Criminal complaint against unknown persons and the operators of the De-Mail system

Criminal complaint against unknown persons and the operators of the De-Mail system, initially at 1&1 De-Mail GmbH, Mentana-Claimsoft GmbH and procilon IT-Solutions GmbH, according to §§ 268, 269, 270 StGB and all other relevant criminal offenses

For months, even years, I have been trying to report crimes committed against me to the state investigation authorities: By email, by post as a standard letter, by registered letter with advice of receipt, by fax, by lawyers: In vain, as you can read above in the cover letter and the other attached criminal complaints.

Finally, I wanted to try De-Mail:

https://www.bsi.bund.de/DE/Themen/DigitaleGesellschaft/EGovernment/DeMail/DeMail.html

Now I am a customer of 1&1 De-Mail GmbH with a P.O. Box andreas.pfefferle@amp-e.de-mail.de.

After the Attorney General at the Federal Court of Justice, whom I had written to by De-Mail registered letter, declared himself to be not competent, I turned to the Karlsruhe Public Prosecutor's Office on 05/25/2020, again by De-Mail registered letter, under the address sta- karlsruhe@egvp.de - mail.de.

To my De-Mail registered letter, I immediately received a dispatch confirmation from the De-Mail system via versandbestaetigung@sec.de-mail.de:

This confirms that the message was sent to the recipient with the following information.

The confirmation was sent by sec, http://www.sec.de-mail.de.

(By the way, the URL http://www.sec.de-mail.de leads into digital nirvana.)

However, I have not received an acknowledgment of receipt for my De-Mail registered letter until today.

Therefore, I contacted the customer service of my De-Mail provider, 1&1 De-Mail GmbH, first by phone and then by email.

At first, I received an utterly pointless answer: You only receive confirmations of receipt if you select the option “registered mail“, which I had done and paid for.

After I had complained to the 1&1 customer service about this nonsense, I received a new explanation:

You only receive a confirmation of receipt if you choose the option “Personal and confidential“ – I have no idea what is technically behind this option and what the 0.24 € per message are supposed to buy me – and thus, if you succeed to comply with all legal formalities. The courts have a traffic light system that only permits the admission of De-Mail messages that have been confirmed by the sender – that is, sent with the option “Personal and confidential“.

In contradiction to this, however, I received a standard post office letter, allegedly from the Public Prosecutor's Office in Karlsruhe, dated 06/02/2020, which refers to my De-Mail registered letter and does not mention any legal formal error on my part.

Because of these discrepancies, I suspect that the De-Mail system operators are cheating me and that my messages never reach their destination.

Therefore, I sent my message again to the Public Prosecutor's Office in Karlsruhe on 06/19/2020 at 08:24 pm, as a registered letter and this time with the option “Personal and confidential“ mentioned by the customer service, taking one hundred and three other public prosecutor's offices of the Federal Republic of Germany on Cc.

I immediately received a dispatch confirmation from sec, http://www.sec.de-mail.de, and/or versandbestaetigung@sec.de-mail.de, and also in the period of approximately three minutes, between 08:26 pm and 08:29 pm, about twenty confirmations of receipt from fp-demail.de, http://www.fp-demail.de, and/or eingangsbestaetigung@fp-demail.de.

Further confirmations of receipt from fp-demail.de, http://www.fp-demail.de, and/or eingangsbestaetigung@fp-demail.de, were received between 08:47 pm and 21:46 pm.

According to my current technical understanding, the company procilon IT-Solutions GmbH maintains a De-Mail mailbox at Mentana-Claimsoft GmbH, a subsidiary of Francotyp-Postalia, to which all De-Mail messages are sent that are indirectly addressed via the De-Mail address to electronic court and administration mailboxes (EGVP).

The company procilon IT-Solutions GmbH then distributes the messages, which have ended up in the collective account at Mentana-Claimsoft GmbH, to the EGVP participants.

Presumably, Mentana-Claimsoft GmbH generates confirmations of receipt immediately when the message is deposited in the De-Mail collective mailbox of procilon IT-Solutions GmbH, although the message has not yet reached the actual EGVP recipient.

Obviously, in this system, the sender can never know whether his message has actually been delivered to the addressed EGVP participant.

Maybe my current technical understanding is wrong.

Irrespective of this, it is extremely worrying that for some registered De-Mail messages acknowledgments of receipt were generated several times and with different time stamps.

For example, I have received four confirmations of receipt from the Augsburg Public Prosecutor's Office through fp-demail.de, http://www.fp-demail.de, or eingangsbestaetigung@fp-demail.de:

Hereby it is confirmed that the message with the metadata listed below was received on 06/19/2020 at 08:57:12 pm in the mailbox of the recipient 'sta-augsburg@egvp.de-mail.de'. The message was deposited in the collective mailbox of the recipient procilon IT-Solutions GmbH.

Hereby it is confirmed that the message with the metadata listed below was received on 06/19/2020 at 08:59:00 pm in the mailbox of the recipient 'sta-augsburg@egvp.de-mail.de'. The message was deposited in the collective mailbox of the recipient procilon IT-Solutions GmbH.

Hereby it is confirmed that the message with the metadata listed below was received on 06/19/2020 at 09:12:05 pm in the mailbox of the recipient 'sta-augsburg@egvp.de-mail.de'. The message was deposited in the collective mailbox of the recipient procilon IT-Solutions GmbH.

Hereby it is confirmed that the message with the metadata listed below was received on 06/19/2020 at 09:39:04 pm in the mailbox of the recipient 'sta-augsburg@egvp.de-mail.de'. The message was deposited in the collective mailbox of the recipient procilon IT-Solutions GmbH.

And from the Karlsruhe Public Prosecutor's Office I have received three confirmations of receipt through fp-demail.de, http://www.fp-demail.de, and eingangsbestaetigung@fp-demail.de:

Hereby it is confirmed that the message with the metadata listed below was received on 06/19/2020 at 08:57:02 pm in the mailbox of the recipient 'sta - karlsruhe@egvp.de-mail.de '. The message was deposited in the collective mailbox of the recipient procilon IT-Solutions GmbH.

Hereby it is confirmed that the message with the metadata listed below was received on 06/19/2020 at 08:58:50 pm in the mailbox of the recipient 'sta - karlsruhe@egvp.de-mail.de '. The message was deposited in the collective mailbox of the recipient procilon IT-Solutions GmbH.

Hereby it is confirmed that the message with the metadata listed below was received on 06/19/2020 at 09:11:54 pm in the mailbox of the recipient 'sta - karlsruhe@egvp.de-mail.de '. The message was deposited in the collective mailbox of the recipient procilon IT-Solutions GmbH.

In total I have received one hundred and fifteen confirmations of receipt for the one hundred and four De- Mail registered messages sent: From some public prosecutor's offices none at all, from some, one, two, three, or four.

Obviously, the De-Mail system is not working correctly: I claim that this computer system has been tampered with.

When I call up the URL https://de-mail.1und1.de, I am redirected to a login page. In the source code of that page I found this tag:

<script type="text/javascript" src="_files/demail-providers.js"></script>

The file _files/demail-providers.js had the following content on 06/24/2020 at 02:22 am:

var deMailProviders = ["web.de-mail.de", "gmx.de-mail.de", "drv-bund.de-mail.de", "polizei-herford-nrw.de-mail.de"];

About forty minutes later, at 03:03 am on June 24, 2020, the contents of the file _files/demail-providers.js had changed as follows:

var deMailProviders = [];

Consequently, someone must have changed the contents of this file between 02:22 am and 03:03 am on June 24, 2020.

The content of the variable deMailProviders is used in the source code of the application to determine valid De-Mail addresses. The source code checks if this variable is defined and changes its behavior accordingly.

The obviously optional presence of the file _files/demail-providers.js, which can be used to influence the behavior of the 1&1 De-Mail web application, corroborates my suspicion that the system has been manipulated.

This suspicion is further confirmed by the initially completely pointless mentioning of the Herford Police in the source code of the 1&1 De-Mail web application and the modification of the file _files/demail- providers.js file at nighttime.

Criminal complaint against unknown persons at Amazon

Diesen Blog-Beitrag in deutscher Sprache lesen

On 12/10/2018 I wrote by email to the following email addresses

• KARLSRUHE-WALDSTADT.PREV@polizei.bwl.de (Police station Karlsruhe Waldstadt)
• KARLSRUHE.KD.FUEGR@polizei.bwl.de (Police headquarters Karlsruhe)
• stuttgart.lka@polizei.bwl.de (State Criminal Police Office of Baden-Württemberg)
• karlsruhe.kd.k5@polizei.bwl.de
• christoph.knappich@polizei.bwl.de
• schmietenknop@cvs-kanzlei.de

under the subject: Criminal complaint against unknown persons at Amazon on the basis of §§ 268, 269, 270 German Penal Code:

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

With this email message I am filing a criminal complaint against unknown persons with Amazon on the basis of §§ 268, 269, 270 German Penal Code.

Please see my PowerPoint presentation at the following link to explain my complaint

Shared OneDrive folder

in the file Amazon.pptx.

You can view it directly in the browser in edit and presentation mode.

I have also more or less literally set the notes in the PowerPoint presentation to voice. The audio and the videos in the presentation are played automatically when viewed as a screen presentation.

The summary and concluding remarks from my PowerPoint presentation are given here:

An order at Amazon is processed 99% by a computer system:

The EDP system receives the order, assigns it a unique code and decides which logistics centers will deliver the ordered goods.

Employees, in some cases also robots, in the selected logistics centers are informed by the IT system about the new order and the ordered goods, retrieve the ordered goods from shelves and place them in baskets which are identified by a machine-readable bar code containing the code issued by the IT system for the order.

The baskets, in which the ordered goods were placed, are brought together mechanically, controlled by the EDP system.

The contained goods are packed by employees and the package is provided with the bar code.

The order is always identified by this bar code: The employees do not know to whom the order goes.

The parcel is then placed on a conveyor belt, where it is weighed, and the address label is affixed to it by a machine connected to the EDP system using the bar code.

Machines controlled by the computer system transfer the parcel into a container, which is transported by an external logistics company or Amazon Logistics, in trucks - or even aircraft - to a distribution center near the customer.

From there, the parcels are delivered to the customer by delivery vans.

In this process, the EDP system generates technical records, data or a record of events, of the order and parcel status.

Among other things, it records when the order arrived, when the order left the logistics center and, in the case of delivery by Amazon Logistics, when and where the parcel passes through Amazon locations until it finally reaches the customer.

These records are partially visible in the parcel tracking and machine sent e-mails.

The records, labels and data generated by the EDP system are evidence-relevant data: they document the order, its processing and the route of the parcel to the customer in a legally binding manner.

The authenticity of this machine-generated evidence-relevant data depends on the proper, manipulation-free operation of the EDP system.

In manipulation-free operation

• this computer system does not label a package several times without this being recorded in some form that can be viewed and communicated by Amazon Customer Service,
• this EDP system does not create the label on the package delivered to me on 15.10.2018,
• this EDP system does not send any e-mails from shipment-tracking@amazon.de after confirmation of dispatch if delivery is made by Amazon Logistics,
• the EDP system lists the email messages sent by me via the contact form in the Message Center under "Sent Messages",

as I explained in my PowerPoint presentation.

Therefore, the EDP system was wrongly influenced and technical records and evidence data were falsified.

§ 268 protects the security of the information acquisition by technical devices as well as the confidence in the origin of the recordings free from manipulations.

§ 269 protects in accordance with §§ 267 and 268 the security and reliability of the legal and evidence exchange concerning the handling of evidence relevant data.

§ 270 contains an equal treatment clause for the wrongful manipulation of data processing for all facts which presuppose the characteristic "for deception in legal transactions" (§ 152a ¶ 3, §§ 267, 268, 269, 271, 273, 281).

Without this protection, I can understandably have no confidence in the authenticity of the package delivered to me on 10/15/2018, allegedly from Amazon, because the Amazon customer service is not able to tell me when, where, why and by whom the package was re-labeled.

Yours sincerely,

Andreas Pfefferle

I had already contacted the police before, seeking help in this matter. The first contact was an email, which I sent on 10/26/2018 to the following email addresses

• KARLSRUHE-WALDSTADT.PREV@polizei.bwl.de (Police station Karlsruhe Waldstadt)
• KARLSRUHE.KD.FUEGR@polizei.bwl.de (Police Headquarters Karlsruhe)

under the subject: Computer crime/cybercrime: Suspicion of unauthorized access to my Amazon account:

Ladies and Gentlemen,

My name is Andreas Pfefferle and I live in Eichbäumle 18 in 76139 Karlsruhe.

On October 20, 2018 I contacted Amazon at 17:50 by phone under the German support number 0800 3638469.

The usual recorded announcement switched by support service providers was played.

However it was announced - I quote from memory:

"Conversations are recorded for training purposes. If you don't want this, please press the number two button."

Other options were not offered.

This seems strange to me:

Only one option? So why choose the number two key for this option?

I pressed the number two key.

(I have enabled two-factor authentication on my Amazon account.)

The support employee who allegedly needed access to my account wasn't able to access my account at first - which seems implausible to me.

I was sent an SMS with the code of the second factor. The support representative asked me to read it out. I complied with this request.

I was not asked for the first factor, the password.

The support employee asked me on the phone to write an email to impressum@amazon.de for further information.

I also received an email with this request, which I quote below literally.

Of course, impressum@amazon.de is not a support email address.

Therefore, and because of all the anomalies of the phone call, I suspect that someone has gained unauthorized access to my Amazon account and my conversation partner was not an Amazon Support employee.

I therefore urge you to start an investigation. If you need or want to speak to me personally, we can make an appointment.

Yours sincerely,

Andreas Pfefferle

A parcel is delivered

Diesen Blog-Beitrag in deutscher Sprache lesen

On 10/15/2018 a parcel in familiar Amazon packaging was handed over to me by a non-uniformed delivery service.

I hadn't ordered anything, but it could be a gift.

Yet the label doesn't look familiar to me at all and rather imaginatively self-made.

In addition, there is another label of the same size under the label.

Since Amazon doesn't label twice, I asked the Amazon customer service for information.

However, they had no explanation for the re-labelling, so I came up with some observations about the package which I recorded in a PowerPoint presentation.

Finally, with reference to my PowerPoint presentation, I filed a criminal complaint against unknown persons with Amazon on the basis of §§ 268, 269, 270 of the German Penal Code.

To date I have not opened the package and will not open it until I have an explanation for the re-labelling and other inconsistencies related to this package.

The PowerPoint presentation

In my opinion, the presentation contains only rational thoughts:

I do not yet know what and how this matter has been investigated, but I want to request information.

The letter of the District Court of Karlsruhe (Care Court)

On 12/12/2018 I was surprised by a letter from the district court of Karlsruhe (Care Court):

On the basis of a suggestion, the court checked whether a supervisor would be appointed for me.

I was asked to fill in an enclosed questionnaire "as soon as possible" and send it to the district court.

The letter neither mentions a legal basis nor does it contain instructions on legal remedies.

The letter from the City of Karlsruhe

On 12/15/2018 I also found a letter from the city of Karlsruhe in my letterbox.

Lawyer

I neither filled in the questionnaire nor sent it to the district court.

Instead, I asked a lawyer to advise me on this matter and to represent my interests.

He recommended that I not attend the appointment with the city of Karlsruhe and asked for access to the files.

After he had gained access to the files (The public prosecutor investigating the Amazon affair considered me to be in need of care. I don't know how he came up with that.) he wrote to the district court on 01/16/2019.

The order of the district court

On 02/19/2019, the District Court of Karlsruhe decided to discontinue the proceedings.

No care was ordered.