeeded.
It's a neo nazi terrorist group with a political wing!
There are 9 main parties in Germany, AfD doesn't even make top 10…
Your comment is like saying the US is shooting political dissidents, and then referring to Al-Qaida or ISIS.
If you have a source showing AfD organized terrorist attacks, please present it. I could find no such thing.
> There are 9 main parties in Germany, AfD doesn't even make top 10…
In the 2025 elections, the largest party, the CDU, got 28.5% of the vote. The AfD came second with 20.8%: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2025_German_fed...
So you're simply lying.
Following the source wikipedia gives [1], we see the extent of that "connection" was that the killer donated €150 to the AfD, and that the AfD had previously criticized the victim (by sharing the victim's exact own words online).
Let's apply your standard evenly then, shall we? A writer for the state-funded left-wing Amadeu Antonio Foundation, armed with hammers and pepper spray, attacked a right-wing activist [2]. This attack was one of many [3]. So by your standard the German state sponsors and endorses terrorists. The US Democrat party wants to create an ICE tracker [4]. ICE agents have been the targets of attacks and ambushes [5,6,6a]. And of course it was hateful rhetoric [7] against Trump and Kirk that led to their (attempted) assassinations by the left. By your standard, the Democrat party engages in stochastic terrorism.
Of course that's just guilt by (vague) association. Enough for you, but I have higher standards. Bill Clinton pardoned a terrorist who (among other things) bombed the Senate. She now sits on the board of BLM [8,9]. An axe-wielding maniac attacked a Republican senator's home. Democrat politicians then donated money to the attacker [10]. The founder of the terrorist group Weather Underground [11], Bill Ayers, is now a distinguished professor at the state-funded University of Illinois [12], so we can add them to terrorists as well. As well as the University of California, where the terrorist Angela Davis is also a distinguished professor. "Terrorist" can be a vague term, so let me be specific: she bought the shotgun seen here taped to the neck of Judge Harold Haley, and helped plan the attack that killed him [13].
"In an op-ed piece after the election, Ayers denied any close association with Obama, and criticized the Republican campaign for its use of guilt by association tactics." - perhaps you should reflect on this.
So now what? Will you reconsider calling AfD terrorists? Will you instead also call the US Democratic and the German CDU parties terrorists? Maybe even apply more skepticism to the news sources that have so deceived you by cherry-picking what they show you?
Or will you reconsider nothing, and just hope the next person you lie to is less informed? Rhetorical question.
[1] https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/father-neighbor...
[2] https://www.bild.de/regional/berlin/linksextremisten-greifen...
[3] In 2023, the AfD saw 86 violent attacks on AfD party representatives. This was more than on any other German party. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_for_Germany
[4] https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/5566481-ice-tra...
[5] https://www.ngocomment.com/p/the-first-federal-terror-case-a...
[6] https://www.fox4news.com/news/texas-ice-detention-center-att...
[6a] https://www.foxnews.com/us/who-joshua-jahn-shooter-deadly-da...
[7] That some of this rhetoric was true makes no difference - the charge of "stochastic terrorism" had no exceptions for truth when used against the right. And indeed the AfD's statements about the victim in the case you linked are not even alleged to be untrue.
[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Rosenberg
[9] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blm-terrorist-rosenberg/ ("mixture" because yes it's all true, but it's "subjective" if bombing government buildings is really terrorism)
[10] https://www.kfyrtv.com/2021/01/09/democrats-donate-to-suspec...
[11] At one point, the Weathermen adopted the belief that all white babies were "tainted with the original sin of "skin privilege", declaring "all white babies are pigs" with one Weatherwoman telling feminist poet Robin Morgan "You have no right to that pig male baby" after she saw Morgan breastfeeding her son and told Morgan to put the baby in the garbage. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground
[12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers
[13] https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryPorn/comments/31eyvt/judge_h...
If you're arguing that the AfD aren't Nazis, I'm not sure I agree. They're already privately talking about deporting German citizens.
If you are arguing that banning a political party[0] is inherently wrong... sure. I'll agree with you, with one caveat. How do you meaningfully stop people from doing that? Just saying "Well, that would be illegal, so just disobey the illegal order" is not good enough. That's what you do for otherwise normal politicians that fuck up drafting the law[1]. But the people who are doing this shit are malicious. They need to be removed from power or they will just keep trying until they get their way. And that effectively means banning the political party trying to ban everyone else. Only a stand user can beat another stand user. Hence, the constitutional ban on Nazis.
[0] I should not have to explain to people that the Nazis banned other political parties.
[1] see also, the US 1st Amendment, which prohibits laws that restrict speech without specifying any meaningful punishment for politicians that attempt to restrict speech.
That's not specifically a Nazi policy. In fact, remigration is an increasingly popular political idea in various Western countries that don't have any specific Nazi past (US, the UK, Australia, etc.)
(Remigration is also frequently done by non-Western countries as well.)
Reversing a change to visa policy or not granting citizenship to migrants in the future is a different question. But it's far less problematic to not grant citizenship or visas than it is to revoke them after the fact.
As for "granting citizenship willy nilly", that wasn't done by "one side". The law is such that the choice of whether or not to admit an asylum seeker is a purely legalistic one with no political control afforded. The only thing Merkel (for better and for worse) did was smile and wave at the migrants you don't like. She had no power to stop them either. The reason why the law works this way is, again, because of WWII and Nazis. People fleeing Hitler were stopped by immigration policies at every turn. So we got every country to sign a bunch of international agreements that basically say "we will not attempt to stop people fleeing despotic regimes from entering our country".
Now, I get the feeling you want to shit on this policy, and I actually do think there's a valid critique of it. Specifically, only admitting immigrants during a time of crisis is almost guaranteed to generate resentment, both from the native-born and immigrant populations. You see, while Germany pledged to hand out passports like candy to asylum seekers, the rest of German immigration policy is rigidly inflexible and their society even more so[1].
The AfD getting banned under Germany's anti-Nazi policy is not at all unprecedented. Actually, they've had to use that same policy against the immigrants they're admitting. There's biker gangs run by Turkish immigrants that are illegal in Germany because they're too far-right. The case of Turkish immigrants to Germany is particularly illuminating. Turks in Germany have a higher rate of support for Erdogan than they do in Turkiye. Germany has managed to create a society that reliably turns poor immigrants into far-right stooges.
Do you want to know what country turns Turkish immigrants away from Islamist dictators? America.
Trump regime notwithstanding[2], the USA immigration system is unusually flexible and permissive for a rich country, and it has very generous family reunification visa programs. The family visas are, effectively, outsourcing the decision of what immigrants to admit to citizens that know the people they're sponsoring. It's an invite system. And since we've been doing this consistently for 50 years, we have immigrant communities from basically every country on the planet. So there's a very smooth gradient to integration. The "marginal cost" of an additional immigrant is basically zero. We imported the third world, but the third world became us.
> The bar for branding someone a Nazi is low, and ~80% or more of the allied forces that fought in WWII would be Nazis under today's definition:
This isn't related to the merits of the German constitutional ban on Nazis at all, but since I just spent a paragraph glazing modern American immigration policy, I feel obligated to completely dynamite America's moral foundations. I mean, even the family visas weren't intended to do what they're doing. Actually, they were created specifically to give white immigrants a fast lane through the system! The prior policy was basically "white immigrants only" and this was meant to appease people who opposed deracializing the immigration system.
To be frank, America's the country Hitler got all his worst ideas from. WWII happened right after the nadir of American race relations. The """liberal""" business establishment was planning assassinations and coups against the President. Hell, we were not that far off from joining the Axis. FDR had to bait Japan into attacking us to get the American people on board with fighting WWII. And even then he couldn't resist throwing shittons of Japanese immigrants into concentration camps in a blatant land grab.
There's a funny (in the "two nickels" sense) quirk of American history in that America will absolutely tolerate and engage in morally detestable bullshit until a war or other crisis makes it undeniably wrong. Lincoln ran on an abolitionist platform, but the actual moral opinion didn't change against slavery until Union soldiers were marching on plantations and actually seeing the horrors of slavery with their own eyes. Likewise, while we were nominally fighting an evil tyrant, that didn't hit home for a lot of soldiers until they were literally marching on Auschwitz and smelling dead bodies.
[0] The root word of "franchise" is "French", as in, the process of making one into a Frenchman. The linguistic association between France and temporary / revocable permission is because that's how freedom worked there at one point. Probably under a king named Louis.
[1] This is the same country where an announced rail detour becomes a passenger kidnapping because the driver couldn't be arsed to clear the extra stops up the chain.
[2] Part of the reason why the Trump regime is so polarizing in America is because European-style immigration enforcement is so alien to us.
Australia at least states that expulsion is compatible with human rights.
"The Bill is compatible with human rights because, to the extent that it may limit some human rights, those limitations are reasonable, necessary and proportionate in achieving the legitimate objective of protecting the Australian community."
Attachment A Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
Why should I trust anything they say about human rights?
Right, and laws are not the result of politics, but are handed to us by God on stone tablets.
Your framing is also misleading - admitting refugees [0], and granting them citizenship, are very different. Relaxing citizenship requirements to a mere 5 years of residing in Germany (or just 3 with German language proficiency) is also very much political, as was the admission of 3 million explicitly economic migrant Turks.
We're asked to believe immigration and immigration policy is something that just happens, like the tides, in response to economic and geopolitical events, and politics can do nothing about it. Meanwhile Iran has deported 1.3 million Afghans, and plans to deport 2 million more [2]. So they are "afforded political control". As is China, which, despite being a growing economy and with significantly below-replacement fertility, has a population of just 0.1% immigrants [3].
[0] I wouldn't even call them that, since they passed through many safe countries before even reaching the EU, let alone Germany.
[1] https://www.bild.de/politik/inland/politik-inland/einbuerger...
[2] https://www.dw.com/en/iran-plans-to-deport-2-million-afghan-...
Liar. Some demand it - but it is not considered by those with the power to actually do it, not even close. The AfD happily participates in state and federal elections and is in the federal parliament (Bundestag).
Why are you against freedom of speech??
People saying what they want is allowed! No action of that kind was or is taken. AfD and its members continues to participate in normal political life and getting elected, and they continue to participate in TV and media interviews.
What exactly is your complaint? You complain about some people's speech - while claiming to be for freedom of speech! Very peculiar.
OP thus wants to make fun of those (such as me) who are puzzled by a statement that Germany could be considered a draconian state with regards to freedom of speech. It is hard to engage OP because he likely isn't German and has no personal knowledge and experience at all if any of his speech would be censored in Germany. Calling OP disinformed maybe isn't quite correct, maybe misinformed would fit better.
And yet, the entire beginning of the list, no subdomains listed - so are subdomains for them allowed (unless specifically blocked here)?
then you blame governments
https://www.theregister.com/2006/01/20/wikipedia_shutdown/
The German Wikipedia site was taken down by court order this week because it mentioned the full name of a deceased Chaos Computer Club hacker, known as Tron. A Berlin court ordered the closure of the site on Tuesday after it sided with the parents of the German hacker, who wanted to prevent the online encyclopedia from publishing the real name of their son. A final ruling is expected in two weeks' time.
https://web.archive.org/web/20090129160045/https://cyberlaw....
By virtue of an interim injunction ordered by the Lübeck state court dated November 13, 2008, upon the request of Lutz Heilmann (Member of Parliament – “Die Linke” party), Wikipedia Germany is hereby enjoined from continuing linking from the Internet address wikipedia.de to the Internet address de.wikipedia.org, as long as under the address de.wikipedia.org certain propositions concerning Lutz Heilmann remain visible.
You may know about Rote Armee Fraktion/Baader-Meinhof-Gruppe. They were a self-proclaimed communist and anti-imperialist urban guerrilla group. They murdered 34 people. A number of these were former Nazi party members that in the 1970s had climbed to powerful positions in West Germany. OTOH, during the war nazi party membership was not exactly optional if you ran a business.
On the other side of the border: While Angela Merkel denies it, I find it extremely improbable that she did not work for Stasi in some form.
This was the first one I think, right now there are e.g. Kodi Plug-ins and other media servers that work the same way
Famous (in Germany) example: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frommer_Legal (use auto-translate, it's German)
For a lot of Germans who are knowledgable in this topic, being associated with such a company is nearly like openly admitting to have raped children. The hate for these law firms and their employees is extreme.
This would have been a concrete example, where a government minister abused the system because a tweet annoyed him: https://theweek.com/news/world-news/954635/willygate-german-...
Here's the press release on this:
https://www.bka.de/DE/Presse/Listenseite_Pressemitteilungen/...
tl;dr Since in Germany it is illegal to e.g. make public postings calling for the rape of women or share video footage of women being murdered and tortured for the purpose of entertainment and gloating, one day ahead of International Womens Day police staged a big showy series of raids on individuals doing such things, to make a point and call attention to the issue.
Sounds like an excellent use of my tax money, to be honest, but it was certainly controversial also in Germany.
(Just for the record, I believe that a well-known politician should just have to live with being insulted.)
> The Bavaria resident is also accused of posting Nazi-era imagery and language earlier in 2024. According to prosecutors, this post may have violated German laws against the incitement of ethnic or religious hatred.
> The man was arrested on Thursday as part of nationwide police operations against suspected antisemitic hate speech online.
https://www.dw.com/en/germany-greens-habeck-presses-charges-...
This article is more informative:
Translated (with DeepL.com):
> The public prosecutor's office in Bamberg has now announced: The search had already been requested before the Green politician himself filed a criminal complaint in the case.
> Habeck only filed a criminal complaint in the case more than a month after the search warrant had been requested.
> According to the public prosecutor's office, the suspect is also facing another charge: According to this, in spring 2024, he allegedly uploaded a picture on X with a reference to the Nazi dictatorship, which could potentially constitute the criminal offense of incitement to hatred. According to the investigators, it shows an SS or SA man with the poster and the words “Germans don't buy from Jews” and the additional text “True democrats! We've had it all before!”.
https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/schwachkopf-belei...
(Note the date on the last article - 5 days later than the one you linked - likely the facts weren't known to the public before then)
There’s only one problem. Whos to say you won’t be the next target if the political climate shifts to cracking down on pro-censorship voices like yourself?
Will you think its still a good use of your tax money when the opposition is putting you in a police car for this exact HN comment?
The German society is insanely divided on a lot of (in this case: political) topics. Better avoid making such generalizations.
Yes. As a sibling poster mentioned, this has historical roots. German law recognizes something called "Volksverhetzung", similar to concepts in other national criminal codes in other countries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung
You can probably guess which hot button issue it comes up with in context the most often (if not: Holocaust denial).
Essentially, there was a landmark judgement that certain forms of calling for violence against women publicly can qualify as this, and so may potentially be criminal (this would be decided case by case in an actual trial, of course).
I can completely understand coming from the perspective of the First Amendment US system and having a different opinion on this. As a crude analogy, it's a bit like Americans love their free market while Europeans usually think a bit more regulation of capitalism is a sane thing to do. It's going to be difficult to agree across the pond.
These things exist on a gradient. Note that plenty of other intact democracies are much stricter than Germany, e.g. South Korea where legal action against online hate speech occurs at a far larger volume, and comes together with far more tracking infrastructure and lack of anonymity on the internet (e.g. since everyone has a client cert for online commerce). And you know what? Many South Koreans want internet hate speech and trolling and bullying policed even much harder.
In Germany there is constant, sometimes quite heated debate on the reach of the application of the Volksverhetzung idea. I think that's very good and have had different opinions across various cases.
> Will you think its still a good use of your tax money when the opposition is putting you in a police car for this exact HN comment?
I know the legislative and political processes of my country well enough to know the long process it would take to get there. If I see things slide in the wrong direction, you bet I'll vote or take to the streets on that issue, too.
A country is a process that takes active participation. It's not a black or white thing you settle one time.
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/08/05/german-politic...
> The offence means that in certain cases, criticism of the government that constitutes insult or defamation against political figures is subject to criminal prosecution in Germany.
> Specifically, Section 188 was amended by law, adding "insult" to the offence in addition to "defamation" and "slander". The offence was also extended to include local politicians.
> Robert Habeck of the Greens, for example, filed 805 criminal complaints. The Greens' Annalena Baerbock filed 513, Marco Buschmann of the FDP 26, and Boris Pistorius of the SPD 10, among others.
> Politicians from other parties such as the CDU and AfD have also filed criminal complaints against insults from citizens.
> This includes AfD leader Alice Weidel, who has filed hundreds of complaints for insults online and has also made use of Section 188, even though her party is in favour of abolishing it.
> CDU leader Friedrich Merz, before he became chancellor, had also filed several criminal complaints for insulting behaviour, which in some cases led to house searches.