I am not agreeing with the tinfoil "controlled by the CCC president" rhetoric, but a lot of CCC events including their Congress indeed use an all female (identity) volunteer group calling itself "CrewCrew" as security.
They are known to be a bit "paranoid" sometimes, can act "overly aggressive" sometimes and like to disguise their faces during "enforcement". That said, I did not have first hand interactions with them, so that's just my impression of them seeing them around and some hearsay from people who had minor interactions with them.
But they do not seem very accountable, and they are in my humble opinion a bit of a sore on the otherwise very well organized Congress. Especially considering this in the context of the CCC, who for years ran and runs campaigns for more police accountability.
Until the escalation at 36C3, we thought the incident at 35C3 was: A random guy from the CrewCrew (new security persons) came to our assembly and got offended by VC's domain. They parted without reaching conclusions.
Only after the escalation at 36C3 i learned that:
- that guy at 35C3 was the CCC's president
- seemingly being an exception of the "all-female" rule
- the "CrewCrew" are not just some activists, but some sort of authorized force
- that the incident at 35C3 included a house ban, this came as a surprise to the auditory witnesses
- the president believed that this was Vincent Canfields assembly (it was fuwafuwa by lesderid, there never was a cockmail asm)
The internal CCC email the president wrote in January 2020 consisted mostly of smearing VC because he was one of the "bad guys" and it was justified in beating him and kicking him out. It turned out they actually stole VC's phone and had to give it back later. No details on what actually caused the differences between the president and VC. We can't even rule out a personal feud.
There were rumors that the CrewCrew was not certified for 35a Gewerbeordnung and thus illegal to be official security. Its references were scrubbed from the 35C3 and 36C3 wiki around the same time, in early 2020.
The whole story is very fishy and gave me the last straw to part with the CCC. Excuse my tinfoil hat, but there are some serious things going on in the CCC mothership.
>- the "CrewCrew" are not just some activists, but some sort of authorized force
Legally, they would be "Ordner"[1], and are thereby "authorized". It is perfectly legal for organizers of "assemblies" to recruit and use volunteers to keep order and peace, as long as these volunteers are unarmed (by law). The Gewerbeordnung does not come into play here. I am not quite sure they were up to snuff when it comes to identification, tho, as legally they have to wear a white armband saying "Ordner", and I do not think they did when I saw them (they did however have those t-shirts and other swag if memory serves right). But I might be wrong.
I am sure some people, maybe even the CCC president, were offended by Vincent's websites - to be offensive is a goal Vincent stated himself - and the CCC leadership then decided to ban him. We may debate if this was justified or free speech or whatever, but at the end of the day, the organizer of the Congress told him to fuck off. There might have been misunderstandings along the way, and/or the CCC may have changed their initial decision and/or fucked up their communication (they are human, after all). But the end result was a ban from the venue.
As I said in another comment, I find the assault of Vincent that then occurred extremely problematic, probably outright illegal assault (I see no evidence of justified self-defense by the security in the video). At the same time, I respect the CCC's decision to ban an "undesirable". The club members have to figure out for themselves who they want at their events and in their spaces.
And as I also said earlier, I find the lack of accountability of the security "crew" very disconcerting. You cannot have people running around playing police (their Congress-internal
DECT phone number even is "110", same as the police has in the public telephone network) who beat up people and cover their faces to hide their identities, all the while the CCC which these security people represent runs campaigns to get laws changed to make police more accountable by having officers to clearly be identifiable (by a number on their uniforms), wearing bodycams and raising the limits on when police is allowed to use force.
I don't think Versammlungsgesetz is likely to be relevant to Congress. It's a regular event with paid tickets (primarily restricted to a somewhat limited audience), access control etc, not a public event open to all. Versammlungsgesetz is more relevant for public protests and such, which everyone can just go to (which in turn have stronger legal protections).
They are known to be a bit "paranoid" sometimes, can act "overly aggressive" sometimes and like to disguise their faces during "enforcement". That said, I did not have first hand interactions with them, so that's just my impression of them seeing them around and some hearsay from people who had minor interactions with them.
But they do not seem very accountable, and they are in my humble opinion a bit of a sore on the otherwise very well organized Congress. Especially considering this in the context of the CCC, who for years ran and runs campaigns for more police accountability.