German Court Abolishes German Snooping Law

Robert writes to mention that Germany's highest court has imposed limitations on the amount of spying governmental bodies can do on a suspect's computer. The ruling comes in response to a state law on North Rhine Westphalia that had allowed secret services to peer into a citizen's computer. "Court President Hans-Juergen Papier said that using such software contravened rights enshrined in Germany's constitution, adding that the decision would serve as a precedent across the country. The ruling emphasized that cyber spying by the authorities would have to receive the permission of a judge. The German government has described cyber spying as a vital tool in fighting terrorism."

Crazy World

[tritonman (998572)]

What a crazy world where Germany knows more about freedom than America.

you live and you learn

[themushroom (197365)]

Germany had a mad dictator at one time stomping on personal freedoms, and the country learned from that about how democracy and freedom should work. The country has pledged never to let that crap happen again.

America will pick that lesson up in, oh, about eleven months or so if we're lucky. You don't know what you've got until it's gone.

Re:

[CastrTroy (595695)]

Yeah. Except they can't get video games with blood or Nazis in them. In some ways they have more freedom, in other ways they have less. Just like almost every other country.

Re:

[LingNoi (1066278)]

and if you're a Crytek employee you get a shotgun up your nose with a screaming German police officer on the other side.. [gamepolitics.com]

When I tell people in Germany what I do for a living, they usually react with a mixture of pity and disgust, like I had admitted to them I was a male prostitute.

For computer games both the press and public are histrionic, and the politicians are keen to tap into every reactionary outrage...

Yeah... sounds like a great place to live..

Re:you live and you learn

[sm62704 (957197)]

You don't know what you've got until it's gone.

True that! Good riddance to my ex-wife!

Re:

[kellyb9 (954229)]

I love the fact that everyone plainly points the finger at Bush as the culprit. Speaking of Hitler, I believe he did this with the Jews. You find one person or subdivision of society to blame for everything. I, for one, blame the entire legislative branch for everything that has taken place over the past 8 years, and unfortunantly, they'll still be around... long after Bush. Instead of blaming the person who used the power he was alotted, maybe YOU should blame the people who gave him that power.

See, it works!

[telso (924323)]

America had a mad dictator [wikipedia.org] at one time stomping on personal freedoms, and the country learned from that about how democracy and freedom should work. The country has pledged never to let that crap happen again.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:

[Uncle_Al (115529)]

Actually, privacy is only this big a thing in germany in the last 20-something years. The "basic law of informational self-determination" was derived from the constitutional principle that the human dignity shall be inviolabile at a similar court case in 1987 - concerning a census. See also wikipedia:Informational_self-determination [wikipedia.org]

While nazis are always interesting to bring up, and there were quite a few old-nazis in germany after the war, I do not think that privacy advocates have much to thank them.

Re:

[Joe the Lesser (533425)]

Except the whole free speech thing regarding neo-nazis.

Re:Crazy World

[Knuckles (8964)]

the whole free speech thing regarding neo-nazis

A few things to consider::

These laws stem from the post-war time, and while I am fuzzy on the details in Germany, I would imagine that the US had a bigger hand in creating these (IMHO just) laws than the locals, who would have preferred to ignore the whole unhappy Holocaust incident. I certainly was that way in my home country, Austria. Post-war, these laws also had practical application, you really couldn't have Nazi ex-leaders clamoring for support in the streets. (I would think the US Army sees it similarly in Iraq right now, probably somewhat less appropriately.)

Later, the rights of the Jews and other survivors of the Nazi atrocities had to be considered, of whom many still lived in Germany and Austria, though sadly (but understandably) many chose to stay the hell away -- Germany and Austria not exactly inviting them back, either. It's kind of hard to deal with random (or not so random) Germans/Austrians now living in your house, from which the Nazis had dragged you away into camps in the middle of the night. Those who chose to stay or come back to contribute to the Nazis' successor states' economic and moral resurrection had every right not to be subjugated to dribbling Nazis and neo-nazis in the streets and on the media, denying the Holocaust, etc. In any case, the Nazis had certainly forfeited their right to free speech, don't you think?

The situation could change now and I am pretty sure that over a number of years, Germany would come to the conclusion that this exception should be removed. However, pretty strong neonazi parties have managed to enter several federal states' governments. These currently do not form a credible political force but are disturbing nonetheless, especially because their success clusters around (but is not strictly exclusive to) the post-GDR eastern federal states. Consequently, this pending discussion in Germany (and Austria) is delayed. In any case, IMHO the German neonazis also have forfeited their free speech rights, through voluntary association with mass murderers and through approx. 70 court-ruled violent crimes per year against foreigners, punks, leftists, jews, etc., the number of reported and unreported cases of course much much higher (dunno the numbers for Austria right now, I'd figure they are way lower per capita).

Re: Crazy World

[rev_sanchez (691443)]

I've seen what Germans do with their computers on the internet. I'm surprised they had to make their law enforcement bodies stop spying on those things. I'd treat a German crime suspect's computer like a duffel bag of goatse Polaroids.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

??? Where did you hear that BS? Both is not true. (I am German)

Re:

[2.7182 (819680)]

I was told that by a German friend. (My advisor actually.) He left Germany in part because he found it very stifling, especially academically. If it has changed, perhaps some readers can tell us about this. But it certainly was this way until recently.

He complained about a lot of things like this. He was really angry when he went back for a visit with his kids and a restaurant wouldn't let him eat there if he brought them in. This is the kind of paternal attitude that he didn't like in general about the

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

I was told that by a German friend. (My advisor actually.) He left Germany in part because he found it very stifling, especially academically. If it has changed, perhaps some readers can tell us about this. But it certainly was this way until recently.

You have to register in the city where you live. Not with the police, but with the city administration. Among other things, your place of residence defines the financial office where you pay your taxes to. Don't know how it is done in the US, but in Germany the cities directly profit from the tax money of their citizens.

Some religious communities collect a "church tax" via the state tax system. Of course, the money goes to your church, not necessarily the Catholic church. You can declare that you no longe

Re:

[LingNoi (1066278)]

I wish there were more restraunts here that excluded children, as they can ruin an otherwise good experience.

I wish you a long life and many children.

Re:

[Dog-Cow (21281)]

If you don't wany any, you're an evolutionary dead-end and should be removed.

Or some would say.

Re:Crazy World

[plover (150551)]

Why is yours or anyone else's business if I or someone else chooses to have children? Thats a fully personal choice and no one outside of the two people deciding should have any say-so. People need to mind their own business.

Why? Because every human uses a fraction of this planet's finite resources. Every human born into America today will likely be personally responsible for 20 tons of trash to be added to the waste stream, will be responsible for the consumption of thousands of barrels of oil and dump most of it into the atmosphere (the rest will head into landfills as non-degradable plastics), and eat many tons of food and produce as many tons of sewage. They'll demand more land for more housing, or crowd more people into the finite spaces of our cities.

Having a kid is the most environmentally irresponsible act a human can perform, but I won't argue that some procreation is required. Having two, three, or more is selfish, wasteful, and does not improve our society. Screw this personal choice bullcrap -- society is made worse by people having more unsustainable children, we are not better off. Since people can't seem to voluntarily limit themselves to a sustainable level of reproduction, society is going to have to step in sooner or later. China's already hit that wall and the results have been exceedingly unpleasant for everyone during the transition.

Can you imagine what it's going to be like when America recognizes it's crossed the point of unsustainability? In nature, the uncompetitive die of starvation, and overcrowded colonies typically die off due to disease. Imagine that game played out with human beings and tell me just how many kids you should put onto that chess board.

[ Here's a fun game for those of you playing the home edition: Can you tell the bitter old guy who was just at Tony Roma's with his wife and had a young couple with a pair of noisy children seated right next to them in an otherwise empty restaurant? Stupid idiot hostess. ]

Re:

[dave1791 (315728)]

"I wish there were more restraunts here that excluded children, as they can ruin an otherwise good experience."

Since my kids will be the ones paying for your pension, I'll call that a fair trade. You can wish they would shut up or go away now and in a few decades, they can wish you would take up smoking and mountain climbing.

Re:

[plague3106 (71849)]

Since my kids will be the ones paying for your pension

Pension? What's that? Do any companies even offer that anymore? I haven't seen any. Maybe you mean SSI? The ponzi scheme which will be bankrupt after my parents' generation retires? No... hmm, sorry, I don't see your kids paying for me.

I'll call that a fair trade

I don't. I earn my own living. Enough of your garbage where you somehow think that YOUR kids are so fucking important. They're not, they can die tomorrow, and I'd never know.

You can wis

Re:

[CastrTroy (595695)]

Not all kids are screaming brats. If the person can't control their kids, then they should be asked to leave (depending on the resaurant). Some kids have no problem at all conducting themselves properly in a restaurant.

Re:Crazy World

[2.7182 (819680)]

But don't you find it crazy that

1. The government is asking you what religion you are on your tax forms at all, and that they will be the instrument of collection for the "official" churches of Germany.

2. That if you are a Catholic, but don't want to pay the tax, you have to lie to the government and say you aren't. In which case you are "removed" from the church and can't have a church wedding.

3. That you have to tell the government when you move (police station, town hall, whatever) ?

4. Assigned an official religion by the state, based on what you parent were/are ? This in itself might be the worst of all of it!

Re:Crazy World

[Knuckles (8964)]

It's not a tax as such. The state just collects the member fees of the catholic church on the church's behalf. If you don't pay your membership fees, you are not a catholic, as far as the church is concerned. However, I am opposed to the practice because it violates the complete separation of state and church which should be common practice among modern states.

Re:

[Xelios (822510)]

And here I thought Scientology was the only 'religion' that charges membership fees. Donations are one thing, but a fee to be a Catholic? WWJD?

Re:

[Knuckles (8964)]

Well, catholicism is very community-oriented as well as old and bureaucratic (and very stable at that, it has to be said; few other organizations have lasted for 1900 years and counting). The fees are quite modest, I think (I never paid), and of course adjusted to income level.

Re:Crazy World

[doktor-hladnjak (650513)]

Germany has a different political history than countries like the US and France, which ended up with strict church/state separation by way of revolutions involving ideas of the Enlightenment.

Perhaps the strangest thing about religion in the US vs. Germany, is that while Germany has little church/state separation, religion plays a much smaller role in public life than it does in the US. You have to wonder if state support of religion just makes the citizenry more clearly see that churches are just a non-democratic power structure dictating rules (of a moral nature) and collecting taxes (tithing).

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

1. The government is asking you what religion you are on your tax forms at all, and that they will be the instrument of collection for the "official" churches of Germany.

2. That if you are a Catholic, but don't want to pay the tax, you have to lie to the government and say you aren't. In which case you are "removed" from the church and can't have a church wedding.

I think the historic reason for church taxes is that churches lost a lot of their medieval properties to the state(s) in the German speaking area in the early/middle 19th century. To compensate the loss of income, the state gave the right to the churches to collect taxes from their members (and to get them collected through the state tax agencies). It's up to the churches if they want to make use of this right, though. Several Christian churches in Germany which could collect church tax don't.

3. That you have to tell the government when you move (police station, town hall, whatever) ?

I don't thin

Re:Crazy World

[Qzukk (229616)]

That you have to tell the government when you move

Find me a government that doesn't want to know where you live.

Oh sure, in the US you don't, assuming that you don't drive, don't have a government ID, don't vote, are unemployed (and not receiving benefits), don't own a house, and are not a male between the ages of 18 and 26.

Re:

[Hatta (162192)]

Just because the US does it doesn't make it OK.

Re:

[Non-Huffable Kitten (1142561)]

You are harping on about principles and formalities that are non-issues except in theory, while in practice germany is a rather reasonable country regarding freedom of religion and other individual freedoms (IMO).

Re:

[dave1791 (315728)]

That's for closed primaries if you want to vote in them and anyway, you don't have to answer.

Re:

[doktor-hladnjak (650513)]

FWIW, voter registration is handled by the states (not the feds). Some states, such as Washington, do not have partisan voter registration. The form doesn't even mention political parties. Effectively, everybody is considered an independent and in a primary chooses their party of choice in the voting booth.

Re:

[Knuckles (8964)]

Both are partially true, but misleadingly set up. You do have to register a change of address, but you don't have to go in to the police station in person to do so;

And I guess German practice (which I think is pretty common in Europe) evens out with the US practice of no registration if you consider that in turn you are not asked for your social security number at every corner.

Re:

[KDR_11k (778916)]

If you're registered as a member of an evangelic or catholic church you pay church taxes. I think you inherit that state from your parents by default, you can leave the church though (don't expect the church to like it if you want a church wedding though).

Also you register with the town hall, not the police station.

Re:

[matt4077 (581118)]

You don't register with the police, but with the state. Yes, for some reason they want to know where you live, so as to know where you have to pay taxes, are allowed to vote etc. I guess the IRS also has your adress?

Just when you thought the German legal system...

[Channard (693317)]

.. had peaked with closing the tax loophole that lets Uwe Boll make films, they go and do this. Where will it all end?

Why?!?

[F-3582 (996772)]

Why has a Supreme Court to tell politicians that their laws are against the constitution? Wasn't that obvious in the first place?

Besides, this is not the first law being overturned for human rights reasons. The German Secretary of Defense had passed a law to grant the military the right to shoot down a high-jacked aeroplane full of civilians.

It seems like our politicians have forgotten how our last dictator (aka unser Führer) became as powerful as he did: By passing laws to abolish human rights under the coat of stabilizing the country. Only did he have the Supreme Court on HIS side.

Re:Why?!?

[Peter Trepan (572016)]

Why has a Supreme Court to tell politicians that their laws are against the constitution?

For the same reason we need policemen to remind thieves that larceny is illegal.

Other European Spy Stuff

[gnick (1211984)]

Also interesting is the article linked in TFA [bbc.co.uk] which gives an overview of domestic spying in Germany, Italy, the UK, and Greece, France, and Denmark.

I have newfound respect for the Greeks.

missing tag:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense

[Ralph Spoilsport (673134)]

Truly - simple common sense, which seems to be rather un-common between the Rio Grande and the 49th parallel for the past 8 years...

RS

Re:

[sm62704 (957197)]

The late great Walt Kelly said it best (through Pogo of course)- "Common sense ain't so common."

Well, actually...

[by Anonymous Coward]

... that means they kinda legalized it (with said limitations) for all states, when it was illegal (in all states but NRW) before this ruling. The police searching the home of suspects is "limited" by pretty much the same rules (permission by a judge etc.) - and is generally permitted everytime the state attorney asks nicely. The judges often don't even really read the request before signing it off.

Plus: in case of raiding your appartment, you instantly know the Police have been there (they have to do it in your presence, or in the presence of an independent witness, plus your appartment is in obvious disarray) - while you have no idea that said trojan (yes, that's what even the government calls it) has been installed on your Computer.

Surveillance state, here we come!

Re:

[matt4077 (581118)]

They didn't legalize it. To be legal, there needs to be a law allowing it. They struck down the first such law allowing it in one state, NRW. So right now it's not legal anywhere. However, based on the ruling, the federal gov. is expected to pass a law soon, legalizing it everywhere. The ruling did however put hard restrictions on any such law.

Even more important

[Yokaze (70883)]

> The ruling emphasized that cyber spying by the authorities would have to receive the permission of a judge.

I'd say, that is a given. More importantly, the ruling states that such measures are only allowed, if there is a concrete and imminent threat of life or the foundations of the state.

My Fiancee's a German Lawyer

[stevedcc (1000313)]

1) Germany doesn't have case law - there's no such thing as a precedent under German Law. This court's job is to rule on the legality of laws; the court can interpret how the law should be applied, then that becomes the law: another interpretation can't arise from another court

2) This is Germany's Constitutional court - there's no higher or lower instance for this type of law.

IANAL etc.

Re:

[teslar (706653)]

This court's job is to rule on the legality of laws

Just nitpicking... this court's job is to rule on the constitutionality of laws. A law is not legal or illegal, it is constitutional or unconstitutional.

My take on this.

[erlehmann (1045500)]

Whenever a law is found unconstitutional, each and every politician who voted for it should have his right revoked to be part of the parliament and never be able to be a candidate in any election again.

Details on the Judgement

[burni (930725)]

This was a judgement on behalf of a law of one of germanys federal states(1)

this law was made for giving the state agency "Landesverfassungsschutz"(2)  the ability to install such software, this law was ruled unconstitional.

But it's not the method itself, which was ruled unconstitutional, but the ruling in its details just restricts future federal laws(3).

The trojan software can now only be installed under the condition a judge decides to do so,
and this also only on the following conditions

- threat to human life ( abduction, murder )
- threat to the federal republic of germany ( terrorism )

If information and data is gathered containing sensitive private information,
this data must be delete just in time and shall not be brought to court under any circumstances,
this includes the possesion of childpornography.

(1) similar to the US germany consists as a federal system, including 16 states which form the federal republic of germany

(2) a like homeland security such way for a single state in the federation,
germany also has a federal agency which coordinates the work of the state agencies

(3) which are planned by the ministry of internal afairs with it's minister Wolfgang Schaeuble
"BKA-Gesetz" (BKA similar to the FBI)

Chaosradio: Federal Trojan

[erlehmann (1045500)]

German Chaos Computer Club does a radio show (in german) right now (22:00 GMT+1) about.

Infos (and later podcast download):
http://chaosradio.ccc.de/cr132.html [chaosradio.ccc.de]

Streams:
* MP3 128kBit/s VBR Joint Stereo
o http://stream.xenim.de:8000/cr_128k_vbr.mp3 [xenim.de]
o http://streams.xenim.de:8000/cr_128k_vbr.mp3.m3u [xenim.de]

* OGG 56kBit/s VBR

As english speaking slashdots only

[vorlich (972710)]

Scottish Bavarian ... I have mentioned on a number of occasions that the constitution of the Bundesrepublik is very similar to the US constitution but at least 27 pages longer and offering even greater protection to the rights of the individual.

Now the millstones of the German legal system grind exceedingly slower than those of the UK or the US and rights are commonly regarded as having greater weight post court ruling (for anthropological reasons that are too long to repeat) but grind they do and once the grinding is done, the constitution rules.

The Germans are a people who are really good at learning from past mistakes (the foundation of their superb engineering skills) and the constitution is modelled as the absolute antithesis to lawlessness of that brief reign of the National Socialists.

As for the church tax (Kirchensteuer) contrary to the propaganda of amongst others, the Scientologists, that is a relic of the historical development of the Principalities post Holy Roman Empire when the Princes were responsible for the care and maintenance of the Catholic Church - which was the state religion until Martin Luther's protestant revolution. You can opt out of the tax by completing a form at the Rathaus - there is no need to lie.

When viewed properly from the wide angled lens of history, Germany is an example of a nation that evolved into a very liberal and tolerant society of highly cultured citizens (sometimes to the point of affectatiousness it is true - but you know every family has its oddballs) and every level of society is affected by this native tolerance. So when you read other posts here that mention Adolf, police states, restriction of the rights of the individual - take it from a native Auslander - it is merely the stereotypical FUD we often see here.

I know, humour gets you more mod points but sometimes even I have to be serious.

Re:Ummmm....

[saibot834 (1061528)]

Dude, where/when are you living? I happen to live in Germany and I can tell you that there is only a tiny minority of extremists (US has this probably, too). Educate [wikipedia.org] yourself just a tiny bit, please. Imho the amount of assholes in the world is fairly distributed around the world. But prejudice never seems to vanish...

Now a few words about the actual story: First, it's only partially a victory for privacy. Both the supporters and the opponents of strict security laws count this judgment a success. That's because the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court of Germany [wikipedia.org]) didn't forbid online spying in principle. They found this specific law to be against the constitution, and they ruled that there have to be some security measures (such as authorization by judge in each case), but in principle it is possible for the German government to spy on people.

On the other hand, they ruled for the first time, that there is a Grundrecht auf Vertraulichkeit und Integrität informationstechnischer Systeme (something like basic right for trust and integrity of IT systems) even though I am not really sure what consequences this will have.