Slashdot Mirror


Probe Into NSA Activity Reveals Germany Spying On Germans

cold fjord writes The Local (DE) reports, "The Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), Germany's foreign intelligence service, spied on some citizens living abroad, a former lawyer for the spies told MPs on Thursday. Dr Stefan Burbaum ... said that some Germans were targeted as "office holders," a legal loophole the spies used to circumvent the law that protects Germans citizens from being spied on by its own intelligence agency. ... the German spies argue that a citizen working for a foreign company abroad is only protected in his private life, not in his professional communications ... "The office holder is the legal person," Burbaum said. ... "This construct of an office holder is just as absurd in practice as it appears in the law," Konstantin von Notz of the Green party said. Further, foreigners' communications conducted abroad are not protected, even if they are in contact with German people or work for a German company. MPs ... criticized the BND's ability to operate in a "lawless zone" when it came to spying on foreigners. ... the BND regularly retains traffic which it had not received specific permission to investigate which it collects during such trawls. In this way, access acquired under the "G10 law" becomes a "foot in the door" to otherwise closed-off sources of data, Burbaum said." The parliamentary investigation was initiated by reports that Chancellor Merkel's phone was being tapped by NSA, but later it was found that at least five countries were tapping Merkel's phone.

83 comments

  1. A feature of Western *democracy*? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1, Troll

    USA supposed to be a democratic country. Ditto for Germany and Britain, right?

    In USA, NSA spies on the American citizens while GCHQ spies on the Brits, and seems like the Germans are doing the same

    Is this one of the "feature" of the so-called "Western *democracy*" ??

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:A feature of Western *democracy*? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's a feature of tech. It's easier and easier to spy on someone so why not? The info may come in handy later. It seems most spy agencies are pack rats.

      Also, nice trolling. You've conveniently left out all the spying by non democratic countries. Spying is *expected* in other countries. It's simply known that people critical of the government are taken away.

    2. Re:A feature of Western *democracy*? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He with nothing to hide does not exist.

    3. Re:A feature of Western *democracy*? by some+old+guy · · Score: 1

      Well played, AC. Well played.

      --
      Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
    4. Re: A feature of Western *democracy*? by tshawkins · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Do you actualy know what socalisim is?

    5. Re: A feature of Western *democracy*? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Private property is control, numbnuts. I am surrounded by a wealth of resources, natural and man-made, none of which I'm allowed anywhere near, nor am I allowed any say in the use of. Property's a coercive concept for everyone except the owner. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but that the whole rhetoric of market = freedom / democracy = control is laughably loaded.

      Under social democracy, there are more resources and institutions under democratic control - particularly those guaranteeing a basic standard of dignified living for all humans, such as a national health service - which means I am more likely to be able to both make input and reap benefit.

      (And I know you didn't actually mean "socialism", which is worker control of the means of production. Loads of successful businesses are cooperatively owned and democratically run already, and I can be almost certain that this hasn't impinged on your delicate American freedoms.)

    6. Re:A feature of Western *democracy*? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The 'feature' is that this is treated as a nasty surprise, and somehow hypocritical or in poor taste. It's otherwise expected, or even exaggerated.

      That said, the one huge change that has likely given generally-wealthy-and-developed-western-democracies a (probably temporary) massive boost in relative spying scariness is the move to electronic surveillance, and the move of the citizenry to electronic media and devices on which to spy.

      When most intelligence gathering is human intelligence, or fairly low sophistication manual bugging/document theft/break-ins/etc. a visibly authoritarian system where secret police intimidation and coercion are routine, assorted invasive practices are fully legal or impunity is so strong that they might as well be, and so on, is most helpful for surveillance purposes.

      When the intelligence gathering is electronic, you can get away with a much softer touch; but you need an extensively 'wired' citizenry in order to have something to spy on, and you need considerable amounts of technical expertise, money, and infrastructure.

      While tech is just getting cheaper, and even absurdly squalid hellholes will probably have enough of it for a data-driven surveillance dystopia sooner or later, this did give a fairly massive relative bump in the spy power of 'nice' governments. Their attempts to replicate old-school Stasi stuff have been on smaller scales, and generally less effective(eg. NYPD vs. basically all the muslims in the eastern US, never mind that they are a municipal police force. The lawsuits they were many, the intelligence gains they were minimal, the whole thing was sort of an embarassment, and that was under the full power of the 9/11!!!! constitutional exception).

      They've had much better luck taking advantage of the fact that a huge amount of the world's electronic activity flows through areas they have access to and, thanks to cheap consumer electronics, now a huge amount of the world's communication foreign and domestic, does as well.

    7. Re:A feature of Western *democracy*? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      It is arguably trolling; but your "it's a feature of tech" points to what is actually a very important difference between spying in conventionally-democratic-and-wealthy countries and spying in conventionally-authoritarian-and-dubiously-well-developed countries. And it is a difference that has made Team Democracy look less fuzzy of late.

      Electronic surveillance provides a massive advantage to countries that are wealthy and wired (obviously, on the 'everyone's embassy has suspicious antennas' scale, everyone does electronic surveillance; but mass electronic surveillance is only possible if there are actually enough targets, which means that you need a well wired citizenry doing a lot of things worth looking at while online). They have the targets, because their citizens are dicking around on the internet. They have the means, because lots of the important backbone runs through them and they can afford to subvert telcos and infrastructure contractors and then build datacenters and hire analysis geeks to poke at the giant pile of data.

      Given the falling cost of technology, and the sheer efficiency of just tapping all electronic communications vs. breaking people in the basement of the secret police HQ one by one, I expect that even traditional hellholes will jump on the bandwagon eventually; but for the moment, the (relatively new) development that 'electronic surveillance' is now mass surveillance, and domestic surveillance, rather than military SIGINT stuff exclusively, is the biggest change in the relative surveillance level in quite some time.

    8. Re:A feature of Western *democracy*? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He with nothing to hide should not have to fear for his privacy.

      I'm not okay with the local Stasi installing bugs in my house. By the same token, I am not okay with them listening in on private conversations held over the phone or on the Internet. Even if it means a couple of terrorists go uncaught. Because what surveillance buys you is at best temporary security: a few high profile busts, and wrongdoers will find ways to evade that surveillance, which isn't all that hard.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    9. Re:A feature of Western *democracy*? by dave420 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Republic: a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

      Democracy: a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

      The two are not mutually exclusive. There are republican democracies, republican dictatorships, democratic monarchies, and dictatorial monarchies. It's amazing how many people don't understand these two words, and see fit to complain that people don't understand them.

    10. Re:A feature of Western *democracy*? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In USA, NSA spies on the American citizens while GCHQ spies on the Brits, and seems like the Germans are doing the same

      The NSA spies on everyone, BND spies on individuals. There is a difference of a factor of a million or so.

    11. Re:A feature of Western *democracy*? by mjpaci · · Score: 1

      Germans spy on Germans...what else is new? It's a piece of national pride to know everything about your neighbor...except when they die watching TV and nobody finds them for 16 years. It seems that every time I hear about one of those happening, 9 out of 10 times it's in Germany...

    12. Re:A feature of Western *democracy*? by mjpaci · · Score: 1

      (I realize we're talking about the German STATE spying on its own people, which is different. My MIL lived in East Germany and tells stories of how you never knew which of your neighbors or friends was passing info on to the state.)

    13. Re:A feature of Western *democracy*? by AchilleTalon · · Score: 2

      It has nothing to do with "Western democraties", totalitarian regimes are spying and much more on their own citizen. Very stupid comment.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    14. Re:A feature of Western *democracy*? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They all were. Well, almost. Quite a working system really.

    15. Re:A feature of Western *democracy*? by tburkhol · · Score: 1

      I realize we're talking about the German STATE spying on its own people, which is different. My MIL lived in East Germany and tells stories of how you never knew which of your neighbors or friends was passing info on to the state

      "If you see something, Say something." -US Department of Homeland Security

    16. Re:A feature of Western *democracy*? by s.petry · · Score: 2

      You are leaving out the collusion that all these Western "Democracies" have. The US's NSA provided data to UK's GCHQ and Germany's BND when they wanted it, and exchange each of those agencies provided data to the NSA that they wanted. In some cases they could not acquire data legally, so they intentionally circumvented the law by making these back room deals. I'd not take issue if this was against China or Russia who are traditionally enemies of the "West", they did this against normal Joe Shmoes in their own damn country.

      Each of these countries has used the data for illegal means, such as shutting down free speech and rights to assemble. For example the US used this data to shut down groups like OWS, and the BND has used this data to shut down anti-NSA protests in Germany just last year. Each country has claimed rights to this data due to "OMFG Teh Terrorists!!1!!!" but none of them have used this data to our knowledge to catch a single terrorist or stop a single terrorist act.

      As someone mentions above, the way to start forcing changes is to pull everyone from the chains of approval and start prosecuting. Offer whistle blower protection for people that were not the decision makers. Law makers may need to do some tuning, but that should not prevent action to stop the behavior.

      --

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

    17. Re:A feature of Western *democracy*? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      It's amazing how many Americans seem not to understand the difference between direct democracy and representative democracy, nor the fact that democracy and republic are orthogonal concepts. You post makes as much sense as saying emacs isn't a text editor, it's a religion - just because it is one, doesn't mean that it isn't the other.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    18. Re:A feature of Western *democracy*? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      Yeah, "democracy" isn't meant to mean a direct democracy but rather representative government. Or did you not know that? Or are you pretending not to understand?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    19. Re:A feature of Western *democracy*? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and 'backpacks and other large objects are subject to random search' on the NY subway. Achtung! Papieren bitte!

    20. Re:A feature of Western *democracy*? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem is, the law makers are in on the fun as well.

  2. Alas Klar Herr Kommieczar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or, in German, Unter Gleben Glowben Globen. Which translated to American means, Under Your Very Noses the DDR LIVES!

    1. Re:Alas Klar Herr Kommieczar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dance Dance Revolution?

    2. Re:Alas Klar Herr Kommieczar? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Or, in German, Unter Gleben Glowben Globen.

      Isn't that from "Pretty Fly for a White Guy" by the Offspring?

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re:Alas Klar Herr Kommieczar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    4. Re:Alas Klar Herr Kommieczar? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Badly rendered from: Def Leppard - Rock of Ages

      As spoken it's gibberish, but it almost means something.

      Gunter glieben glauchen globen

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  3. Something we need to take care off.... by mseeger · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They (BND) created several new theories:

    a) Space Theory: German law does not apply in space, so their satellites (or those from agencies of "friends") are not bound by the constitution.

    b) Function Owner Theory: When someone is acting within his/her capacity as a function owner, he is no longer a person protected by the constitution.

    c) The Meta Data Theory: Meta data does not contain privacy protected information.

    Thanks to Snowden this mess came to light. This now needs to be cleaned up. All three approaches will be shot down, with or without the governments approval.ï

    Most parliamentarians agree, that the intelligence services practically beg for a shorter leash. Power struggles and party politics will delay it, but they will get it.

    1. Re:Something we need to take care off.... by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      But the fact remains that they will, in secret, violate the spirit (and sometimes even the letter) of any law passed. So how do you combat that?

    2. Re:Something we need to take care off.... by mseeger · · Score: 1

      My favorite solution would be by disbanding them. But that is not realistic.

      The German version of the General Accounting Office does a pretty good job of spotting squandering. So a new oversight should be established based on their model. That focuses more on depth than width and a non-predictive cycling of topics.

      Due to the nature of intelligence services, you will never get them really compliant (that's why I mentioned my favorite method), but you can curb them.

    3. Re:Something we need to take care off.... by citizenr · · Score: 1

      The German version of the General Accounting Office does a pretty good job of spotting

      wasnt the GAO guy actively spying for the NSA during the investigation?
          hmmmm no, he worked for Germany's Defense Ministry, all right then ....

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
  4. News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Germany spying on Germans is not news. As usual, Shitdot is reporting the news a century late.

    1. Re:News? by MRe_nl · · Score: 1

      Let me put it simply: We are not allowed to spy on our own citizens. Everybody else is fair game. Nobody ever said we couldn't share data with other (allied) intelligence agencies, so we got around the rule by spying on each others citizens and sharing the data. But now that we have been tasked with near impossible tasks we have turned to spying on our own citizens directly, and this is a new development for foreign intelligence services, whether you are aware of it or not. The fact that these are nationals living abroad is the main loophole.

      --
      "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
    2. Re:News? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      This is not a story about der Kaiser und der Abwehrdienst, it is about der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und der Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND).

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    3. Re:News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For "foreign intelligence services" to openly spy on their own is a new development.

    4. Re:News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Stasi was a "foreign intelligence service" too, you clueless fool.

    5. Re:News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the Stasi was the department of homeland security and the "Hauptverwaltung Aufklarung" (HVA) was the foreign intelligence service, a subset much like the CIA.

    6. Re:News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      DHS is the US Stasi? But but it's a free country! Why does the US need a DHS? But but but the freedoms. The freeeeedoms.

    7. Re:News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when are Republik and Dienst male words?

  5. Laws need to reflect game policies by Loki_1929 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Gaming companies have dealt with issues like this for many years whereby players will attempt to engage in "rules lawyering" to get around the letter of the game's rules in order to exploit loopholes to essentially cheat to win. Game companies dealt with that by including a catch-all to simply say that if what you're doing is clearly and obviously designed to bypass the rules or exploit loopholes to gain an unfair or unintended advantage, you get punished.

    Legislatures could learn a lesson from this. For each law written, write in a catch-all such that clear and obvious attempts to circumvent the law by exploiting loopholes in the wording brings about similar or the same penalties as violating the law itself. For laws designed to control groups, such as intelligence services, ensure that everyone involved bears the punishment of violating the law. In other words, get the guy who ordered it, the guy(s) who disseminated the orders, and everyone who carried out the orders. Then also include strong whistleblower protections and rewards for reporting the worst abuses. When everyone from the top of the organization to the bottom has their ass on the line and when enough carrots are dangled in front of the guys doing the grunt work, stuff like that will unravel in a hurry. I love my job for numerous reasons. Would I risk 20 years in prison for it if the higher-ups decided to start doing illegal stuff? Not a chance.

    --
    -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    1. Re:Laws need to reflect game policies by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Gaming companies have dealt with issues like this for many years whereby players will attempt to engage in "rules lawyering" to get around the letter of the game's rules in order to exploit loopholes to essentially cheat to win. Game companies dealt with that by including a catch-all to simply say that if what you're doing is clearly and obviously designed to bypass the rules or exploit loopholes to gain an unfair or unintended advantage, you get punished.

      Game companies do it because they depend on people playing the game stop make money, hence the need for a semblance of fairness.

      Legislatures could learn a lesson from this. For each law written, write in a catch-all such that clear and obvious attempts to circumvent the law by exploiting loopholes in the wording brings about similar or the same penalties as violating the law itself.

      While that may sound like a good idea it has a lot of bad implications. Laws need to clearly delineate what is and isn't legal. Part of the court's job is to clarify laws through precenets.If they don't, you would be abel to charge people with violating the intent even if they didn't do what was delineated in the law. It wouldn't just be serious crimes, either where conspiracy laws exits already; you could be charged for breaking the intent of minor ones as well.

      For laws designed to control groups, such as intelligence services, ensure that everyone involved bears the punishment of violating the law. In other words, get the guy who ordered it, the guy(s) who disseminated the orders, and everyone who carried out the orders. Then also include strong whistleblower protections and rewards for reporting the worst abuses. When everyone from the top of the organization to the bottom has their ass on the line and when enough carrots are dangled in front of the guys doing the grunt work, stuff like that will unravel in a hurry. I love my job for numerous reasons. Would I risk 20 years in prison for it if the higher-ups decided to start doing illegal stuff? Not a chance.

      If you can be charged with breaking the intent how would you know what is legal? In the end a simple disagreement could cost you your job whether or not your position is correct.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    2. Re:Laws need to reflect game policies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Legislatures could learn a lesson from this. For each law written, write in a catch-all such that clear and obvious attempts to circumvent the law by exploiting loopholes in the wording brings about similar or the same penalties as violating the law itself.

      So you want laws that makes it possible for the government to punish anyone for anything?

      "Oh, he didn't strictly break the law, but it is obvious that he tried to circumvent it by not breaking the law. That he has a political opinion that the current government doesn't like has nothing to do with it."

      No. Laws should be clear. There should be a little room for interpretation as possible. If a lawyer or judge is required to interpret/understand the law then you can't possibly expect average Joe to be able to follow the law.

    3. Re:Laws need to reflect game policies by msobkow · · Score: 1

      You can't do that because then all the legislators would get busted for bribery, which is what "campaign donations" obviously are.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    4. Re:Laws need to reflect game policies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of "gaming" are you talking about? In computer games, the game's rules are written in code. You can't "cheat" them, and exploiting "loopholes" is a legitimate way to win. There's no "clear and obvious" sense in which this can be seen to be "circumventing the law" versus "working within the law". The law is what the law says. If you find people working within that wording in ways you don't like, and you have the power, you change the wording. If you don't have the power, who are you to say what the original lawmakers intended, especially insofar as they failed to express those intentions when they had a golden opportunity to express them very accurately? There is a reason that what you suggest isn't done. It opens the door to all kinds of post-hoc reinterpretations of "what the law really was supposed to say". It's basically a get-into-jail-free card for the judicial system.

    5. Re:Laws need to reflect game policies by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      Game companies do it because they depend on people playing the game stop make money, hence the need for a semblance of fairness.

      And societies based on the rule of law only work when people largely understand the rules to be fair and applicable to all. The "some animals are more equal than others" crap doesn't fly for long in a mature modern democracy.

      If you can be charged with breaking the intent how would you know what is legal? In the end a simple disagreement could cost you your job whether or not your position is correct.

      I think this is where we get into "clear and obvious". For example, if the law prohibits minors gambling at the horse track, but Little Johnny stands right there listing off bets to an adult who parrots those bets to the track employee taking bets, then hands the money for those bets to the adult who hands it to the track employee, the law is clearly and obviously being circumvented and the entire intent of the law undermined by a simple loophole. (this actually works by the way, did it for years as a teen) Is this a capital crime that needs huge resources dumped into it? No, but ignoring it breeds disrespect for the law.

      I agree there are plenty of cases where this would not be a preferable addition to the law due to its potentially chilling effect on normal, legal activities. So in those cases, don't enact this kind of provision. In fact, you could even apply this just to laws that specifically govern the actions of government entities and employees in the commission of their official duties. The point is to ensure that legal games don't undermine the protections built into the law for all citizens. In fact, I think legislators should be one of the prime targets of this kind of legislation; when they pass laws that clearly and obviously violate the rights of citizens, they should face stiff legal penalties up to and including prison.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    6. Re:Laws need to reflect game policies by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      Pretty much this. The only place where I could see such a catch-all work is to ensure that mandates given to government agencies are interpreted as narrow (or as explicitly) as possible. And even there, the same danger exists i.e. constant challenges of that mandate could cripple essential and legitimate government functions.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    7. Re: Laws need to reflect game policies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's really not needed. Laws gouverning people dictates what you cannot do while laws gouverning the authorities dictates what they can do. The latter is called a mandate.

      So there can be no loopholes for the authorities, they might claim that they do and the uninformed public might let them get by.

    8. Re:Laws need to reflect game policies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1

      For those that don't get what you're saying, let's hypothetically change the task to an assassination. The guy who fires the fatal shot, the guy who provides cover fire, the guy who's sitting in the van that drove them there, the team lead guy who co-ordinates them, the guy watching the situation from the 'control room', they guy relaying orders to the field team, the guy who authorised the operation, the guy who shuffled the paper to get the order into the right places, the guy who ordered it, and hopefully the guy who gave him the authority to order it in the first place all need to go to jail.

      In surveillance it's not quite so clear cut who is who, but they all need to go to jail - all the way up the chain. When the head of the security services, and the politician that he talks to go to jail, you know you've done it right. Until then, you've got more to do.

    9. Re:Laws need to reflect game policies by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      Define "loopholes in the wording".

      There isn't supposed to be any loopholes in the wording of a law. That is why you have a bunch of elected guys making and discussing the laws, voting for them, amending propositions, etc. A law with loopholes in the wording is a law that should not have been voted for in first place.

      If you cannot find a way to word the law to avoid loopholes a catch-all clause will not do good to it anyway.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    10. Re:Laws need to reflect game policies by Loki_1929 · · Score: 2

      I'll provide an example I gave in another post. If the law prohibits minors gambling at the horse track, but Little Johnny stands right there listing off bets to an adult who parrots those bets to the track employee taking bets, then hands the money for those bets to the adult who hands it to the track employee, the law is clearly and obviously being circumvented and the entire intent of the law undermined by a simple loophole. (this actually works by the way, did it for years as a teen) Is this a capital crime that needs huge resources dumped into it? No, but ignoring it breeds disrespect for the law.

      Perhaps another example. Let's assume there's a declaration requirement when entering the US which states that you have to declare when they're entering the US with cash in excess of $10,000 USD in value. Now let's say John Smith withdraws $50k from his bank, then flies to the US, where it's discovered that he, his wife, and each of his three young children each have $9,980 on their person. Then the law states that deposits in excess of $10,000 into US financial institutions must be reported, but John Smith fills out 5 separate deposit slips for $9,980 each. These are easy enough to cover in the legislation, you say. Sure, but there are 50 permutations of this you can come up with without getting creative. Then another 50 when you start thinking harder. Then another 100 when you involved a lawyer. And another 1,000 when you involve a creative lawyer. And in a week, you'll find another hundred ways to work around the letter of the law.

      The point is that while I agree poorly written legislation is a problem and one that should be addressed, no legislation can ever be written in such a way that its intent cannot be undermined by a motivated individual with an agenda. If we begin with the idea that the intent of the law is valid, just, and good policy, we must endeavor to do all we can to keep obvious circumvention attempts at bay. The idea that one can easily violate the spirit of the law by "rules lawyering" the words and letters within it is just absurd. It's how you end up with ridiculous things like "it depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

      Language is an imprecise means of conveying ideas. The intent of a law should be clearly defined and all attempts to violate that intent punishable in the same fashion. Anything less makes the whole thing a stupid game and the law ought to be above that.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    11. Re:Laws need to reflect game policies by ultranova · · Score: 2

      And societies based on the rule of law only work when people largely understand the rules to be fair and applicable to all. The "some animals are more equal than others" crap doesn't fly for long in a mature modern democracy.

      Except it does, all the time. Any society where you can hire a lawyer makes those who can afford better ones more equal than those who have to settle for public defenders. Any society where court can order you to pay damages or where cases can drag on for more than a day is even worse, since the rich can afford that while the poor can't. Nixon didn't sit a single day in jail, nor will the people behind this. And of course a lot of laws - such as copyright law, jaywalking laws, drug laws, etc. - are more or less ignored by the citizenry.

      Rule of law is a nice idea, but neither society, people nor the law itself are really up to the standards it requires.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    12. Re:Laws need to reflect game policies by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      I think this is where we get into "clear and obvious". For example, if the law prohibits minors gambling at the horse track, but Little Johnny stands right there listing off bets to an adult who parrots those bets to the track employee taking bets, then hands the money for those bets to the adult who hands it to the track employee, the law is clearly and obviously being circumvented and the entire intent of the law undermined by a simple loophole. (this actually works by the way, did it for years as a teen) Is this a capital crime that needs huge resources dumped into it? No, but ignoring it breeds disrespect for the law.

      Many laws in the US already have this provision, for example buying cigarettes or alcohol for minors is against the law; and so in many clear and obvious situations the law already addresses them. The problem is what is "clear and obvious?" You open the door for situations where someone does something perfectly legal but because some one else doesn't like it they wind up being charged with a crime; and it could wind up limiting you from doing something perfectly legal in another jurisdiction but "clearly and obviously" against the law in another. For example, abortion laws vary state to state and what is perfectly legal in one isn't in another. So if person A leaves Jurisdiction X to go to Y and gets a procedure that is legal in Y but not in X can they be tried under the "clear and obvious" rule in X once they return since they clearly broke X's law. Granted, that is an extreme example but could hold for less inflammatory issues as well.

      I agree there are plenty of cases where this would not be a preferable addition to the law due to its potentially chilling effect on normal, legal activities. So in those cases, don't enact this kind of provision. In fact, you could even apply this just to laws that specifically govern the actions of government entities and employees in the commission of their official duties. The point is to ensure that legal games don't undermine the protections built into the law for all citizens. In fact, I think legislators should be one of the prime targets of this kind of legislation; when they pass laws that clearly and obviously violate the rights of citizens, they should face stiff legal penalties up to and including prison.

      The problem with that is what one constituency considers violating their rights is perfectly acceptable to another; there would be no reasonable way to enforce such a law. The only possible way would be for the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality and then go after individual legislators; a situation I would find to be a cure worse than the disease.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    13. Re:Laws need to reflect game policies by Tom · · Score: 1

      Legislatures could learn a lesson from this.

      omg, please no!

      I say that as someone who's running two games somewhat similar to the one advertised in your .sig and having similar rules in place, but also as someone having real-life experience with the law.

      In a game, the environment is very different. Everyone has at least one shared goal (playing the game), and a benevolent dictator has the meta-goal of keeping the game running for everyone. These assumptions are not valid in real life. A catch-all law would be exploitable and lead to tyranny.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    14. Re:Laws need to reflect game policies by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I'd add that all low enforcement agencies and intelligence services should be required to publish their justification for all behaviour, so that the public can review and debate it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re:Laws need to reflect game policies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, this is a really, really dumb idea. Your basic argument seems to be, "It's impossible to write clear laws." This isn't true. Legislators have aides and lawyers on staff and many are even lawyers themselves. Their job is to make clear laws. Saying "you know what I mean!" is a cop-out.

      Yeah there are cases where a law is poorly written. People make mistakes. The fix is to fix the mistakes, not to say "all loopholes are illegal", without defining loopholes.

      Such a provision would likely be void for vagueness anyway. It's unconstitutional to pass a law without specifying what is being made illegal.

    16. Re:Laws need to reflect game policies by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Your loopholes don't have any loopholes in them. The gambling one, any normal anti-child-gambling law will cover that already. The kid is originating the bet, and no new provision is needed there. The fact that you did the crime and nobody at the track cared has nothing to do with what the law says, or what is legal. Also, the adult who helped you was probably acting as an illegal bookie. That's the thing; you may in fact have hit a situation without a loophole, but where you shifted the risk from the track, to the adult helping you. It is still illegal and in the same way.

      In the second example, it is illegal in the US to "structure" deposits to avoid the $10k reporting requirement. Lots of people go to jail for that. Some had even been following advice from their banker, which isn't a valid excuse. There are not 100 ways around this law, there are not any ways around this law. There are probably ways to avoid getting caught, but if you admit your actual behavior you will go to jail. There is no magic formula you can call out, "alakazam - loophole open!" And if there was, it would still be illegal structuring. The law goes after all deposit structuring to avoid reporting, it does not, and does not need to, list out the fine details of each of your 1000 "creative" techniques. They aren't creative and won't create anything.

      Just because motivated jerks can "undermine" legislation doesn't mean the world is filled with the loopholes you imagine, or that the actual things that are illegal are as fuzzy as you think.

    17. Re:Laws need to reflect game policies by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is that one of his examples has just such a general provision; the courts say it is not vague, and that it does specify what is illegal.

      It is actually somewhat controversial and if you read legal blogs you'll see lawyers writing about it all the time. Accountants write about it too. There are lots of people who got hit with this law who have supporters who say they got swept up in felony enforcement merely for having bad judgement and being ignorant, or for following the advice of their bank teller. The prosecutors and the courts consistently say no, they intended to avoid tax reporting and some people just don't consider that to be as important as the law tells them it is.

      The courts don't mind these types of provisions, because they do in fact clearly state what is illegal, and define it. The danger with these laws is that prosecutors have a more difficult time getting a conviction because it is all about intent, and the intent can be difficult to prove. When there are more physical parts of the law for people to violate, then the prosecutors have an easier time; they only have to prove that you intended to do a physical thing, which is proven by showing that you did it, and were under your own control. Something like structuring, they have to prove that you intended to avoid the requirement; for example if they can prove that your business had $12k in cash to safe-keep, and you deposited $9k in the bank and $3k in the company safe, and then you deposited the money in the safe at a different time, and you repeated this pattern. Some real cases are even thinner than that. Certainly at least some of the people doing this were only trying to minimize paperwork and were not in fact intending to avoid paying their taxes, which is the source of the controversy about it. But from the side of the courts, there is no actual controversy.

  6. NSA Shame by messi101 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    A shame NSA is so determined to use the technology it has at its disposal to breach our privacy both personal and professional, wondering what they want to do with all that droves and droves of information they been collecting over the years, all in the name of National Security.

    1. Re:NSA Shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's nice you have an opinion about the NSA, but this story is about the German intelligence service (the BND) spying on people.

      What do they do with the information? Things like this. Hopefully that doesn't trouble you too much.

    2. Re:NSA Shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two wrongs don't make a right. NSA are doing it, UK is doing it, Germany is doing it. I guess if you reakky want privacy you have to press the off button on your electronic devices.

    3. Re:NSA Shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you think bomb makers planning to bomb the trains and planes should have privacy to prepare their attacks?

    4. Re:NSA Shame by Required+Snark · · Score: 1
      It's simple: quantity over quality. And because they can. Beyond that, if they can get funding, they (NSA/BND/etc) will do it, because spying is what they do. They need no other reason.

      Of course the practical result is that they spend so many resources spying on the masses that they are incapable of doing anything else well. For example, they have the meta data on a large percentage of all the phone calls in the world, but they were caught flat footed by the rise of ISIS in Syria. If they spent 1/100 of the time and money wasted on tapping everyone's phone on doing the hard human intelligence in places like Syria, the world would be a better place.

      So ultimately we are all demonstrably less safe because of the huge time and attention sinkhole of mass surveillance. Not to mention the cost and threat to democracy. All you need is know the history of the FBI to realize that illegal spying on civilians will inevitability lead to abuse of that information. We'll find out about the current abuses in 20-30 years, after the bad actors have retired or died, and it's too late to do anything for the victims. For example, the full text of the letter from the FBI to MLK trying to get him to commit suicide was just released a month or so ago.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    5. Re:NSA Shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, they should have the same privacy as everyone else because plans in themselves are harmless, only the act of bombing is harmful, and the law should cover acts and not plans. Planning to bomb things is a necessary liberty that fiction writers absolutely need to be able to write fiction about bombing things without fear of reprisal for pursuing their art.

    6. Re:NSA Shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Good fiction" isn't the goal of privacy, nor freedom from censorship.

  7. excuse me, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    how the hell does FIVE COUNTRIES tap the phone of a head of government of a 'western' country? holy fuck. something is seriously messed up in this world.

  8. You want to know why this is happening?.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    During the 1940s-1980s, all the West ran large intelligence services during the Cold War. The jobs were nice and comfortable, the budget was assured, and it was a good career. Working in its own little bubble, no one told the intelligence services what to do.

    Then the Berlin Wall came down. And by about 1995, we had a different world, with no obvious place for the spies. They were frantic for a new job, and started pushing to do organised crime, drugs, etc.

    Then came 9/11, and a whole new set of jobs for them in the Middle East. Which is why we now keep the ME in constant turmoil.

    Really, the West should have closed down the 'extra-judicial' intelligence services that they ran during WW2 by about 1980 when the Cold War ended. There may still be a need for criminal and anti-terrorist intelligence - but it should be done by the police under a legislative framework. The whole point about secret intelligence and secret agent work is that it is extra-judicial BECAUSE YOUR COUNTRY IS AT RISK. That means that if you are likely to be invaded, it's worth throwing away legal restraints. But NOT otherwise. A bomb in an aircraft or a train? That's a criminal act - call the police. And give them the appropriate resources, under law.

    But we didn't. We kept the extra-judicial staff on. And they are, unsurprisingly, looking for work to justify their jobs....

  9. Deutschland Uber Alles! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit
    Für das deutsche Vaterland!
    Danach lasst uns alle streben
    Brüderlich mit Herz und Hand!
    Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit
    Sind des Glückes Unterpfand;
    Blüh' im Glanze dieses Glückes,
    Blühe, deutsches Vaterland!

    Deutschland Uber Alles

  10. Tapping Angela by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everybody wants to tap Angela!
    Perhaps BND could do some collaboration with the officials doing internal security, such as protecting tappable assets of the Chancellor, to at least to give an impression of doing their job in protecting the security of the nation.

  11. Merkels phone disinformation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Besides the U.S. National Security Agency, Merkel's phone was monitored by the British, Russian, Chinese and North Korean surveillance agencies, weekly news magazine Focus reported, citing an unnamed German security official."

    You can see they're trying to put out the "everyones doing it" line, but if the Russian, Chinese, and North Koreans had her phone hacked that would be odd, because the network kit is American, and we have confirmation NSA was doing the spying, yet America is not mentioned in the list.

    More likely they put out disinformation to cover for their own acts. Note that this revelation means the Germans were likely spying on Merkels phone and other politicians phones, using the "Office holders" loophole.

  12. phones by Tom · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unfortunately, our government (I'm german) is full of irresponsible, power-greedy fools. Local television has highlighted some of these problems repeatedly (like ministers who, not in 1970 but in the 200s need to decide about Internet regulations but don't even know what a browser is). Unfortunately, one of the things that changed compared to, say, 30-40 years ago is that they've replaced the state-paid experts in the ministries with lobbyists ^H^H^H "external advisors", who are not only experts in their fields (good), but also paid for by private corporations. That's right, the people advising our government get their salary not from the government, but from corporations.

    I don't know if stupidity is a sufficient explanation, but our ministers including Merkel actually had encrypted mobiled phones offered to them by a special branch of the government responsible for securing the state IT infrastructure. They turned them down because it was more convenient to use market smartphones.

    Personally, I think that act alone should be suffient to bring them all up for trial on aiding and abetting treason.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not alone in Germany, my friend. Point for point, everything you say could apply to the USA. Except possibly the mobile phones.

    2. Re:phones by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Sounds like your government has finally joined the ranks of other proper 1st world governments like that of my country's.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    3. Re:phones by Aighearach · · Score: 0

      As a foreigner I'd have hoped you'd be more offended by the faux-surprise at NSA spying, and the big whoopdy-whoop they made about it, when it wasn't news to them and they were doing it too.

      You seem bothered by the technical incompetence without being bother by the lying about who the enemy is, even creating a fake enemy that in reality is a friend (USA), in order to hide what they themselves were doing.

      If this is the common German attitude, then I think we can expect the German government to stay the same but get better at feeding you BS.

    4. Re:phones by Tom · · Score: 1

      You seem bothered by the technical incompetence without being bother by the lying about who the enemy is, even creating a fake enemy that in reality is a friend (USA), in order to hide what they themselves were doing.

      The fact that I didn't write about something shouldn't lead you to conclusions about my opinion on the matter.

      But frankly speaking, I'd rather have competent liars than incompetent idiots in charge of my country. For the former, you only need to be sure their interests align sufficiently with yours. For the later, you can never feel safe.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  13. excuse me, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yeah, think about it for a second. You, me, and whole of slashdot would have guessed the phone is tapped. You really think the germans didn't know this? Sometimes it's a great idea to know or assume things like that, and then just let them be. If Merkel knows her phone is being listed she can use it for her advantage.

  14. Complacency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What I find suprising is the resigned acceptance of mass surveilliance. Some folks have taken to playing with semantics, but that's a mockery of good faith.

    What will it take to get more folks out on the street. It's increasingly looking like nearly nothing, too many folks in self annointed 'flagship democracies' seem to be too comfortable and ensconed to bother, unless it affects their own individual material lives or sense of well being. As long as democratic values, freedom and the parapenelia or the lack of it does not affect material day to day life, most people it seems will be tempted to make excuses, diminish and dismiss their importance.

    Today if I asked you if genocide is acceptable or any circumstances where it may be acceptable will get absolute responses. Yesterday if I asked you mass survelliance is acceptable it would be the exact same response. Curiously today there are now nuances, semantics, goal posts being moved, justifications, pointing to China and Russia as if they were the benchmarks loudly proclaiming democratic values and the moral high ground introduced into an absolute position.

    Societies are very good at making excuses for themselves and rushing to demonize others, and the capacity for reflection and self awareness is altogether dimished or non existant, and since the western media controls a lot of the narrative its interesting to watch it nearly live as the narrative shifts and loudly proclaimed values are rendered meaningless.

  15. What A... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Twist!

    Other governments spying on their citizens? No way! It's all the boogeymans fault aka NSA