Dutch Court Says Government Can Receive Bulk Data from NSA 109
jfruh (300774) writes Dutch law makes it illegal for the Dutch intelligence services to conduct mass data interception programs. But, according to a court in the Hague, it's perfectly all right for the Dutch government to request that data from the U.S.'s National Security Agency, and doing so doesn't violate any treaties or international law.
Yep. (Score:1)
Sounds about right.
Re:Yep. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Which country is this ?
The only one I can think of that hasn't started a war for monetary is Monaco, and that might just be ignorance on my part.
Godwin and wrong at the same time (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.historylearningsite... [historylea...site.co.uk]
The dutch not only resisted the Nazis, they openly had strikes and did more to protect their Jewish citizens than virtually any other country in Europe.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Bullshit. The Netherlands had the highest rate of Jewish deportation of any Nazi-occupied country in Europe. They fell all over themselves turning in Jews. All that "We resisted" shit is what the grandparents tell their grandkids so they won't have to admit the truth. And the truth is that 75% of Dutch Jews died in concentration camps, a way higher percentage than almost any other occupied country. The Dutch didn't hide their Jews, they handed them over as fast as they could.
Read up on it [wikipedia.org]
Maybe you should read the link you post? (Score:4, Informative)
Shortly after it was established, the Nazi military regime began to persecute the Jews of the Netherlands. In 1940, there were no deportations and only small measures were taken against the Jews. In February 1941, the Nazis deported a small group of Dutch Jews to Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp. The Dutch reacted with the February strike, a nationwide protest against the deportations, unique in the history of Nazi-occupied Europe. Although the strike did not accomplish muchâ"its leaders were executedâ"it was an initial setback for Seyss-Inquart as he had planned to both deport the Jews and to win the Dutch over to the Nazi cause. Before the February strike, the Nazis had installed a Jewish Council: a board of Jews, headed by Professor David Cohen and Abraham Asscher, who served as an instrument for organising the identification and deportation of Jews more efficiently, while the Jews on the council were told and convinced they were helping the Jews. In May 1942, Jews were ordered to wear the Star of David badges. Around the same time the Catholic Church of the Netherlands publicly condemned the government's action in a letter read at all Sunday parish services. Thereafter, the Nazi government treated the Dutch more harshly: notable Socialists were imprisoned, and, later in the war, Catholic priests, including Titus Brandsma, were deported to concentration camps. Of the 140,000 Jews who had lived in the Netherlands before 1940, only 30,000 (21%) survived the war. But the real picture was even worse than this suggests. The Netherlands had the highest Jewish death toll of any western European country. Of the approximately 107,000 Jews deported to the camps, only 5000 survived; a survival rate of less than 5%. On top of that, included in that number were about 900 Jews still in Westerbork at war's end and not in the same extremis as those deported. This high death toll had a number of reasons. One was the excellent state of Dutch civil records: the Dutch state, before the war, had recorded substantial information on every Dutch national. This allowed the Nazi regime to determine easily who was Jewish (whether fully or partly of Jewish ancestry) simply by accessing the data. More to the point, the Dutch attitude of "going along to get along" with the Nazis made many Dutch workers more or less willing collaborators in the effort.
Another factor was the disbelief of both the Dutch public as a whole and the Dutch Jews themselves. Most could not believe that the Jews would be subjected to genocide and sent to death camps. This meant the Jews needed to hide in others' homes, but that was difficult especially in urban areas. It was also punishable by death. Despite the risks, many Dutch people helped Jews. One-third of the people who hid Jews did not survive the war.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This high death toll had a number of reasons. One was the excellent state of Dutch civil records: the Dutch state, before the war, had recorded substantial information on every Dutch national. This allowed the Nazi regime to determine easily who was Jewish (whether fully or partly of Jewish ancestry) simply by accessing the data.
This is why I refuse to provide racial or ethnic information whenever I am asked. Also for my children.
As I've said before (Score:1)
I don't mind my (local) government having some sort of file on me, (preferably no racial or ethnic information as you so rightly state) but I would rather have it on paper and in a wooden building, so if we're ever occupied or a dictatorship arises the files are relatively easy to destroy : ).
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.go2war2.nl/artikel/... [go2war2.nl]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you mean sacrificing your life to defend people
Shortly after it was established, the military regime began to persecute the Jews of the Netherlands. In 1940, there were no deportations and only small measures were taken against the Jews. In February 1941, the Nazis deported a small group of Dutch Jews to Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp. The Dutch reacted with the February strike, a nationwide protest against the deportations, unique in the history of Nazi-occupied Europe. Although the strike did not accomplish much—its leaders were executed—it was an initial setback for Seyss-Inquart as he had planned to both deport the Jews and to win the Dutch over to the Nazi cause.
Another factor was the disbelief of both the Dutch public as a whole and the Dutch Jews themselves. Most could not believe that the Jews would be subjected to genocide and sent to death camps.[citation needed] This meant the Jews needed to hide in others' homes, but that was difficult especially in urban areas.[citation needed] It was also punishable by death. Despite the risks, many Dutch people helped Jews. One-third of the people who hid Jews did not survive the war.[citation needed]
BTW that was from your link, you might want to read up on it.
Re: (Score:1)
Some did and some did not. It is unfair to judge the individuals of a nation by the actions of other individuals. None of us know what we would do in the same situation. We all know what we would like to say we do but that is not the same thing.
Of the nations of Europe that had to live under the occupation Norway probably has the best record for resistance. Frankly the Germans didn't treat the Norwegians badly at all. They thought of them as fellow Nordics. They could have sat out the war with little grief
Re: (Score:1)
I've read a lot about WW II European resistance-movements from my grandfathers library. For pure efficiency I would personally put the Danish resistance in first place.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9518712-hitler-s-savage-canary [goodreads.com]
Re: (Score:1)
7.50 guilders for each jew you sold out to the germans (AND you got to keep his belongings).
That could feed your starving family for a month, at least! It's the hunger that makes you do things, but in some cases it was because of collaborators. And because these stayed alive with that money, their descendants are plenty. It is still taboo to talk about that now, and our historybooks skip on that little detail.
Not that there were no helping people, mostly farmers, that helped out (jews did not get a foodstam
Re: (Score:3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]
ad.The terrain in the Netherlands isn't exactly conducive to any form of partisan resistance, there is no wilderness to speak of to hide in/have droppings/train in.
Re: (Score:1)
virtually any other country? Read on...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... [wikipedia.org]
During the Second World War, unlike some other allies of Nazi Germany and most German-occupied countries, apart from Denmark and Finland, Bulgaria managed to save its entire 48,000-strong Jewish population from deportation to concentration camps, with Dimitar Peshev, leaders of the Bulgarian Church, Tsar Boris, and ordinary citizens all playing a crucial role in preventing such deportations. The story of the Bulgarian Jews during the Wa
Re: (Score:1)
virtually any other country? Read on...
/EMOTE FACEPALM
Somewhere on the internet there is another nit for you to pick maybe next time a little basic English will help
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
virtually
vrCH(w)l/
adverb
adverb: virtually
1. nearly; almost.
"virtually all those arrested were accused"
synonyms: effectively, in effect, all but, more or less, practically, almost, nearly, close to, verging on, just about, as good as, essentially, to all intents a
Rampant Corruption (Score:5, Insightful)
Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason. -- Mark Twain
Re: (Score:1)
The Dutch have about a dozen parties big enough to win seats, and a fair amount of political change between them. And as they don't use a district system, there are no safe seats. This didn't happen because of American-level political entrenchment.
There's still a sizable majority across parties in favor of such wiretapping, for pretty simple reasons: There is broad and active support for terrorism in the Dutch muslim community, in particular in favor of ISIS. In some towns, 1-2 in 10.000 people have already
Re: (Score:3)
There's still a sizable majority across parties in favor of such wiretapping, for pretty simple reasons:
Because they're freedom-hating scumbags who would rather sacrifice people's fundamental liberties for safety. No free, principled country would do such a thing, but hey, you have to have safety above all, right? And the government is made up of perfect little angels who could never abuse their powers or make a mistake, so they'll definitely use all this information wisely.
Just wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
I love how pretty much every country has come to the same conclusion: We can bypass our own laws if we have someone else do it for us.
They've all decided, well, we can't spy on our own people, but if the Americans do it for us it's all good.
Essentially reciprocity means that any laws which are intended to protect you will be bypassed as people get other actors to do it for them.
So, it's illegal for the Dutch to spy on their own people, probably illegal when the US spies on the Dutch, but since they've already for the information, why not?
Pathetic. Free societies aren't maintained by using loopholes to get around laws intended to control how your citizens get spied on.
What horsehit.
When governments are getting the take from the blanket surveillance the Americans (and really, the rest of the world), they have very little incentive to actually stop the surveillance in the first place.
Some days it seems like the US has more or less subverted the privacy and rights of everyone on the planet, and every other government is deciding the information sharing is too valuable to recognize they're just lying to us and doing it anyway.
At this point, I don't believe any elected official, or member of any of these state security entities deserves any privacy rights at all. Because they've all decided we don't.
The dystopian future is alive and well, and getting worse every day.
Re: (Score:3)
They've all decided, well, we can't spy on our own people, but if the Americans do it for us it's all good.
Well, after all, even the Americans have decided that ;-)
Bright side (Score:5, Funny)
I love how pretty much every country has come to the same conclusion: We can bypass our own laws if we have someone else do it for us.
Well, if the US government charges a hefty fee for this - say a percentage of a country's GDP - we could be an exporter of Big Brother services.
Just think, based on the economic principle of Comparative Advantage, we, the US of A, can spy on the rest of the World (think how much money the Chinese would pay us to watch their citizens!) while they pay us percentages of their GDPs.
Think about it, we could sit on our asses in leisure while they all bust their asses growing our food, making our clothes, etc ... and if they step out of line, well, we KNOW where they live!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. You just keep telling yourself that your government would never do anything like this, that it's just an American thing.
Re:Bright side (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, you misunderstand me.
My government is part of the 5 eyes, and is guilty of this exact same kind of reciprocal arrangement.
I think it's all pathetic. But I also think it's being largely driven by the US, because since 9/11 it has become increasingly the case where the US will do anything for their own security. And I have great fears that they're the ones creating the global surveillance state.
But, make no mistake about it, I believe all governments participating in this are undermining rights and freedoms, including my own. The rest of the world hasn't consented to this, it's being done to us by secret treaties, and bypassing our own courts.
The problem is FAR too many people are saying "well, it's OK, as long as they're doing it for our security".
Sooner or later, with this level of widespread surveillance, we'll all be fucked. Because secret agencies will know every damned thing about you, and sooner or later, my worst tin-foil hat fears will come to be normal.
I don't think America is the only one doing this. But I do lay the blame squarely at the feet of the US for feeling it's their right to spy on every goddamned person on the planet.
When did the security of the US trump the rights of everyone else? Who the hell agreed to that?
Papers please, comrade. If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm, because of the rendering, I thought you'd replied to me, but I see you were replying to an AC.
Still, my point stands.
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense, you tin-foil-hat-wearer. Hey, didn't you know they just released a trailer for the Fifty Shade of Grey movie!!! Here, have some more bread and circuses!!
Re: (Score:2)
Wat. I'm at work, I live in FL and thus don't have a basement, and I fail for feeding your shit. I'll humor you though, what exactly am I supposed to be rebelling against? You seem to know me so well..
Re: (Score:2)
You're all just "sheeple"? Wat. Where did you get that from? Stop projecting your insecurities on me, AC.
Re: (Score:2)
And what, precisely, entails "doing anything of worth" to you, AC? How do you know, from this one post, what I have or have not done? Or are you just a troll? Lol, THAT implication is quite clear :p
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If they remember their own history about how their own census records in the Netherlands was used against Dutch citizens during the German occupation of WWII, then the Dutch should be very concerned about the retention of data on their families by any government, including their own. Nothing gathered is ever completely safe and it can all be used against them.
The mere existance of such records can be an invitation to disaster, no matter how seemingly innocent they appear. The Dutch no doubt proudly included
Re: (Score:3)
Absolutely right.
I would only add that, in addition to worrying about an evil foreign power getting hold of such records, we should also worry about evil local groups who might be in government some time in the future.
Which is why, in my opinion, these records should be subject to strict time limitations and expire sooner rather than later -- if we decide we need them at all for, you know, only slightly evil purposes.
Re: (Score:3)
There's nothing surprising in this. Most countries hire consultants and advisors from the same international legal/accounting firms, who themselves have been trained in the same schools of thought, and often the same universities. The international ascendancy is mostly a mono-culture.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a SIGINT network without borders. Welcome to the globalisation of national security.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure why you are surprised -- wasn't the main reason for these intra-agency deals mainly to circumvent the restrictions to spying on ones own citizens?
That said, we in the Netherlands have an absolutely terrible record -- no pun intended -- of evesdropping and phonetapping and so on.
Re:Just wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
In 2004, the Court of Appeal in England ruled that it was OK to admit evidence obtained under torture into English trials, provided that the torture had been carried out elsewhere. David Blunkett, the Home Secretary at the time said:
"We unreservedly condemn the use of torture and have worked hard with our international partners to eradicate this practice. However, it would be irresponsible not to take appropriate account of any information which could help protect national security and public safety"
The Appeal Court ruling was finally overturned by the House of Lords the following year.
However, given the enthusiasm of the original judges and the Home Secretary of the time and the ever increasing use of the "because terrorism" excuse, I'm not sure that there would be similar hope of justice prevailing in the future. It's not just privacy on the line.
Re: (Score:2)
It took a few years longer but it does appear that we have finally reached the dystopia of George Orwell's 1984 with omnipresent surveillance, government manipulation, thought crimes, Newspeak, constant war (on terror), and an elite class in control.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest you take a quick look at the UN Veto Powers. Then ask yourself: "how likely are ANY of these countries to want real penalties attached to the UN Bill of Rights?"
If your answer to the question above was "why, all five of them would give the UN Bill of Rights some teeth in a heartbeat, if only someone would suggest it to them", then go right ahead and do so.
Then r
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the level of spying on people by government is dangerous. But failing to do that spying may be even more dangerous.
Free and principled countries would rather risk it than sacrifice fundamental freedoms for safety. Furthermore, you admit the government is dangerous, but the government is also far more of a threat than any terrorist.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet we all want the benefits that come from spying. Even the first arms limitation treaties where based on the ability to spy to verify that they were being followed.
Qui bono (Score:1)
And this is why no government really battles the NSA spoofing their citizens!
At least they're open about it. (Score:1)
Now the citizens can demand that the law be changed. It'll be very difficult for the political class to say no: the law as interpreted by that court is effectively an end-run around constitutional protections.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury and ammo. Please use in that order."
So, what box are we up to now again?
Re: (Score:1)
Honestly, here in America we're still stumbling around incompetently, the soap box step. We're literally still talking about whether all this government abuse is a good idea or not, and virtually nobody ever votes against it.
Every time I run into one of those ammo boxers, I wanna throttle 'em. Dude, can you at least show up at an election, first? No wait, at least put forth a candidate to run against it, first, and then we'll worry about whether or not you could get 1% of voters to participate in the ele
Re: (Score:1)
That's the reason I like the box analogy. It's a timeless reminder of what to do and what not to do.
Soap: Rant on the internet. Write your representative.
Re: (Score:2)
If they can still find 12 people who think that your non-crime might still be worthy of punishment, maybe you're wrong!
Popularity is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:3)
Government can be accountable to the people. The wealthy have the means to promote their viewpoints loudly but the only viewpoints and opinions that matter are what goes on in the voting booths.
If the lazy Americans would stop re-electing 90%+ of the politicians they all state are doing a lousy job then perhaps we could get something productive done, like undoing a lot of the stupid that was enacted in the past 60 years. Party lines aren't the problem and people need to get over it and just vote the incumbe
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, the former elected people just become the new lobbyists. Or the former lobbyists become the new political appointees.
And the cycle continues.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Everyone is equal. Except of course for the Royal fucking family.
In Holland you can become everything you want, except for head of state -- that
is largely dependent on the hole you crawled out of.
What about a mutual spying arrangement? (Score:2)
It's good for the global economy because money changes hands. (Nevermind that no actual goods or benefits to society are procduced.)
Everyone is happy. (Nevermind citizens in the global police state.)
Why do we bother? (Score:4, Insightful)
Look, just install the telescreens in our homes already. Drop the charade, we all know where it's going. You know we're not going to do anything about it. Let's just cut to the chase and get it over with.
Re: (Score:2)
Be patient. We're still in the voluntary phase of that, right now. If enough people say no to the unauditable smartphones and smart TVs, we can eventually get to compulsory installation, but for right now, what's the hurry? People are doing it without even being told to.
Re: (Score:2)
This, but eventually we'll need to convince people that if you don't have a smartphone, ipad, smart TV or other such device, you MUST be a terrorist. I mean, why else would one live "off-grid"?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying that Kinect did this already, but I'm going to heavily imply it with the first clause of this sentence.
Quid Pro Quo (Score:2)
Name change (Score:1)
Let's sell child porn to The Netherlands (Score:3)
Though we'll face some risks from our own governments, it's a relief to know at the Dutch government would have no problem with me selling kiddie porn (as long as it was made in America) to Dutch citizens. "No crime happened here, within our jurisdiction," they'd say.
In fact, the Dutch government should tolerate our new businesses even more than this NSA thing, since the victims (whereever their rights were violated) won't even be Dutch citizens. No Netherlander will have any reason to say their government let them down.
Re: (Score:2)
But it'll be perfectly OK if you do it for the Dutch government.
Re: (Score:2)
My point is that the court's recent decision suggests the above is an outdated, quaint law which no longer reflects the society that The People wish to have, nor which reflects the new way of thinking about reponsibility and the relationship between demand and the victimizing acts which serve that demand.
Thus, I'm sure the Dutch people will soon be revising their kiddie porn laws. Huh? Whaddya mean, "no?" Why not? ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Which would seem to invalidate pretty much any extradition treaty, wouldn't it?
If you can commit what would be a crime in another country, and there's no law against it, you can't be extradited.
Clearly, nobody could be extradited from the US to the Netherlands for this, so why should anybody ever be extradited to the US for anything? If the stuff America does is outside of everyone else's law, then obviously, anything you do from outside the US
Seems a bit odd... (Score:4, Funny)
So, it's legal for Americans to spy on the Dutch? Who knew!
Next it'll be found perfectly OK for the Dutch government to take kickbacks from American criminals that rob Dutch citizens.
Hurrah for the newly authorized power of crime laundering!
Re: (Score:2)
If it's legal for the US to spy on Dutch citizens, then isn't it also legal for the Dutch citizens to spy on and hack into Americans?
Because, clearly, if it's legal for the US to do the same to external entities, the reverse must be true, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ignored is likely right.
I didn't see anything that made spying on either side legal, only that the dutch could acquire the information gathered from it legally. It's likely illegal in both places to do the spying but the government would ignore it as long as they had a benefit to gain.
There is a difference between something being legal and something not being prosecuted and ignored instead.
This is why western nations knowingly allow ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
" I doubt that Germany KNEW that we were listening in on their gov officials"
The US has anti spying agreements with the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. The German government knows that and the US does not have one with Germany.
Are they really that dumb?
Current Prime Minister in Holland (Score:2)
Is Mark Rutte, i.e. the potential 'requestor'.
Looking up his address now.
Will post here.
slightly strained analogy: money laundering (Score:2)
This may be more a metaphor than an analogy.
The Dutch and American governments are doing something analogous to money laundering.
Only it's data, not money, that goes from bad to good, by taking a different path.
And it's governments, not individuals or companies, that are doing it.
And government decides it's not a violation, when government does it.
The metaphor is "data laundering". Or "illegal surveillance data laundering".
Re: (Score:2)
I would rather NSA, who has no powers, spy on me, than FBI, or even worse, the local police.
Taking it further, I have less issues with say GCHQ spying on me. Why? Because not only do they not have any powers, but, they have no INTEREST in me, unless I am up to something that will be seriously detrimental to UK, or other western nations.
very important (Score:2)
A lot of people miss this element - "spying" is very different from "legally admissible evidence in court by a police agency". I care a lot less about intelligence agencies, than police agencies.
And yes, that why the supposed collaboration with DEA is so bad, that is far worse than almost anything else that's come out in my mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Believe me, spying is the umbrella term here.
Re: (Score:2)
I worked on aspects of the US PAT act. As such, I became aware of some of capabilities (snowden released more than I knew, but has missed other things; thank god). NSA having them is not a fear to me, BUT, I always thought that they needed a LOT OF OVERSIGHT. Sadly, once the act went through, the GOP pretty much removed CONgressional oversight of the NSA. That was their way of disavowing responsibility for their actions. But, I have no doubt that many terrorists actions were caught. I