5 ms·

Funny, considering that the job of the BND is collecting information from foreign countries.

by k__ 6y ago

nwellnhof 6y ago
The headline is misleading. The court only ruled blanket internet surveillance illegal.
- dgellow 6y ago
  Yes, I considered submitting the link with a better title than the article’s one. Though I wasn’t sure if that would be or not against the rules. Maybe dang can update it with something more to the point.
  - pyuser583 6y ago
    It’s allowed to change misleading titles.
  - floatingatoll 6y ago
    That's permitted by the rules if you think that the alteration is justified. If you're worried about being censured, you can include a comment on your new post "The original title was XYZ I altered it because reasoning ABC", so that if the mods are looking at it later, they understand your reasoning and can offer you a followup reply.
Krasnol 6y ago
Consider that Deutsche Welle is a media outlet controlled and funded by the Government and therefore not really a good source for such news. They did not forbid the BND to spy on foreigners. They can still do this, however the current regulation does not protect journalists for example. In the current case it would have been possible for a rogue Government to request BND data on journalists from their country and prosecute them. This goes against fundamental German laws and the new BND regulation needs to take this into account. The new BND regulation also needs to clearly outline why they spy or why they share data with foreign agencies. There will also be a new oversight/control body with it's own budget and personal. Up until now, they were able to do pretty much whatever they wanted as long as it didn't concern Germans and even that was not really working since they were collecting bulk data at internet exchange points for example.
- dgellow 6y ago
  Regarding DW being controlled by the government, could you clarify what you mean, and do you have sources? Because the german government isn’t one single entity, and that’s what the Wikipedia article says > While funded by the German government, the work of DW is regulated by the Deutsche Welle Act,[5] meaning that content is intended to be independent of government influence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Welle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Welle
  - Krasnol 6y ago
    I'm sorry, I didn't want to imply that it's like Russia Today or similar. § 26 of the Act kinda forbids that and the work they do is usually superb and important. Especially in countries that lack democratic media. There is however a difference and you can see it on articles as the one above. I'm sure no journalist was pushed to release this article in this way but this is what happens when you're funded by the current Government and have to report something they won't like. You just leave out certain information here and there and with that you change the overall tone of the information. This is the article by the main news outlet of the normal German public service on the same topic: https://translate.google.de/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tagesschau.de%2Finland%2Fbnd-gesetz-109.html https://translate.google.de/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=ht... PS: German Government means the "Federal Government or the "Cabinet of Germany": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_Germany
close04 6y ago
> monitoring telecommunications anywhere in the world, regardless of suspicion. The decision targets the "without suspicion" part.
- elliekelly 6y ago
  So Germany is protecting my online privacy and requiring more due process for the German government to spy on me than my own PATRIOT Act wielding government. Despite Germany owing me, an American, absolutely nothing. Think about that for a second. The German government confers more privacy rights on foreigners with no connection to their country whatsoever than the American government is even willing to extend to citizens.
  - hannob 6y ago
    > The German government confers more privacy rights on foreigners with no connection to their country whatsoever than the American government is even willing to extend to citizens You misinterpreted that quite a lot. It's more or less the opposite. Actually the German government created a law that allowed this kind of surveillance. The highest court just killed that law and this is what this news is about.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - elliekelly 6y ago
      I think we just have different understanding of what “government” means. I consider the judiciary an equal part of the government the same as the legislature and the executive. From your comment it seems you only consider “government” to mean the legislative branch.
      - Tomte 6y ago
        That's a common source of misunderstanding between Americans and Germans. We Germans usually only call the cabinet ministers and the chancellor (the executive branch – not the legislative branch!) "government", and depending on the issue, also the civil service. You call the whole "state thing" "government".
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

Funny, considering that the job of the BND is collecting information from foreign countries.

by k__ 6y ago

Funny, considering that the job of the BND is collecting information from foreign countries.

nwellnhof 6y ago

The headline is misleading. The court only ruled blanket internet surveillance illegal.

dgellow 6y ago
Yes, I considered submitting the link with a better title than the article’s one. Though I wasn’t sure if that would be or not against the rules. Maybe dang can update it with something more to the point.
- pyuser583 6y ago
  It’s allowed to change misleading titles.
- floatingatoll 6y ago
  That's permitted by the rules if you think that the alteration is justified. If you're worried about being censured, you can include a comment on your new post "The original title was XYZ I altered it because reasoning ABC", so that if the mods are looking at it later, they understand your reasoning and can offer you a followup reply.

Krasnol 6y ago

Consider that Deutsche Welle is a media outlet controlled and funded by the Government and therefore not really a good source for such news. They did not forbid the BND to spy on foreigners. They can still do this, however the current regulation does not protect journalists for example. In the current case it would have been possible for a rogue Government to request BND data on journalists from their country and prosecute them. This goes against fundamental German laws and the new BND regulation needs to take this into account. The new BND regulation also needs to clearly outline why they spy or why they share data with foreign agencies. There will also be a new oversight/control body with it's own budget and personal. Up until now, they were able to do pretty much whatever they wanted as long as it didn't concern Germans and even that was not really working since they were collecting bulk data at internet exchange points for example.

dgellow 6y ago
Regarding DW being controlled by the government, could you clarify what you mean, and do you have sources? Because the german government isn’t one single entity, and that’s what the Wikipedia article says > While funded by the German government, the work of DW is regulated by the Deutsche Welle Act,[5] meaning that content is intended to be independent of government influence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Welle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Welle
- Krasnol 6y ago
  I'm sorry, I didn't want to imply that it's like Russia Today or similar. § 26 of the Act kinda forbids that and the work they do is usually superb and important. Especially in countries that lack democratic media. There is however a difference and you can see it on articles as the one above. I'm sure no journalist was pushed to release this article in this way but this is what happens when you're funded by the current Government and have to report something they won't like. You just leave out certain information here and there and with that you change the overall tone of the information. This is the article by the main news outlet of the normal German public service on the same topic: https://translate.google.de/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tagesschau.de%2Finland%2Fbnd-gesetz-109.html https://translate.google.de/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=ht... PS: German Government means the "Federal Government or the "Cabinet of Germany": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_Germany

close04 6y ago

> monitoring telecommunications anywhere in the world, regardless of suspicion. The decision targets the "without suspicion" part.

elliekelly 6y ago
So Germany is protecting my online privacy and requiring more due process for the German government to spy on me than my own PATRIOT Act wielding government. Despite Germany owing me, an American, absolutely nothing. Think about that for a second. The German government confers more privacy rights on foreigners with no connection to their country whatsoever than the American government is even willing to extend to citizens.
- hannob 6y ago
  > The German government confers more privacy rights on foreigners with no connection to their country whatsoever than the American government is even willing to extend to citizens You misinterpreted that quite a lot. It's more or less the opposite. Actually the German government created a law that allowed this kind of surveillance. The highest court just killed that law and this is what this news is about.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - elliekelly 6y ago
    I think we just have different understanding of what “government” means. I consider the judiciary an equal part of the government the same as the legislature and the executive. From your comment it seems you only consider “government” to mean the legislative branch.
    - Tomte 6y ago
      That's a common source of misunderstanding between Americans and Germans. We Germans usually only call the cabinet ministers and the chancellor (the executive branch – not the legislative branch!) "government", and depending on the issue, also the civil service. You call the whole "state thing" "government".

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]