3 ms·

Your post is painful to read. Masses of unfounded FUD. > security services, who have very few restrictions on what they are allowed to do with this data. This

Your post is painful to read. Masses of unfounded FUD. > security services, who have very few restrictions on what they are allowed to do with this data. This is especially true in the country the author appears to be based (Germany). The author appears to be from Switzerland, and it's not clear at all why "security services" (who?) in Germany "especially" have few restrictions.

tialaramex 7y ago
Laws restricting what the government and private entities can do with data almost invariably (e.g. the GDPR) just have a blanket exception for security services. Very long term we might trend away from that, just as eventually countries which had outlawed capital punishment "except in times of war" realised they had no intention of doing it in a war either so many of them began removing that caveat. But today this is the case with every such restriction I've seen, it either says in the law itself that it doesn't apply to security services or there's a superseding law that says the security services needn't obey the data protection rules.
diffeomorphism 7y ago
The usual list of security services, BND etc., not sure why adding lists of acronyms is important to you, when "security services" captures the meaning quite well. > "especially" That refers to news and new laws in recent years, which extended their surveillance capabilities. Also, it is relevant because Germany both has relative strong data protection against non-state actors, but also quite capable intelligence agencies. That said, I think arguing about state actors is the wrong threat model for this discussion.
- tannhaeuser 7y ago
  > I think arguing about state actors is the wrong threat model for this discussion My post was just a rebuttal to GP's framing the discussion around vague accusations towards state actors. > security services captures the meaning quite well It really doesn't. The various secret services (internal, external, military) are reporting to parliament (not the whole of it, just a close circle/committee nevertheless having received trust by being elected), and their heads are nominated by the government. It's of course entirely within your right to criticize their existence or operations, but yielding power to private monopolies based in another country without any public control whatsover and potential ties to foreign secret services (we don't really know) can't possibly solve whatever problem you're on to, and shouldn't be justified on such vague arguments.

tialaramex 7y ago

Laws restricting what the government and private entities can do with data almost invariably (e.g. the GDPR) just have a blanket exception for security services. Very long term we might trend away from that, just as eventually countries which had outlawed capital punishment "except in times of war" realised they had no intention of doing it in a war either so many of them began removing that caveat. But today this is the case with every such restriction I've seen, it either says in the law itself that it doesn't apply to security services or there's a superseding law that says the security services needn't obey the data protection rules.

diffeomorphism 7y ago

The usual list of security services, BND etc., not sure why adding lists of acronyms is important to you, when "security services" captures the meaning quite well. > "especially" That refers to news and new laws in recent years, which extended their surveillance capabilities. Also, it is relevant because Germany both has relative strong data protection against non-state actors, but also quite capable intelligence agencies. That said, I think arguing about state actors is the wrong threat model for this discussion.

tannhaeuser 7y ago
> I think arguing about state actors is the wrong threat model for this discussion My post was just a rebuttal to GP's framing the discussion around vague accusations towards state actors. > security services captures the meaning quite well It really doesn't. The various secret services (internal, external, military) are reporting to parliament (not the whole of it, just a close circle/committee nevertheless having received trust by being elected), and their heads are nominated by the government. It's of course entirely within your right to criticize their existence or operations, but yielding power to private monopolies based in another country without any public control whatsover and potential ties to foreign secret services (we don't really know) can't possibly solve whatever problem you're on to, and shouldn't be justified on such vague arguments.