Slashdot Mirror


US, Germany To Enter No-Spying Agreement

itwbennett writes "The German Federal Intelligence Service said in a news release that the U.S. has verbally committed to enter into a no-spying agreement with Germany. The no-spying agreement talks were announced as part of a progress report on an eight-point program proposed by German Chancellor Angela Merkel in July with measures to better protect the privacy of German citizens. In the progress report, the German government found that U.S. intelligence services comply with German law. Also, the operators of large German Internet exchanges and the federal government did not find any evidence that the U.S. spies on Germans, the government said."

209 comments

  1. yeah, right by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    and no one will ever cheat.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:yeah, right by jonyen · · Score: 1

      "Verbal commitment." Yep, that's definitely not going to work.

    2. Re:yeah, right by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In other words, a verbal commitment is worth the paper it's written on.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    3. Re:yeah, right by erroneus · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Not hard to imagine setting up a spying agreement with some 3rd world nation where the US spends a lot of money to upgrade their infrastructure and train their cyber warrriors to do the spying for us. "It wasn't us! It was THEM!!" You know... sort of an Al Qaeda that hacks, cracks and tracks? And of course the US will always be able to control them just as they have Al Qaeda.

    4. Re:yeah, right by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Funny

      I, for one, trust James Clapper to not lie to the Bundestag.
       

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    5. Re:yeah, right by ImdatS · · Score: 3, Insightful

      WHEREAS

      "USA" shall mean the "United States of America" and all its government and military institutions.
      "US Citizen" shall mean any citizen of "USA". ...

      WHEREAS
      "Germany" shall mean the Federal Republic of Germany and any and all government and military institutions.
      "German Citizen" shall mean any citizen of "Germany". ...

      NOW THEREFORE,

      Germany and USA agree that neither party shall secretly or otherwise authorize any of its citizens to secretly obtain information about the other party's citizen or those citizen's communication, publication, ... within the other party's legal borders unless expressly authorized by the other party.

      --snip--
      Do you see the problem?

      1) "Oh, sorry. We though he is not a citizen of your country because his name isn't a typical German/US name."
      2) "We didn't spy within your borders. We just checked emails on Gmail, Yahoo, etc."
      3) "We never authorized such spying. We will identify the person and fire him/her."
      4) "Hey Max, I have this guy in [Berlin|New York] and have ample int that he might be plotting to commit acts of terrorism. Can you let me spy on him?" - Max: "Yeah, sure, go ahead. I also have a guy in [Munich|Orlando], can I spy on him? He seems to be interested in pressure cookers..." - "Of course, be my guest."

      Just for the fun of it - I've been doing contracts for so many years, I love picking at them and trying to identify all the holes in them...

    6. Re:yeah, right by Trikenstein · · Score: 4, Funny

      They pinky swore that's like totally, totally binding you get warts if you break a pinky swear

    7. Re:yeah, right by SnarfQuest · · Score: 2

      the Obama government only violates the Constitutional Rights of its own citizens, it would never consider violating the rights of foreigners. That would be, like, wrong, and they'd never break foreign law.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    8. Re:yeah, right by Dishevel · · Score: 2

      and no one will ever cheat.

      I do not know about Germany ... But the US won't have to cheat.

      After all. The NSA is able to get the meta data for all US citizen phone calls and all of our browsing habits and emails and they are not spying on us.

      I am sure they can "Not Spy" on Germany in much the same way.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    9. Re:yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not cheating when you redefine the word "spying" "spy" and "spied". As we all know, words no longer support actual ideas, but rather some fuzzy dream-like phase of "what should be", only later to be redefined to what it really means.

      For instance, Google Earth will show you satellite images of the whole planet, even Germany. That's not spying though. These satellite images can withstand the political pressure. Soon the data that's gathered by way of PRISM and such will be viewed as the same, and also be able to withstand the political pressure.

    10. Re:yeah, right by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      That was hilarious, thank you. Too bad Sheldon had mod points tonight.

    11. Re:yeah, right by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      The US is prepared to break its own laws. I don't see why they would abide by an international agreement all of a sudden. Ahh but the politicians will sell it to the sheep, and all will be forgiven and forgotten cos, you know, they said they won't do it anymore.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    12. Re:yeah, right by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      it would never consider violating the rights of foreigners.

      Tell that to the parents of the kids killed by US drones.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    13. Re:yeah, right by Capt.Albatross · · Score: 2

      In other words, a verbal commitment is worth the paper it's written on.

      It is every bit as good as a written constitution.

    14. Re:yeah, right by msauve · · Score: 1

      Oh, it may work. But you have to understand the scope. The US government won't spy on the German government, and vice versa. Citizens will, of course, be fair game.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    15. Re:yeah, right by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 2

      Ignoring the insanity that the US controls al Qaeda, that is probably the way it will happen.

      They'll outsource the dirty work to another country, kind of like the renditions where they'd send a prisoner to a country that did torture them to get the info they wanted so the US could say they didn't torture.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    16. Re: yeah, right by Rhurazz12 · · Score: 0, Troll

      But its totally binding in Russia right? I mean Germany has NOTHING to hide when it comes to security. Yep, we're better off with Russia even though they piss us off over and over again. They're more direct and not as passive aggressive as the German government is..

    17. Re:yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How so? In a verbal agreement, there is no record of what was said. If there is a conflict, it is one person's word against another's. A written constitution at least provides something that you can point at and say "yes, you did agree to that" (even if the other party is powerful enough to say "well fuck you, I don't care").

    18. Re:yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quoth Dr Evil : Riiiiiiight ....

    19. Re:yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you get warts if you break a pinky swear

      Lies. You won't get warts. What you will get, however, is a deranged pink horse coming after you.

    20. Re:yeah, right by gweihir · · Score: 2

      Noooo, that would be dishonest! Like spying on "friends"! Oh, wait....

      Seriously, what the US is doing would be rightfully called an "act of war" in ordinary circumstances. As the current German political class is mostly composed of wimps with no backbone or personal honor, they try to sweep this whole mess under the rug. A few nice meaningless words can do the trick, as many Germans do not seem to understand what is going on. This is even more crass as Germany has made excessive bad experience with spying on citizens during the 3rd Reich and in the DDR. Seems people are unable to learn from history.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    21. Re:yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How so? In a verbal agreement, there is no record of what was said. If there is a conflict, it is one person's word against another's. A written constitution at least provides something that you can point at and say "yes, you did agree to that" (even if the other party is powerful enough to say "well fuck you, I don't care").

      It's every bit as good as a written Constitution with "United States" in the title.

    22. Re:yeah, right by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hey, the last time someone made an oral commitment in the oval office it almost lead to impeachment. We can only hope.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    23. Re:yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One other problem? As you describe it, the agreement itself is unconstitutional in both Germany and the USA.

      By specifying "citizens", it clearly violates the "equal protection" clause (14th Amendment in the USA, Article 3 of Germany's Basic Law). Either you protect everyone in your jurisdiction, or no-one - you can't be selective about it.

    24. Re:yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you need a new sarcasm detector.

    25. Re:yeah, right by Trikenstein · · Score: 2
      uh, no
      You have to have the deranged pink horse sleep on your warts to get rid of them

      And deranged pink horses are extremely Flatulent

    26. Re:yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's every bit as good as a written Constitution with "United States" in the title.

      Again I ask, how so? In a verbal agreement, there is no record of what was said. If there is a conflict, it is one person's word against another's. A written constitution at least provides something that you can point at and say "yes, you did agree to that" (even if the other party is powerful enough to say "well fuck you, I don't care").

      Just because the end result is the same, doesn't make them equal.

    27. Re:yeah, right by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      "Social" engineering is control too. Who knows how much adherents and plan of actions got al qaeda with all the US drones over innocent citizens.

      And they don't have to deny if they aren't catch. How they didn't got catched last time? not becuase Germany detected them, but because Snowden's leaks. They could keep doing their scheduled industrial spying as long as they don't get discovered.

    28. Re:yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      you get warts if you break a pinky swear

      I hear that's how we ended up with Texas.

    29. Re:yeah, right by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Insanity of the US controlling al Qaeda? Sorry, but if you provide funding and weapons then you are in a sense controlling them. The policy makers in the US Capital know damn well that the majority of the FSA rebels are al Qaeda. They also knew that a majority of those rebels in Libya were from al Qaeda. So while they may not have directed the actual movements of the troops, we don't know how much the US Government directed them. You think we just gave them guns and money and said "fuck it, do what ever the hell you want with this"?.

      Lacking knowledge is not insanity.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    30. Re:yeah, right by s.petry · · Score: 1

      The other flaw in the contract is that it only prevents citizens from spying on citizens. There is no mention of governments spying on citizens in either direction. So if Engineer John Doe spies on Scientist Jargon Spiegeldorf, it's a crime. If either Government agency spies on either person, it's not covered by the agreement.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    31. Re:yeah, right by schwit1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Almost? President Bill Clinton was impeached on 19 Dec 1998 by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228-206 vote) and obstruction of justice (by a 221-212 vote).

    32. Re: yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      it makes them equivalent in much the same way your argument is equivalent to a retard making grunting sounds.

    33. Re: yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, retard, it DID lead to impeachment.
      -- the best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter.

    34. Re: yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you mean we missed them?

    35. Re:yeah, right by Trikenstein · · Score: 1
      In Soviet Russia Texas ends up with you

      At which point they promptly execute you

      But only if you're legally retarded

    36. Re: yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously The US will never cheat!
      The government has been democratically elected and all The politicians are The imagen of honesty!
        I'm certain about it!

    37. Re: yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" was written on paper, then a bunch of dumbasses decided that it meant the government could prohibit people from keeping and bearing arms because it actually says that the government can raise a militia.

      You see, people dont need to argue over what was said; we're just fine arguing over what was meant by plain, simple words. You don't need the quote to match your whims if you can twist the meaning to do so. There are people who actually believe the argument that a group of citizens who just got done violently overthrowing their government with guns because of rights violations meant to allow their new government to ban guns in order to ensure freedom.

      To make a long story short, whether written or spoken, the content of any message means nothing in a world filled to the brim with stupid motherfuckers.

    38. Re: yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And acquitted in 1999 by the senate. End result : Clinton was NOT impeached.

    39. Re:yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a chance that the Germans wont spy on us and drink beer instead.

    40. Re:yeah, right by cavreader · · Score: 1

      This is the stupidest thing I have seen lately and that is saying a lot. I am sure every government operating a clandestine intelligence service is just going fold up shop and disband. What is really appalling is the European governments feigned outrage over the NSA intelligence programs when they routinely request and exchange intelligence data with the US. A lot of people today never question any piece of information as long as it makes the government look foolish or evil. Is there any independent proof that the NSA programs are even capable of actually doing the things they are suppose to be doing? We have seen Powerpoint presentations, memos, and white papers that appear targeted at a non-technical audience and includes no technical or operational details. They look more like a sales pitch used secure funding. IT projects of this size are notorious for promising all kinds of capabilities upfront that end up being dropped for a variety of reasons. If the government programs are so encompassing why do they need to solicit data from 3rd parties? I have seen no discussions concerning the hardware and software architecture that is needed for a system supposedly capable of trapping and analyzing all the internet traffic as well as every email and tweet that crosses the wire. What if the NSA is purposely letting some of the capabilities be exaggerated to frighten other governments? If confidential information is leaked the government might want to try and salvage something and making your enemies fear your capabilities can be a positive achievement. .

    41. Re:yeah, right by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      dpi is at the HARDWARE level. has been for well over 5 years now (probably longer).

      I don't doubt for a second that the core routers and even out to the edge can do triggers at the hardware level and save data to remote storage. not every single packet on the backbone but they don't have to do that; they only have to know who is worth listening to and then set the triggers for those patterns (complex as they may be, the cpu is not involved anymore).

      users (owners of the routers) can even write their own code that controls such hardware. writing 'apps' on the routers is the latest fad.

      I have zero doubt that they can capture whatever they like. they have endless funding and nearly endless land available to build huge data centers.

      being in the networking field for over 25 yrs, I have no doubt that this ability exists. I turned down jobs that were all about DPI and setting up various evil things that I didn't think should go on.

      they can do what they say. in this case, they are not bullshitting.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    42. Re:yeah, right by Eugriped3z · · Score: 1

      That's different, it's only a framework and it's subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court, the Office of Legal Counsel, the DOJ, every U.S. Senator or Representative (with or without a swingin' dick), the FISA courts, the DHS, the Joint Chiefs, JSOC and the entire dysfunctional intelligence 'community'. What I want to know is who gets the contract to pull all the equipment that's already installed, and what's their eBay vendor account name?

    43. Re:yeah, right by Eugriped3z · · Score: 1

      The grand jury of which you speak, it was investigating what exactly? It certainly wasn't high crime or misdemeanors, let alone justice, because the last time I checked, there is no morals clause in the oath of office to the presidency of the United State. And if Christian morality were the law of the land, we'd be just as bad off as if it were Shari'a law.

      That's why we have a Bill of Rights. It's just too bad it's not required reading.

    44. Re:yeah, right by Vintermann · · Score: 2

      If Merkel & Co can look at what's been revealed and say "we see no spying here", it shouldn't be so hard for the US to keep abstaining from spying.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    45. Re:yeah, right by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Shake hands with the right, and the left hand held behind the back with crossed-fingers.

      Standard diplomatic handshake.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    46. Re:yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you might want to re-check things or stay silent rather than open your mouth and prove yourself the fool.

      Clinton was impeached for one of perjury and one of obstruction of justice, not for getting a blowjob from an intern while in office. Both are definitely under the category of high crimes and misdemeanors. Maybe you should try reading things some time yourself.

    47. Re:yeah, right by Seumas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. I was going to say "don't fall for this, Germany -- we have an agreement for our government not to spy on us, too... it's called the Constitution... which our current Constitutional Lawyer president and former presidents have completely shit upon".

    48. Re:yeah, right by Seumas · · Score: 1

      The same way this has been going on for years in the US and we have known about it, but nobody ever even bothered to give a shit or give it any news coverage until it was revealed that journalists were being targeted and then that politicians/congressmen may have been targeted. Until that, politicians didn't give even half the fuck they currently barely give and journalists gave even fewer fucks than that. They're almost as bad as the new wave of sudden Reddit-warriors who didn't give a damn about the issue until the last few months and now that *they* give a fuck, they act like they fucking *invented* giving a fuck about this issue.

    49. Re:yeah, right by Seumas · · Score: 1

      We're a bit more than merely "prepared" to do so. :P

    50. Re:yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, what do you want them to do?
      The U.S. government have a long history of breaking written agreements too.
      Essentially the problem boils down to that the president doesn't have the mandate to enter into an international treaties and other nations tend to not know this.
      Any deal signed by the U.S. president is worth less than the paper it is printed on and it is not possible to negotiate with the senate.
      Merkel is essentially dealing with a system set up to not honor international agreements. A pinky swear is just as good as a contract in this case.

    51. Re:yeah, right by oreaq · · Score: 1

      I have seen no discussions concerning the hardware and software architecture that is needed for a system supposedly capable of trapping and analyzing all the internet traffic as well as every email and tweet that crosses the wire.

      Really? Google "lawful interception". Cisco et al have been including these capabilities in the their equipment since at least 2005.

    52. Re:yeah, right by Zemran · · Score: 2

      Spying, by definition, is without permission therefore not agreed upon. Therefore an agreement not to spy has no meaning as you cannot agree to not agree about something. The whole idea is just political spin as both sides must know that this has no meaning and it is only to keep the plebs happy.

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    53. Re:yeah, right by penix1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Essentially the problem boils down to that the president doesn't have the mandate to enter into an international treaties and other nations tend to not know this.

      Poppycock! In fact, the President is the ONLY one in the federal government with a mandate to enter into treaty with other nations. Article 2 Section 2 gives him the power with the advice and consent of the Senate. Without the President initiating it, you have no treaty.

      "Article 2 Section 2 Clause 2: He shall have the power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties..."

      It doesn't get any clearer than that. It's the President who does the negotiating with the Senate. It starts with the President.

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    54. Re:yeah, right by johanw · · Score: 1

      That is because, according to the US, foreigners have no rights, so there's nothing to break.

    55. Re:yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poppycock! In fact, the President is the ONLY one in the federal government with a mandate to enter into treaty with other nations. Article 2 Section 2 gives him the power with the advice and consent of the Senate. Without the President initiating it, you have no treaty.

      You are missing the point.
      The President may be the only one in the U.S. who is mandated to enter into treaties with other nations but since the Senate can say that the treaty is invalid the President didn't really have the mandate to enter that treaty.
      In practice there is no one in the U.S. with the mandate to enter a treaty with another nation and Merkel needs to recognize this. It is impossible for another nation to enter a treaty with the U.S. in a meaningful way and the U.S. has a long history of ignoring treaties that their Presidents have entered.

      A pinky swear is just as good as a written document in this case.

    56. Re:yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would actually want to know what they would do if they get a permit to spy on someone? They already have their whole personal and communication history. Send spooks to watch when the target uses bathroom?

    57. Re:yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some other member of the UKUSA Community will do the spying and share the intelligence with the U.S. so technically the U.S. will not be spying on the Germans.

    58. Re:yeah, right by rhodie · · Score: 1

      If the government programs are so encompassing why do they need to solicit data from 3rd parties?

      A few reasons I can think of:
      - The only thing better than information about your target/citizenry is more information about your target/citizenry
      - Lets you see how much/what type of information is collected by your counterparts/competition in other countries, which can give you a good idea about their capabilities
      - To make it appear that they don't have that information already (works for both other countries and your own public)

    59. Re:yeah, right by ImdatS · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily, at least not in Germany. Article 8 (1) and Article 9 (1) of German Basic Law, for example, expressly limit certain rights only to German citizens. Even though Article 3 (1), as you say, states that all "man are equal before the law", already a few articles later, certain rights are limited only to German citizens. With that in mind, one could argue, without problems, that certain rights (e.g. protection of people's privacy in Germany) can be, by law, limited to German citizens only.

      And I'm pretty sure there is possibility to interpret the 14th Amendments section 1, last sentence equally in the US as the previous sentences clearly protect only US citizens.

      But hey, who am I to say? I'm not a lawyer, but I know lawyers could always find ways.

    60. Re: yeah, right by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Nobody really gave a shit anymore. Clinton's second term was almost done, it's like impeaching Obama now. Who cares about the result, what could happen? That he cannot continue as the prez? Well, DUH, he can't anyway.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    61. Re:yeah, right by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Ignoring the insanity that the US controls al Qaeda, that is probably the way it will happen.

      Does the US "control" Al Qaeda? Questionable. But we did fund them, and BushCo has been in bed with the Bin Ladens for some years now.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    62. Re:yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So who's first to send a FOIA request for all of their congress people and forward the data to all of the local news stations?

    63. Re:yeah, right by Torvac · · Score: 2

      the german politicians wording atm is : "the usa will not spy on germans in germany".

    64. Re: yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have an answer to your question, so I'll just insult you instead.

      FTFY.

    65. Re:yeah, right by Quila · · Score: 1

      Given how much Obama is against the Constitution in various ways, I always thought it ironic that he was a constitutional law professor. But then I think you really have to know something if you want to find the best ways to break it, so I now find it quite fitting.

    66. Re:yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sexual Harassment, from wikipedia:

      Paula Corbin Jones (born Paula Rosalee Corbin; September 17, 1966) is a former Arkansas state employee who sued U.S. President Bill Clinton for sexual harassment. Clinton entered into an out-of-court settlement, agreeing to pay Jones and her attorneys a total of $850,000, before the lawsuit was dismissed pre-trial on the grounds that Jones failed to demonstrate damages.

      The Paula Jones case precipitated Clinton's impeachment. Charges of perjury and obstruction of justice were brought against Clinton based on statements he made during the depositions for the Jones lawsuit. The specific statements were about the nature of his relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, with whom he denied having a sexual relationship.

    67. Re:yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, no, that is actually covered, see definitions of USA and Germany, and the the part of 'NOW THEREFORE' before the 'or', they agree that their governments will not spy. What it does not cover is authorizing non-citizens to spy. So USA or Germany could authorize, for instance, Frenchmen or Canadians to spy for them.

    68. Re: yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      End result : Clinton was NOT impeached.

      0/10

    69. Re:yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, ImdatS was a bit sloppy in his choice of words.

      The standard way of wording such things, in the U.S. Army Intel branch at least, is "U.S. Persons" instead of "U.S. Citizens". That covers illegal immigrants, tourists from other countries visiting on American soil, and U.S.-based organizations and their personnel wherever they are overseas. It would be in each country's interests to have the broadest protections possible.

      Now we just need to convince the cowboys in the CIA/FBI/NSA to check with a judge before collecting info on people in that class...

    70. Re:yeah, right by virgnarus · · Score: 1

      Well, I did see that they shook hands over the agreement.

    71. Re: yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude I'm not that guy, but he's saying the constitution is equal to a verbal agreement.

      He's taking a jab at the current state of our politicians and how they ignore the constitution.

      But clearly you're a retard

    72. Re: yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Impreachment is the whole trial not the end result, Clinton was impeached.

    73. Re:yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until a treaty is ratified by the senate it has no basis in law.

    74. Re:yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, given his hubris, you would think that he would have released his transcripts and broadcast them to the world if he actually got good grades.

    75. Re: yeah, right by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Impeachment is when the House sends the president to trial by the Senate. The Senate then either acquits him or removes him from office (in addition to referring whatever they find to the Department of Justice for prosecution under the next president).

      We've had 2 impeachments in US history (nearly a third, but Nixon quit instead), both ending in acquittals.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    76. Re:yeah, right by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      Given how much Obama is against the Constitution in various ways, I always thought it ironic that he was a constitutional law professor.

      Oh, get off it. You sound like a Protestant complaining about how much Catholics hate the bible. People wave the constitution around like it's some sort of all-encompassing document that leaves absolutely no room for interpretation. It's not.

      There are legitimate differences in interpretation. There are contradictions. Every politician finds something in the constitution inconvenient and chooses to ignore it.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    77. Re:yeah, right by cavreader · · Score: 1

      I wasn't talking about the capabilities of the individual components needed to construct and operate such a system . I was referring to the sheer scale of the system. Yearly global IP traffic is estimated at 1.3 zettabytes per year (110.3 exabytes per month). Global mobile data traffic is estimated at 11.2 exabytes per month (134 exabytes a year). Forecasts show these figures increasing13-fold from 2012 to 2017. What type of hardware would be required to process and store this amount of data? Running queries against that amount of data would also require some serious processing power. Even the best keyword targeted algorithms would still return millions of hits a day. The NSA doesn't come close to having enough analysts to sift through all the potential hits.

    78. Re:yeah, right by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Really? It's pretty all-encompassing, frankly. It says that government has no authority except for those specifically laid out within the document and that free people are free.

      The people who like to go on about how it's a "living document" and "up for interpretation" -- as if it was derived from a fucking seance and ouija board are those who want to change or ignore it (*ESPECIALLY* the ninth and tenth amendments). I mean, gosh, all those amendments like "congress shall make no laws abridging free speech" or "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude[...] shall exist within the US or any place subject to their jurisdiction"... Damn, what could those possibly mean? They're just so... open for discussion. They change in the eye of the beholder. The constitution.. golly gee, it's more interpretive than modern dance!

      When people assert shit like that, it reminds me of weasels like Bill Clinton contesting the definition of "is" or Richard Nixon stating that "when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal".

      The best way to strip your rights and freedoms away from you is to convince you that your rights and freedoms are subject to a very difficult and complex interpretation that you could not possibly understand.

    79. Re:yeah, right by Seumas · · Score: 1

      It's kind of amusing, because after two terms of Clinton, I was ready for something new and refreshing. Things surely had to improve (and, in retrospect they were generally pretty good during his terms). Then we had Bush. After two terms of Bush, I was with most of America in agreeing that ANYONE was better. Granted, McCain would be total shit and Obama would be total shit. Something all the young highschool kids voting for the first time didn't comprehend as they were sure the universe had just been waiting 200+ years for THEM to exist and vote to finally set the world right. But hey -- it wouldn't be George "The Decider" Bush and his scummy criminal cronies and revolving-door administration. And -- hey -- a black dude! Holy fucking shit, we got a black dude! I never thought I'd live to see this day and I'm fucking impressed that my country would elect him! Okay, if nothing else comes out of this, at least we've moved on from that whole "there'll never be anything but a white male president" thing! And hey -- the world is actually kind of liking us again after we shit on them and their sympathy and friendship after 9-11! Things are looking up! ... and then ... the last five or six years.

      Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck.

      I think most people used to understand that the election was shit and our results would always be shit, but it would mostly just be the status-quo. After this president, I think we have this new fear that we can not ever predict just how low the next administration will go. What they will take away from us. What they will impose upon us. How they will represent us to the rest of the world. We literally live within a government that fifteen years ago we taught about in text books in high school history or civics classes and had a hard time comprehending the reality of. We live in a time where the reality of our government actually matches much of what we've laughed at conspiracy nuts about the last few decades.

      What's most frightening about all of it is how fast the people will find themselves accustomed to these changes and revelations and stop complaining about them. They'll just accept them and go back to being upset about the selection in their office vending machine. And they'll be convinced that the guy they vote for in 2016 is finally going to fix everything and be a stand-up guy. They'll be convinced that each successive election is the bearer of hope and change.

    80. Re:yeah, right by Quila · · Score: 1

      His views have pissed off the liberals and the conservatives, so he doesn't have an ideological screen. He just does whatever the hell he wants regardless of law and Constitution.

      He even violated the War Powers Act in Libya. Response? It doesn't apply. Cue Eddie Murphy, "Wasn't me."

    81. Re:yeah, right by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      His views have pissed off the liberals and the conservatives, so he doesn't have an ideological screen. He just does whatever the hell he wants regardless of law and Constitution.

      We might agree, but I would argue that modern liberals and conservatives have roughly equal constitutional basis, Obama is just a mix of both that pisses off both sides. Republicans don't care about the crap W pulled, and liberals only care about the Bushy stuff Obama is doing. Personally, I think McCain/Palin would have been a lot worse, but that is mainly speculation.

      He even violated the War Powers Act in Libya. Response? It doesn't apply. Cue Eddie Murphy, "Wasn't me."

      While I see your point (and agree), it's worth noting that waiting for THIS Congress to pass any meaningful legislation isn't a winning proposition. The resulting bill would have repealed Obamacare, banned abortion, and authorized the use of force against Iran, Tajikijikistanstan, and Libya. I don't know if I would have bothered either.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    82. Re:yeah, right by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      It's hard to take you seriously when the argument you are making has been so thoroughly debunked throughout history. You've surely heard the counter-argument, but you obviously choose to ignore it.

      ...It's pretty all-encompassing, frankly. It says that ... free people are free.

      Yes, "free" is such a precise term that we can all agree on what it means in every single circumstance. That's why we are not having this discussion, just as our founding fathers did not.

      "congress shall make no laws abridging free speech" or "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude[...] shall exist within the US or any place subject to their jurisdiction"... Damn, what could those possibly mean? They're just so... open for discussion.

      They *are* open for discussion. You seriously think the founding fathers meant "free speech" to be unlimited? I think you will find they had laws against sedition, shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, disclosure of troop movements to the enemy, and so forth. The challenge is in determining where those lines should be drawn.

      Every single right has conflicts with other rights and responsibilities. "Free speech" doesn't cover slander, sedition, disclosure of confidential information, false testimony, imminently danger to others, etc. because all of those impact rights of others or responsibilities of the state. The right to bear arms has always been limited--prisoners and rebels do not get to keep their weapons.

      You are upset because you think you have the correct interpretation and balancing of various rights and responsibilities. You should read some of the landmark decisions on these issues. They aren't difficult to comprehend, but they aren't as black-and-white as you seem to believe.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    83. Re:yeah, right by Seumas · · Score: 1

      No, I'm "upset" because the constitution plainly says that citizens do not have merely just the rights mentioned in the Constitution and that the federal government is limited to ONLY those allowed by the Constitution and yet, people like you, act like the 9th and 10th amendments don't exist. That this living document "doesn't cover everything". As if, something not being mentioned in the Constitution means that the government *can* have the right and the citizen *can not*. When it is the otherway around.

      And people like you act like because the constitution is not narrow in constraint upon the citizens (such as free speech) that it means there are other restrictions that therefore are applied... just not enumerated within it. In other words, the constitution is very specific -- even in its "openness" and people like you do not like that. So, to get around it, you throw out phrases like "well, it's a living document" and "well, our founding fathers never blarghle blarghle blargh".

      It's very amusing that the only people who seem to hold your viewpoint are those on *both sides* of the aisle who have agendas to push or support those who do.

    84. Re:yeah, right by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Also, I refer to "people like you", because I don't know you or (necessarily) your positions and can only reference people of similar statements to yours. I didn't intend it to be pejorative.

  2. I want one too by Kasamir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can I get a no-spying agreement with the U.S. government?

    1. Re:I want one too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We have one, it's called the fourth amendment.

      See how well that turned out for us?

    2. Re:I want one too by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 1
      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    3. Re:I want one too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's kinda funny how literally shitting on each other is the German national pastime...

      You have clearly never watched a political campaign ad on American television ... or simply watched Fox News for a minute or two.

    4. Re:I want one too by Trogre · · Score: 2

      It's kinda funny how literally shitting on each other is the German national pastime, and yet only the NSA knows who exactly is shitting on whom.

      I do not think that word means what you think it means.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    5. Re:I want one too by Artea · · Score: 2

      It's kinda funny how literally shitting on each other is the German national pastime, and yet only the NSA knows who exactly is shitting on whom.

      I do not think that word means what you think it means.

      I don't think you've been to that part of the internet yet.

    6. Re:I want one too by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      but this is germany, and so literally shitting on each other IS what is culturally in vogue (if you believe the films that come from germany...)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    7. Re:I want one too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're wrong (but you can count yourself as lucky in this case..)

      GP poster referred to a specific kind of porn that apparently more popular in Germany than most other places, that you probably would NOT want to stumble on by accident. There was nothing figurative about it.

    8. Re:I want one too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's kinda funny how literally shitting on each other is the German national pastime, and yet only the NSA knows who exactly is shitting on whom.

      I do not think that word means what you think it means.

      Google Disagrees
      So does merriam-webster
      And Cambridge

    9. Re:I want one too by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      but this is germany, and so literally shitting on each other IS what is culturally in vogue (if you believe the films that come from germany...)

      And yet there is only one country where "literally shitting on somebody" jokes are part of mainstream media. And it ain't Germany.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  3. What's not to believe? by intermodal · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's not like the US intelligence groups ever go beyond what laws allow, nor do they ever lie about such things...

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  4. Ich fühle mich jetzt soviel besser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Amerika, wir vertrauen euch.

    1. Re:Ich fühle mich jetzt soviel besser by Froggels · · Score: 1

      Ja, wirklich....

    2. Re:Ich fühle mich jetzt soviel besser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neben Bier und Autos und Heidi Klum. Deutschland ist wertlos für uns.

    3. Re:Ich fühle mich jetzt soviel besser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neben Bier und Autos und Heidi Klum ist für uns Deutschland wertlos. FTFY

    4. Re:Ich fühle mich jetzt soviel besser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You...yes, you...stand still laddie!!!

    5. Re:Ich fühle mich jetzt soviel besser by moronoxyd · · Score: 1

      Außer Bier, Autos und Heid Klum ist Deutschland für uns wertlos.
      (Better: Ausser Bier, Autos und Heidi Klum gibt es in Deutschland nichts, was für uns wertvoll ist.
      Even better: Find a variation without 'wertlos'. It just doesn't work very well in this context.)

      Don't trust neither Google Translate nor your German teacher. No really, DON'T.

      PS: Yes, I'm German and as anal retentive as they come :)

  5. Pinky swear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, right

  6. What about my country? by Thruen · · Score: 2

    How can I talk my country's leaders into negotiating such an agreement? Does anyone know who I can send a letter to? I live in the United States of America, sure such a bastion of freedom wouldn't allow spying on its citizens...

  7. If you don't get caught you didn't do it... by tenchima · · Score: 2

    According to Wikipedia: "Espionage or spying involves a government or individual obtaining information considered secret or confidential without the permission of the holder of the information. Espionage is inherently clandestine, as it is taken for granted that it is unwelcome and, in many cases illegal and punishable by law." I think the operative word here is clandestine...

    --
    If at first you don't succeed, so much for skydiving.
  8. It's probably worth... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...the paper it's printed on.

  9. Sure, can America not spy on Americans too? by Nadaka · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sure, can America not spy on Americans too?

    That sure would be nice.

    1. Re:Sure, can America not spy on Americans too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming they do what they say, German just picked-up a ton of American customers.

    2. Re:Sure, can America not spy on Americans too? by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      Assuming they do what they say, they were never spying on anyone in the first place...

  10. Call me old fashioned but by Arker · · Score: 1

    I remember when you did not need a special, explicit agreement to refrain from spying on your own allies. Kids these days just have no manners at all.

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    1. Re:Call me old fashioned but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember when you did not need a special, explicit agreement to refrain from spying on your own allies.

      That was possibly in the days when US wasn't spying on its allies?

      The agreement is to keep people happy, possibly because in Germany they still respect laws a bit. It won't stop any spying, but it will make it easier to pretend that all is well.

    2. Re:Call me old fashioned but by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      I remember when you did not need a special, explicit agreement to refrain from spying on your own allies.

      I'm curious - what world did you grow up in? Governments have spied on their allies since there were governments.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:Call me old fashioned but by Arker · · Score: 1

      "That was possibly in the days when US wasn't spying on its allies?"

      I would not be so sure of that. I know at least one of our allies spied on us repeatedly through the last century... I wouldnt be too shocked if our government was already off the rails at the time too. But the actors back then acted very carefully, fearing the consequences if secrets got out.

      It's well understood that small operations, run professionally, can work. But as your scale of operations grows it becomes more difficult to keep an op secret. We know some of the scandals from those times - and there are likely many more that were small enough to stay secret.

      The new programs are fundamentally different in scale though. They are so large that everyone competent had to have been warning against them from day one. They are so large that there is no way they could have remained secret much longer, Snowden or no Snowden. Nor does there appear to be a need for even a single official to take the fall and leave office when fundamental violations are exposed anymore.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    4. Re:Call me old fashioned but by godel_56 · · Score: 2

      I remember when you did not need a special, explicit agreement to refrain from spying on your own allies.

      I'm curious - what world did you grow up in? Governments have spied on their allies since there were governments.

      Yes, but it's probably fairly new where a government will spy on its own people for another foreign government.

    5. Re:Call me old fashioned but by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Spied on each other's military and industrial secrets. No KGB agent was reading about the new underwear I bought.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    6. Re: Call me old fashioned but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What color is the sky on the planet you live on?

      On this planet, everyone gathers intelligence (aka 'spies') on everyone else, has for time immemorial, and will continue to do so.

      These sorts of agreements are a joke - both sides will exploit whatever holes exist in the agreement. Given that the agreement has all the legal authority of a playground pinky swear, those holes are legion.

    7. Re:Call me old fashioned but by Arker · · Score: 1

      It's not that it never happened, certainly. But it was understood to be forbidden, and people were very careful with small-scale stuff not to get caught.

      This was way too big to keep secret for long and everyone involved had to have known that.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  11. Don't worry USA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The UK will spy on Germany for you!

  12. Ummm.. by Deflagro · · Score: 3, Informative

    Did that agreement have a little smiley face on it near the end? Does anyone really expect the USA to be honest about their activities? This is more likely a coordinated display to show the US feels bad about being caught red-handed and now they can be trusted by the worldz again.

    The UK will be next I'm sure... I don't know the lapdog priority in Europe though :P

    --
    Der Tod ist der einzige Weg hier raus!
    1. Re:Ummm.. by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      Wink wink, nudge nudge

      (I'm surprised nobody's said that yet.)

  13. Why just the Germans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would like to enter into a no-spy agreement with the US government on behalf of the US population.

    Where do I sign?

    1. Re:Why just the Germans by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      a bunch of guy already did that; George Washington, Ben Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and a bunch of others hammered it all out it is called the constitution and the bill of rights specifically the 4th amendment. Unfortunately ever since some muslim fundamentalist extremist terrorist flew a couple planes into our buildings the government thinks it can do whatever the hell it wants to screw the law.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
  14. Mutual spying agreement by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I read this as a "spying exchange agreement". The US promises not to spy on Germans, and the Germans agree not to spy on Americans.

    Instead, if the NSA wants spy data on German citizens, they'll metaphorically "extradite" data that the German government has collected on its citizens (and vice versa).

    That would be my guess, anyway.

    1. Re:Mutual spying agreement by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      I read this as Germany falling in line with American interests

    2. Re:Mutual spying agreement by Torvac · · Score: 1

      yes, it will probably mean that germany has to do the job for the USA in their own country from now on. just like other data transfer agreements in the EU in the past the US will find ways to blackmail germany again to agree to their terms (which is not hard if you spy on all EU politicians and know how to persuade them just the way you want).

  15. Read the fine print.. by Rivalz · · Score: 2

    Here's how I think this agreement will turn out.
    1) If violated the president agree's to have his feet tickled profusely.
    2) To avoid being caught the US allows UK to spy on Germany using our equipment which they hand over the info to us.
    3) US asks the UK not to Spy on the US for this benefit
    4) US asks Germany to Spy on UK for the US for our agreement not to spy on German

  16. lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and if you believe any of that please remove yourself from the gene pool.

    That is all citizen.

  17. No problems ...wink wink by arcite · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The US will just contract out the spying to a third party (or country, ally). No harm no foul. Money talks.

  18. Sounds legit by Arancaytar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    - "We're not spying on anyone, we promise."
    - "Here's proof you were spying."
    - "Oops. Well, we won't spy on anyone anymore, we promise."

  19. How can I as a US Citizen... by dbrossard · · Score: 1

    Enter into that same agreement with the US government?

    1. Re:How can I as a US Citizen... by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      Enter into that same agreement with the US government?

      we already have that it is called the 4th amendment expect this treaty to be treated with the same reverence. and why yes that is sarcasm now that you ask.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
  20. Exposure proves nothing but the obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a. we spy on them, they spy on us.
    b. we have secrets, they have secrets.
    c. everyone, fairness is anomonmity, the lack of information. Both sides being able to cheat and get away with it is quid pro quo.
    d. a verbal agreement means nothing. Actions speak louder than words.

    And all the hype on /. of this spying stuff and freedom, speech, etc... is by political agendas and just plain whining cause you don't want to get off your arse and either take action or participate in the system. That's why the current cultures will no "agree to disagree".

  21. Nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when is the U.S., U.S. spying agreement going to happen?

  22. Yeah heard that before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US government said it wasn't spying on it's own citizens which turned out to be a lie. Now they say they're not going to spy on Germans (non-US citizens)??? Yeah right. Also interesting that it was a VERBAL commitment.

    1. Re:Yeah heard that before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...it was a VERBAL commitment.

      Yes, and we all know you can't trust Verbal. After all, HE'S KEYSER FUCKING SOZE!

  23. so much for the "Master Race" by ClassicASP · · Score: 0

    This is bad comedy. I don't know who's more gullible: Germany, or the U.S.

    1. Re: so much for the "Master Race" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure the answer is that the people the governments are ostensibly supposed to represent are the most gullible. It's why we are in this situation at all.

  24. We will never honor it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look at how many cease fires, treaties and agreements we had with the indigenous population and I doubt we met the obligations of any of them.

    Like the story in Hustler about Jerry Falwell and his mother, any treaties the US signs are really acts of parody.

  25. who cares? by stenvar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have no problem with the German government trying to spy on me. Why? Because the German government has no jurisdiction over me. German state security can't appear on my doorstep and arrest me, no matter how much Merkel or her minions may disapprove of me.

    I do have a problem with the US government spying on me, because DHS and DEA can appear on my doorstep and make my life miserable if they don't like me or want to enrich themselves or find it useful for some other reason, circumventing the justice system and the rule of law.

    Obama made restoring privacy and the rule of law a key point of his presidential bid, and it has turned out to be complete lies.

    1. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no problem with the German government trying to spy on me. Why? Because the German government has no jurisdiction over me. German state security can't appear on my doorstep and arrest me, no matter how much Merkel or her minions may disapprove of me.

      Unfortunately, the opposite is not true. The German BND may hand out suspects telephone numbers to the US, the related owner is then killed by some drone attack.

    2. Re:who cares? by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      I have no problem with the German government trying to spy on me. Why? Because the German government has no jurisdiction over me. German state security can't appear on my doorstep and arrest me, no matter how much Merkel or her minions may disapprove of me.

      I do have a problem with the US government spying on me, because DHS and DEA can appear on my doorstep and make my life miserable if they don't like me or want to enrich themselves or find it useful for some other reason, circumventing the justice system and the rule of law.

      Obama made restoring privacy and the rule of law a key point of his presidential bid, and it has turned out to be complete lies.

      ever heard of interpol? guess who Obama gave free reign to do as they please?

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    3. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no problem with the German government trying to spy on me. Why? Because the German government has no jurisdiction over me. German state security can't appear on my doorstep and arrest me, no matter how much Merkel or her minions may disapprove of me.

      I do have a problem with the US government spying on me, because DHS and DEA can appear on my doorstep and make my life miserable if they don't like me or want to enrich themselves or find it useful for some other reason, circumventing the justice system and the rule of law.

      Obama made restoring privacy and the rule of law a key point of his presidential bid, and it has turned out to be complete lies.

      Yes. He lied. Amusingly enough, most people do not care. I signed the petition to at least make an attempt to get the WH attention. Guess what is the amount of signatures thus far. It is disheartening.

      https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/impeach-obama-lying-his-electorate-countrymen-and-world/bSgZcjqz

      Oh yeah. Today I heard democratic/progressive/liberal/ ( dunno what label is currently used) radio host being excited about Hillary Clinton being a potential presidential candidate in spite of him being not happy about NSA spying revelations and Hillary being another Obama, only worse. If an "influencer" can actually argue against NSA and then happily endorse another person who will do exactly the same thing the current WH occupant does, we have little hope.

      Bar being able to kickstart geek superPAC, we have to try to educate voters. There is no other choice.

    4. Re:who cares? by houghi · · Score: 1

      I have a problem with the US spying on me. They have no jurisdiction over me here in Europe, but that has not stopped them yet.

      Oh and could you please relocate the cemeteries from the brave WWII soldiers back to the US, because the turning in their graves keeps everybody awake.
      (To all the soldiers that were part of the allied forces, regardless of their country, I thank you and I am sorry we have let you down.)

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    5. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In reality, a world you don't seem to live in, Interpol doesn't have any power to arrest anyone, anywhere.

    6. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Obama gave free reign ...

      Yeah, that's why the USA is harbouring known war criminals: The USA has always exempted itself from international law when it gets inconvenient. The US government doesn't like it when other countries (hello Mr Snowden) play the same game.

    7. Re:who cares? by stenvar · · Score: 1

      I have a problem with the US spying on me. They have no jurisdiction over me here in Europe, but that has not stopped them yet.

      That's because you are an obedient, brainwashed little nationalist German who can't even read or understand the posting he is responding to.

    8. Re:who cares? by alexo · · Score: 1

      I have no problem with the German government trying to spy on me. Why? Because the German government has no jurisdiction over me. German state security can't appear on my doorstep and arrest me, no matter how much Merkel or her minions may disapprove of me.

      There are several problems with your reasoning:

      1) Governments may share data.
      What prevents "Merkel or her minions" to give some or all of the information they gathered about you to Obama and his minions?

      2) Governments may leak data.
      Yoo are an Amerikan, ya? Yoo vill spy for us or ve vill publish ze correspondence vis ze mistress. Ze vife vill not like zis...

      And, the most important:
      3) Governments are composed of people.
      What if one of "Merkel's minions" decides to sell your financial data to the highest bidder?

    9. Re:who cares? by stenvar · · Score: 1

      1) Governments may share data. What prevents "Merkel or her minions" to give some or all of the information they gathered about you to Obama and his minions?

      That's a US matter, not a German matter: obviously, if the US government can't legally spy on US citizens, it should also be legally prohibited to get this data from third parties.

      3) Governments are composed of people. What if one of "Merkel's minions" decides to sell your financial data to the highest bidder?

      I don't really care if they do; why would I? But if I did, how would that be different from any other crook trying to rip me off?

    10. Re:who cares? by alexo · · Score: 1

      1) Governments may share data. What prevents "Merkel or her minions" to give some or all of the information they gathered about you to Obama and his minions?

      That's a US matter, not a German matter: obviously, if the US government can't legally spy on US citizens, it should also be legally prohibited to get this data from third parties.

      "Legality" only matters when it can be enforced. Pray tell who is enforcing the law on the US government?

      3) Governments are composed of people. What if one of "Merkel's minions" decides to sell your financial data to the highest bidder?

      I don't really care if they do; why would I?

      You don't? In this case, may I have your online banking URL, username and password?
      Or, if your bank does the silly "identity verification" questions, let's settle for your address, DOB, etc.

      But if I did, how would that be different from any other crook trying to rip me off?

      Exactly my point. The "government" is comprised of individual people, some of whom may be "crooks trying to rip [you] off".

    11. Re:who cares? by stenvar · · Score: 1

      "Legality" only matters when it can be enforced. Pray tell who is enforcing the law on the US government?

      Separation of powers.

      You don't? In this case, may I have your online banking URL, username and password?

      How is that "financial data"? Are you stupid or something?

      Exactly my point. The "government" is comprised of individual people, some of whom may be "crooks trying to rip [you] off".

      I'm sure they are, and that's why it doesn't matter whether the German government has a policy of spying on me or not; it wouldn't help even if they did.

    12. Re:who cares? by alexo · · Score: 1

      "Legality" only matters when it can be enforced. Pray tell who is enforcing the law on the US government?

      Separation of powers.

      Is that when the executive branch lies to the legislature with impunity; the judicial branch operates secret courts and complains that it cannot effectively oversee said executive branch, who does not even care to follow the meager guidelines it set for itself, while violating your constitution on an ongoing basis?

      But hey, I may be wrong about that. Maybe your separation of powers does work and I am just ignorant of the facts. So feel free to educate me with some RECENT example.

      You don't? In this case, may I have your online banking URL, username and password?

      How is that "financial data"?

      Sorry, English is my 3rd language so I may have used the wrong term. I meant the data that allows access to your finances.

      Are you stupid or something?

      It depends. Out of the two of us, am I the one nitpicking on words and ignoring the big picture?

    13. Re:who cares? by stenvar · · Score: 1

      Maybe your separation of powers does work and I am just ignorant of the facts. So feel free to educate me with some RECENT example.

      Well, what alternatives do you suggest? Catholic monarchy? Communist central committee? Military dictatorship? Come on, let us all know, we are waiting with bated breath.

      Sorry, English is my 3rd language so I may have used the wrong term.

      Oh my, his third language! He must be one of those super-sophisticated foreigners who speak multiple languages, unless us redneck hicks here in the US! Give me a break.

    14. Re:who cares? by alexo · · Score: 1

      Well, what alternatives do you suggest? Catholic monarchy? Communist central committee? Military dictatorship? Come on, let us all know, we are waiting with bated breath.

      How about fixing your broken separation of powers to make it work in practice? Or is it too radical a suggestion?

      He must be one of those super-sophisticated foreigners who speak multiple languages, unless us redneck hicks here in the US!

      Unless what? Can't even use proper grammar in your native tongue?
      Sucks to be dumb, isn't it?

    15. Re:who cares? by stenvar · · Score: 1

      How about fixing your broken separation of powers to make it work in practice? Or is it too radical a suggestion?

      What's there to fix? It works as well as it ever has over the past 200 years. I doubt your nation, whatever it may be, has done better.

      What does that have to do with the observation that I don't have a problem with Germany attempting to spy on me?

      Unless what?

      Oh my, a TYPO!

      Can't even use proper grammar in your native tongue?

      You have no idea what my native language is.

      Sucks to be dumb, isn't it?

      You tell me.

  26. Nice one by oldhack · · Score: 1

    Nice one, soulskill. Headline told the whole story.

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
  27. Reminds me of childhood games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We agree not to spy on each other. Pinky Promise!

  28. Re:No problems ...wink wink by interval1066 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Germany, as the economic engine to the EU, certainly has the money to do the same, and don't think they won't. This will last only as long as its not inconvienient to each respective parrty.

    --
    Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
  29. Message: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Message to Germany: Hello suckers!

  30. How about some concrete measures? by jcr · · Score: 1

    Like, say: Germany informs the US government that being an NSA or CIA employee isn't a "get out of jail free" card, and that crimes committed in Germany will be prosecuted, without exceptions.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  31. What Cloud Providers or Email hosts are there? by Virtucon · · Score: 1

    Any good Cloud Providers or EMail hosts in Germany? I'm moving my data overseas.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  32. Don't expect privacy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Secure it by using force, deception and cryptography.

  33. Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We won't spy on you Germany... You can trust us... Yeah that's the ticket. From the government that lies to its own citizens and Congress with no consequences.

  34. fools by Tom · · Score: 4, Informative

    Please get a real journalist on this, not some blogger. A tiny bit of research will tell you a few interesting things that put things into perspective.

    For example, we have an election upcoming, so obviously the government has to appear to be doing something about it, because the people don't like it. My bets are firmly on this dragging out until the election (of course, with constant reminders and "progress" reports) and afterwards, it'll quickly be forgotten.

    For example, there are still laws in place from the end of WW2 and the times of the foundation of the Federal Republic of Germany that guarantee the allies spying rights. One of those agreements has just been revoked, to great PR effect. Almost all the mainstream media ignored that other agreements to the same effect still stand.

    For example, the german equivalent, the BND, has been accused of working closely with the NSA, to the point of providing them with raw data. And our current prime minister would sell the whole country to her american friends if it gave her a benefit (a friendly hug would probably suffice). So one likely result is that they will agree the US stops spying, then the NSA lents its spy stations to the BND, who shares the data with the NSA, so everything remains the same, but technically, the NSA isn't spying within Germany anymore.

    If you think the government or the current breed of corrupt egomanics that have taken over politics is there to protect you, you've been living under a rock the past twenty years.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:fools by bitt3n · · Score: 3, Funny

      sell the whole country to her american friends if it gave her a benefit (a friendly hug would probably suffice)

      you remember GWB's famous backrub? that was for the dental records of all german citizens since the Kaiser. Tom, you really ought to have that sensitive molar of yours checked out.

  35. Just like Sgt. Schultz from Hogan's Heroes! by korbulon · · Score: 2

    "I see nussink! I vuss not hier! I dit not efen get ahp diss morning!"

    1. Re:Just like Sgt. Schultz from Hogan's Heroes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great, now the theme song from Hogan's Heroes is going to be in my head for the next three days.

  36. Meanwhile back on the ranch by pubwvj · · Score: 2

    Meanwhile both governments continue to spy on their citizens.

  37. Election Time in Germany by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It is election campaigning time in Germany: 'A German federal election will be held on 22 September 2013 to determine the 598 (or more, if overhangs are produced) members of the 18th Bundestag, the main federal legislative house of Germany.' (wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_2013)

    These talks about a no-spying agreement is to calm down the population and to try to keep Germans happy about reelecting the incumbents or former incumbents of the major, established parties. The NSA spying scandal could benefit new-comer parties like the Pirate Party.

  38. the biggest NSA station in Europe is in Germany by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hilarious enough, the biggest NSA base in Europe is in Germany.

  39. Re:No problems ...wink wink by isorox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The US will just contract out the spying to a third party (or country, ally). No harm no foul. Money talks.

    Yes, the US will contract out it's Euro spying to Germany.

    Meanwhile Germany will contract out it's America spying to the US.

    Job done.

  40. Lies for the Sheeple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After WW2, the Allies kept many of the sheeple controlling laws introduced by the Nazi regime. Today, Germany produces and gifts submarines to the obscene racist nation of Israel specifically designed to carry nuclear warheads targeted at every major Muslim population centre across our planet. Meanwhile, German puppet leaders call for the destruction of Iran for daring to pursue limited nuclear energy programs. Germany has simply changed its mind about who constitute the 'Master Race', and who constitute the 'Sub-Humans' that must be kept down at all costs. If Germany was evil during WW2 (and it was), Germany is just as evil today for following the same disgusting policies based on the pseudo-science of 'race'.

    The German people are sheeple to be controlled, brainwashed, and placated. Of course the German people suffer massive full surveillance spy programs- what would any of you expect given the history of Germany, and the involvement of the West and Soviets in their recent history? But the German people themselves constantly tell each other that they are both harmless and civilised, and don't need heavy handed control (hohoho). They seem oblivious to the heavy handed programs that have been ruthlessly controlling their society since WW2.

    In truth, no-one cares about what German people think. In Europe, they were ruthless trained, post WW2, to act as disposable shock troops for any future war between Soviet Russia and the West. The entirety of Germany was to be snuffed out during the first phase of that anticipated conflict. But no-one trusts the German people either, so every power is hyper-keen to keep the people of Germany under the most intense scrutiny, and to maintain the dreadful propaganda programs every German experiences at school.

    Now the German people will have their heads patted, like a dangerous psychopath in a lunatic asylum, and be told "of course we are stopping all that nasty surveillance- why on Earth would we do that to someone as harmless as you?"

  41. Can the American People ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can the American People get one too? We don't want to be spied on either!

  42. hysterical laughter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    oh, you were serious *laughs even harder*

  43. Re:No problems ...wink wink by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    As long as it creates jobs, Merkel will jump on it.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  44. What about US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait, Germany gets a 'no spying agreement' from the prez while he won't even make the same for US citizens? (cool, my captcha was patriot)

  45. US and Germany enter by assemblerex · · Score: 1

    Spy on everyone else agreement.

  46. Hahhaahah by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    And the US will violate the No Spying agreement the millisecond it is signed.

    The US Governmet CANNOT be trusted.

  47. Bwahahahaha! by Chas · · Score: 1

    I've never seen such a huge pile of shit!

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  48. Riiiight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're not spying - we're only collecting "meta-data"

  49. the part they left out by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    "Also, the operators of large German Internet exchanges and the federal government did not find any evidence that the U.S. spies on Germans, the government said." ...which was viewed as a successful test of the US's surveillance systems in Germany, according to the NSA.

    --
    -Styopa
  50. Promise ;) by watermark · · Score: 1

    Promise. *wink* *wink* ;)

  51. Excellent! by istartedi · · Score: 1

    This will be the axis around which the world... um... hey, can I get back to you on this?

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  52. Joke? by stanlyb · · Score: 1

    This is a JOKE, right? No evidence? The whole solar system knows that NSA spies on everyone, but the German's government did not find any evidence??? WTF? Are they morons?

  53. Believe it as much as I believe Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama is full of BS like too many of his predecessors . Except he's loved for it by stupid Americans.

  54. Too many movies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Movies depict interpol as an actual police force. Interpol is just intelligence; international police cooperation. They have no jurisdiction in the US, nor do they have any actual manpower to arrest anyone in any country. Besides, the US gov does not bend to other governments. It is other governments that bend to the US.

  55. yawn by Gogo0 · · Score: 1

    wake me when there is a "US, Its Citizens To Enter No-Spying Agreement" story

  56. you must by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    be new here

  57. Sounds like honeypot to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one?

  58. Translation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read the headline and translated it on the fly to "US, Germany to Enter Full Disclosure Information Sharing Agreement".
    Please let me be wrong.

  59. Keep an eye on those Germans by dosun88888 · · Score: 1

    I think they might be up to some spying.

  60. Re:No problems ...wink wink by rioki · · Score: 1

    Except that they will first create a committee to make it an European effort. After something is achieved, they will create a second committee that will replicate some of the effort by a national body, since the European body gets nothing done. Lots of discussing later not much is achieved at all.

    But honestly I like the German/European wasting time and money better than the US, at least not all of the money was given to a large shady corporation.

  61. But but by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 1

    You made a pinky promise!!!

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
  62. Why oh why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...if NSA did not spy?

    The NSA told that they did not spy on germans. So for what is this No-Spying Agreement? The government spokesman Steffen Seibert got a bit nervous when being asked this and could not answer.

  63. Why oh why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if the NSA did not spy?

    The NSA told they did not spy on Germany. Being asked why a No-Spying agreement is necessary if the NSA did not spy on Germany the government spokesman Steffen Seibert just got nervous and completely failed to answer (link to german main TV news site).

  64. Nope, no spies here... by vomitology · · Score: 1

    "Also, the operators of large German Internet exchanges and the federal government did not find any evidence that the U.S. spies on Germans, the government said."

    ...that's only because we used the good spies. ( :

    --
    ~Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, but Wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad.
  65. Re:No problems ...wink wink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is how I like it. Usually it's only a positive thing the lawmakers get cobwebbed in bureucracy and committees and subcommittees of planning committees.

  66. Re:No problems ...wink wink by buchner.johannes · · Score: 1

    Germany may be the largest economy in the EU, but by far not the majority (20%). The largest economies are Germany (3,4M), France (2,6M), UK (2,4M), Italy (2,0M) and Spain (1,4M GDP per capita). It's an unfair simplification to say there is one economic engine of the EU.

    --
    NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
  67. I hear election time is comming up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So Miss Merkel is at least a verbal agreement worth to the US over the German opposition. Given that Mr. Schröder didn't go to Iraq to not piss off the French and the Russians and stay on the moral high ground, I can see that this makes sense to the US. But they could have tried harder, maybe the US has no plans for near term interventions in the middle east, they would need our help for.

  68. "Sir, we've got a line for collection approval!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's Americanocity rating is 40%, but so is it's Deutschitude! Can we still tap it without even a shred of reasonable suspicion?

    "Well, is either of them 51% or higher?"

    You always were the smart one, sir!

  69. no need for cheating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just define "spying" properly and then there will be no boundary in this boundary.

    As you US are good in defining "torture" we Germans are good in defining "control".

  70. Oh yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...'cause people that violate the law will be *sure* to follow a simple agreement...

  71. Re:No problems ...wink wink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The largest economies are Germany (3,4M), France (2,6M), UK (2,4M), Italy (2,0M) and Spain (1,4M GDP per capita).

    Crap. Or some dodgy units being used there. The average spaniard produces 1.4 million GDP each? Or if we assume that the 'per capita' is in error then the entire population produces 1.4 million between them? That can't be true in dollars or in Euros so 1.4 million what's per capita? Or does the M stand for something other than millions?

  72. So they won't spy on Germans... by bkcallahan · · Score: 1

    ...but they'll spy on us.

  73. Standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So will the US promise that if it is a greater than 51% likelihood that the traffic is from Germany they won't monitor it?

    And I now foresee every terrorist in the world flocking to Germany....

  74. Russian Nuclear Agreement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is like when Russia and US make an agreement to reduce nuclear weapons in their respective arsenals - It just means they hide them underground further and double check for any spies who might be watching.

    I also find it ironic that the captcha says "accuracy".

  75. Re:yeah, right - Germany's traitorious gov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Germany isn't going to fall for this - at least not our government. This useless piece of paper is just part of the agenda of the Merkel-government which consists of lies and denials. Just as in the US, and Merkel basically is like Obama: Hasn't heard of anything then lying then doing some useless shit. The german Constitution forces the government to protect the constututional rights of the german citizens, i.e. privacy - and our government refuses to do so. Of course one knows why, the federal intelligence service (BND) works closely with the US since after the war, including illegal spying (echelon project etc.) and is breaking german federal law, so nobody in our traitorious government has any interest in revealing the truth. Given this background, such a treaty makes perfect sense. ;)
    Merkel, her aministration and our intelligence are in total traitors to their people in favor of the US. Thanks...
    Still, everybody likes Merkel for no one knows what... but the lack of alternatives? Don't thinks, americans, that few choices only result of a two-party-system. We in Germany have five, and one is worse than the other...

  76. lol by KingBenny · · Score: 1

    even if i fear its inevitable a certain kind of lol cant stop itself from bubbling up

    --
    Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?