5 ms·

German parliament votes for new data retention law

81 points by _jomo 11y ago

mpweiher 11y ago
Future news: German constitutional court/European court nixes German data retention law. Text of the ruling: "Didn't you hear us last time?"
- detaro 11y ago
  Someone probably spent a lot of effort to slightly modify it so that the arguments used don't apply exactly anymore, but I sure hope that's the result.
  - _jomo 11y ago
    IIRC the ruling said that storing of all data without any reason is illegal. The obvious solution: Store nearly all data without any reason.
    - mpweiher 11y ago
      Fortunately, the constitutional court has not been very kind to that sort of "language-lawyering", despite being full of lawyers.
- Tepix 11y ago
  This law is a disgrace for the german government, especially for those politicians that were caught reversing their stance on this. Once again, the constitutional court is the only hope. However, even without data retention laws in place, mobile carriers were already keeping records for months (violating data protection laws that call for minimal data retention) for "accounting purposes" even for customers that pay a flat fee. The german "Datenschutzbeauftragte" have some work to do.
detaro 11y ago
Here's the individual votes: https://www.bundestag.de/bundestag/plenum/abstimmung/grafik https://www.bundestag.de/bundestag/plenum/abstimmung/grafik About what you'd expect sadly. And of course quite a few didn't bother to vote.
- pluma 11y ago
  Wer hat uns verraten? ... Well, the CDU primarily but that was to be expected. The SPD certainly tries to eliminate the "S" from its name, though.
  - detaro 11y ago
    And quite a few absentees in the opposition. Not that it really matters, but still...
    - pgeorgi 11y ago
      That may be due to the pairing agreements, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_(parliamentary_convention) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_(parliamentary_convention... They generally benefit the smaller parties more than the larger (since any missing member has a larger impact there), so it's in their interest to uphold these agreements.
      - DasIch 11y ago
        Afaik the Bundestag doesn't do pairing on controversial laws, such as this one, that get voted on using named voting.
        detaro 11y ago
        I mostly noticed because there were less people than for yesterdays (also very important and controversial) votes.
daveid 11y ago
Campaign to challenge the law: https://aktion.digitalcourage.de/civicrm/petition/sign?sid=2&reset=1 https://aktion.digitalcourage.de/civicrm/petition/sign?sid=2...
ousta 11y ago
germany: making people enter its country without any control of who they are and if they are what they pretend and then voting a law to restrain the liberties of their own people on the purpose of watching the people they let in to prevent terrorism. seems legit. enjoy german people
- madez 11y ago
  Yeah, we all see that the german security concept doesn't work. France, Britain and the USA are much safer and have a lot less problems with terrorism. I really wish Germany were more like them.
  - ionised 11y ago
    Jesus, I certainly don't.
  - svckr 11y ago
    /s :) Can't they just siphon the data they believe they need into their own little silos before it gets scrapped? Oh right, probable cause and all that…
  - pluma 11y ago
    Luckily various foreign intelligence services have free rein in Germany thanks to post-WW2 agreements. So it's not like our intelligence services would have much to do. Gives them more time to turn a blind eye to neo-nazis and stalk left-wing "suspects", I guess.
- geff82 11y ago
  Great comment :) so true.
- morsch 11y ago
  There is very little reason to be scared of refugees coming here under a false identity. If somebody wants to enter Schengen to commit a terrorist act, they'll find ways that are easier and safer than under the guise of an asylum seeker. Of course, there is little reason to be scared of terrorism by anybody, anyway. The violence that occurs in the context of the refugee situation is, so far, almost exclusively caused by xenophobes -- the fact that this is not denounced as terrorism just shows what a useless label it is, as if we needed proof. The only reason why Germany wouldn't let people enter is because the Dublin II rules say otherwise, but rational people have known (and been saying) for years that the Dublin rules won't hold up -- rules that make any refugee situation mostly a problem of the relatively less-well-off (though, globally seen, still very rich) south-eastern EU periphery. Those countries have clearly proven to be unable to cope -- being overwhelmed, incompetence and maliciousness were all part of that --, and it would have been inhumanitarian and, frankly, impractical, to proceed with Dublin II. None of this has anything to do with data retention, of course. Though I suppose it is more consistent to combine a draconian data retention policy with a draconian refugee policy, as, to pick one example, the UK does.

81 points by _jomo 11y ago

Future news: German constitutional court/European court nixes German data retention law. Text of the ruling: "Didn't you hear us last time?"

detaro 11y ago
Someone probably spent a lot of effort to slightly modify it so that the arguments used don't apply exactly anymore, but I sure hope that's the result.
- _jomo 11y ago
  IIRC the ruling said that storing of all data without any reason is illegal. The obvious solution: Store nearly all data without any reason.
  - mpweiher 11y ago
    Fortunately, the constitutional court has not been very kind to that sort of "language-lawyering", despite being full of lawyers.
Tepix 11y ago
This law is a disgrace for the german government, especially for those politicians that were caught reversing their stance on this. Once again, the constitutional court is the only hope. However, even without data retention laws in place, mobile carriers were already keeping records for months (violating data protection laws that call for minimal data retention) for "accounting purposes" even for customers that pay a flat fee. The german "Datenschutzbeauftragte" have some work to do.

detaro 11y ago

Here's the individual votes: https://www.bundestag.de/bundestag/plenum/abstimmung/grafik https://www.bundestag.de/bundestag/plenum/abstimmung/grafik About what you'd expect sadly. And of course quite a few didn't bother to vote.

pluma 11y ago
Wer hat uns verraten? ... Well, the CDU primarily but that was to be expected. The SPD certainly tries to eliminate the "S" from its name, though.
- detaro 11y ago
  And quite a few absentees in the opposition. Not that it really matters, but still...
  - pgeorgi 11y ago
    That may be due to the pairing agreements, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_(parliamentary_convention) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_(parliamentary_convention... They generally benefit the smaller parties more than the larger (since any missing member has a larger impact there), so it's in their interest to uphold these agreements.
    - DasIch 11y ago
      Afaik the Bundestag doesn't do pairing on controversial laws, such as this one, that get voted on using named voting.
      - detaro 11y ago
        I mostly noticed because there were less people than for yesterdays (also very important and controversial) votes.

daveid 11y ago

Campaign to challenge the law: https://aktion.digitalcourage.de/civicrm/petition/sign?sid=2&reset=1 https://aktion.digitalcourage.de/civicrm/petition/sign?sid=2...

ousta 11y ago

germany: making people enter its country without any control of who they are and if they are what they pretend and then voting a law to restrain the liberties of their own people on the purpose of watching the people they let in to prevent terrorism. seems legit. enjoy german people

madez 11y ago
Yeah, we all see that the german security concept doesn't work. France, Britain and the USA are much safer and have a lot less problems with terrorism. I really wish Germany were more like them.
- ionised 11y ago
  Jesus, I certainly don't.
- svckr 11y ago
  /s :) Can't they just siphon the data they believe they need into their own little silos before it gets scrapped? Oh right, probable cause and all that…
- pluma 11y ago
  Luckily various foreign intelligence services have free rein in Germany thanks to post-WW2 agreements. So it's not like our intelligence services would have much to do. Gives them more time to turn a blind eye to neo-nazis and stalk left-wing "suspects", I guess.
geff82 11y ago
Great comment :) so true.
morsch 11y ago
There is very little reason to be scared of refugees coming here under a false identity. If somebody wants to enter Schengen to commit a terrorist act, they'll find ways that are easier and safer than under the guise of an asylum seeker. Of course, there is little reason to be scared of terrorism by anybody, anyway. The violence that occurs in the context of the refugee situation is, so far, almost exclusively caused by xenophobes -- the fact that this is not denounced as terrorism just shows what a useless label it is, as if we needed proof. The only reason why Germany wouldn't let people enter is because the Dublin II rules say otherwise, but rational people have known (and been saying) for years that the Dublin rules won't hold up -- rules that make any refugee situation mostly a problem of the relatively less-well-off (though, globally seen, still very rich) south-eastern EU periphery. Those countries have clearly proven to be unable to cope -- being overwhelmed, incompetence and maliciousness were all part of that --, and it would have been inhumanitarian and, frankly, impractical, to proceed with Dublin II. None of this has anything to do with data retention, of course. Though I suppose it is more consistent to combine a draconian data retention policy with a draconian refugee policy, as, to pick one example, the UK does.