German Court Abolishes German Snooping Law 201
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
you live and you learn (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Yeah... sounds like a great place to live..
Re: (Score:2)
The reality is, all the privacy invasive spying has nothing to do with the government controlling and monitoring the people, but has everything to do with a single political par
Re: (Score:2)
Especially given that there are plenty of Swastikas which look nothing like that used by the Nazis.
It is really difficult to use symbols of racism and totalitarianism when you can associate with their original, non 'pure', non violent intent.
Even the Nazi flag is associated with a the losing side of a war 60 odd yea
Re:you live and you learn (Score:4, Funny)
True that! Good riddance to my ex-wife!
Re: (Score:2)
See, it works! (Score:4, Insightful)
There, fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:2)
There, fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Germany learned from it because the victors required it, and the German democratic system was created under supervision of the victors.
The country has pledged never to let that crap happen again.
Well, in the 19th century, Germans were advocating freedom, tolerance, and liberty, but that didn't keep them from electing Hitler in the 1930's.
Re: (Score:2)
Something which happened in fairly recent history (i.e. people from that time are still alive) and was followed by the country being occupied by various foreign armies.
and the country learned from that about how democracy and freedom should work.
The same applies to quite a few other countries, notably in Central and South America.
The country has pledged never to let that crap happen again.
Not without a fight at least.
America wi
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Re:Crazy World (Score:5, Informative)
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).
Austrias biggest achievements (Score:2)
Was to make the world believe that Adolf Hitler was German, while Ludwig Van Beethoven was Austrian...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the Nazi case was predicated to a large degree on Aryan genetic superiority. They didn't offer the Jews a chance to convert to Catholicism (or Atheism, or any other -ism) to save their lives. Or say that they had to have every believed any ideology. One grandparent who was a practicing Jew was considered sufficent reason to warrant death.
Re: Crazy World (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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.
One - there were certainly dozens of other restaurants that were happy to have him and his kids, so what, exactly, is the problem?
Two - can you get the address of that restaurant? If I'm ever in the vicinity, I might want to eat there. No kids is a great thing for those of us who're not subject to certain hormone drugs that cover the pain of high-pitched screams and constant attention begging.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or some would say.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Crazy World (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
At least I hooked a few people. And I'm much better now, thanks for asking.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Offtopic)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it's not at the kids, they are just collateral. The real problem is their parents, that think the world should change because they are lazy, irresponsible and selfish. Lazy, expecting OTHERS to raise their kids, irresponsible because they usually can't afford the kids they have, and selfish because they don't care that by taking their infant to an R rated movie is ruining everyone elses time.
On the bright side, you have self selected yourself ou
Re: (Score:2)
Or to remind you why you don't want kids?
This idea has serious potential...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So the kids stay and the parents go back out to the car? - no thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Heh, I couldn't agree more. Prepare to be flamed by parents who are convinced their children are little angels and could never annoy anyone in a movie theater or restaurant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They don't like kids in Germany. Now if he'd brought along a dog, that would have been a different story. It's really disconcerting to eat in a German restaurant and have a dog snuffling around your feet. But hey, at least they don't cry.
Re: (Score:2)
Cool, I hope there are also restaurants banning inhuman dudes like you, so I can go there. Children bother you? Stay in your basement!
Re:Crazy World (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Crazy World (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
side question: is this system also in use for other religions (Islam, etc?)
Re:Crazy World (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
wrong (Score:2)
All you need for any of that is a mailing address, not the place where you actually live.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
- don't have a bank account - pay in cache (ask your employer to give you some)
- don't file taxes
- don't renew your drivers license
- don't travel far
- don't register your handguns
on the other hand: you can just as well not register at a town, when you move somewhere in germany. if you don't, and later on decide you do need an identity afterall, they'll ask you to pay a fine of around 30 euros.
Re: (Score:2)
btw, since a year or so you can register your residence online.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But don't you find it crazy that
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!
Err, that's not what is happening here in Germany. You just "join" one of the churches if your parents baptise you, and then that means that you are automatically required to pay the church tax - which, as someone else already correctly stated, is not a tax, but just a membership fee for the church collected by the state. My parents baptised me, though I never really became a christian, and as such I left the church by declaring this officially as soon as I would have had to pay my first of these fees. Rea
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Yes, I hate that part as well. However, on the other hand when a german politician says on national TV that he's an atheist, people shrug and ask why that's in the news. In the US, he would've pretty much destroyed his chances of going anywhere.
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.
That's a policy of the catholic church, not the government.
3. That you have to tell the government when you move (police station, town hall, whatever) ?
Instead of writing "whatever" you should verify what you write. It's the "Einwohnermeldeamt", a government office, only identical to the town hall in small villages. And yes, they want your address. After
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Yes, that's a "service" the government does for the churches to make up for the Secularization of 1803, when properties were taken from the churches and secularized. Note that "properties" here means rather large areas of populated land, including cities and so on. By German standards at the time, whole countries, just that they had been
Re: (Score:2)
That's the church's choice - if they wanted they could collect the tithe themselves and keep a membership register then exclude everyone who doesn't pay. Alternatively they could let people choose whether they want to pay the tax and still allow church weddings if you've told the state you aren't catholic. There is
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
That's for closed primaries if you want to vote in them and anyway, you don't have to answer.
I know that, but that is exactly the problem. Lets say you are politically engaged and you are a member of party X and, naturally, you want to vote in party X primaries. Then you must check the box, but once you do that, come election day (the real one, not primary), the official at the polling station knows your political affiliation, which in turn means that he/she knows how you are going to vote with 90% probability (or more). So much for secret ballots. I find that to be far more sinister than being as
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
Also you register with the town hall, not the police station.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
With regard to the first point, is that really so different from having to report your new address to the Department of Motor Vehicles when you move (in the U.S.)? Regardless, the State wants to know where you live.
The second point is indeed a fundamental difference between Europe and the US. However, it's not
Just when you thought the German legal system... (Score:5, Funny)
Why?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My point is: Why does every minister of any Departement (and especially our good old Wolfgang Schäuble) feel the urge of having to test the boundaries of our constitution? Jumping the bandwagon of paranoid countries giving up human rights for a false feeling of security is soooooo yesterday.
Re: (Score:2)
Having said that, the BVerfG's verdict shows once again that the checks and balances work: The politicians do what (they think) the people want, and the judiciary stop them if they overstep the boundaries the constitutional council set upon this society. For someone like me who doesn't feel his political views well repre
Other European Spy Stuff (Score:5, Informative)
I have newfound respect for the Greeks.
missing tag:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense (Score:2)
RS
Re: (Score:2)
Well, actually... (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Even more important (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok.
the court can interpret how the law should be applied, then that becomes the law: another interpretation can't arise from another court,
Uh, what? Isn't that setting precedent?
My take on this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But, then they wouldn't be able to pass as many laws. They would have to read the full text of the bills in detail and study the legal and constitutional aspects of what they are voting for. They would have to openly discuss the substance of the bill, rather than relying on bullshit and catchy phrases. Ma
Re: (Score:2)
Oh come on.
Parliament has been elected by the people. They are the highest power[1] in Germany, more powerful even than the federal chancellor and the federal president. You want to give a bunch of judges that have not been directly elected by the populace the power to dissolve parliament? (That's what yo
Re: (Score:2)
The appointment of Samuel Alito to the US Supreme Court is a prime example. The dismissal of the Pakistani Supreme Court can be interpreted as another (less subtle and less successful) form.
The Supreme Court is a court of last recourse and you want to keep it that way. If it had the power of revoking the ability of politicians
Re: (Score:2)
Details on the Judgement (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
It was a useless idea anyway (Score:2)
Re:Ummmm.... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
What would be wrong with this? If it's forbidden, except under specific circumstances which are clearly defined. We don't have an absolute right to privacy in the US, either, we've ceded a little of it (through court-issued Warrants, and even circumstance-based interpretation of the word, "warrant") so that we can be protected from those who would do us harm.
Only anarchists think that "privacy rights" should mean that you have the right to not get caught doing ne
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)