5 ms·

> 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".
      - distances 6y ago
        To chime in, this is exactly how "government" would be understood in Finland too -- it's a synonym to the cabinet.
  - close04 6y ago
    The key point is that German courts demanded that the country's laws be adjusted in order to respect the rights guaranteed by the German constitution even if the affected parties are foreigners on foreign land. This is even if Germans don't make it a habit to go around shouting that they have the constitutional rights to this or that. Other countries are not willing to extend that "privilege" to their own nationals on domestic soil.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  >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. And being German I'm proud of it. It's hard to make any rational case for why these rights which we take to be fundamental and vitally important ought to end at our borders.
  - mytailorisrich 6y ago
    The rational case is the very job and purpose of foreign intelligence services. There are right and laws that should apply to all, but realistically there is also the national interest, "Raison d'Etat". There obviously has to be a balance but if rights and laws are absolute and may never be breached or ignored then foreign intelligence services simply cease to exist, and it is highly naive to think that this would be fine.
    - dane-pgp 6y ago
      Is your position not analogous to saying "The point of an army is to kill people, therefore if Germany forbids its army from killing unarmed civilians then it might as well not have an army at all"? I don't believe you have such a view about armies, and I don't think that the German ruling is in danger of making their foreign intelligence services inoperable.
      - mytailorisrich 6y ago
        My position is clearly not what you suggest because we're discussing activities than fall within what foreign intelligence services do whereas this is clearly not the case in your contrived example.
        close04 6y ago
        If you're a regular citizen with no reason for suspicion, or just a journalist and still get spied on "just in case" then it's a violation of those rights. The constitution is there to ensure that people are considered an enemies that haven't been caught yet. Unless you have a concrete reason to suspect spying is needed, then it's not needed. And "may be a criminal therefore must be a criminal" is not such a reason. It's just like the Police shouldn't treat people like criminals who haven't given themselves away and search their cars and houses arbitrarily. The constitution should be there to actually defend those rights, not just so people have something to pound their chests about every day while being undermined by all kinds of laws and exceptions, making it selectively worthless.

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".
    - distances 6y ago
      To chime in, this is exactly how "government" would be understood in Finland too -- it's a synonym to the cabinet.
- close04 6y ago
  The key point is that German courts demanded that the country's laws be adjusted in order to respect the rights guaranteed by the German constitution even if the affected parties are foreigners on foreign land. This is even if Germans don't make it a habit to go around shouting that they have the constitutional rights to this or that. Other countries are not willing to extend that "privilege" to their own nationals on domestic soil.
Barrin92 6y ago
>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. And being German I'm proud of it. It's hard to make any rational case for why these rights which we take to be fundamental and vitally important ought to end at our borders.
- mytailorisrich 6y ago
  The rational case is the very job and purpose of foreign intelligence services. There are right and laws that should apply to all, but realistically there is also the national interest, "Raison d'Etat". There obviously has to be a balance but if rights and laws are absolute and may never be breached or ignored then foreign intelligence services simply cease to exist, and it is highly naive to think that this would be fine.
  - dane-pgp 6y ago
    Is your position not analogous to saying "The point of an army is to kill people, therefore if Germany forbids its army from killing unarmed civilians then it might as well not have an army at all"? I don't believe you have such a view about armies, and I don't think that the German ruling is in danger of making their foreign intelligence services inoperable.
    - mytailorisrich 6y ago
      My position is clearly not what you suggest because we're discussing activities than fall within what foreign intelligence services do whereas this is clearly not the case in your contrived example.
      - close04 6y ago
        If you're a regular citizen with no reason for suspicion, or just a journalist and still get spied on "just in case" then it's a violation of those rights. The constitution is there to ensure that people are considered an enemies that haven't been caught yet. Unless you have a concrete reason to suspect spying is needed, then it's not needed. And "may be a criminal therefore must be a criminal" is not such a reason. It's just like the Police shouldn't treat people like criminals who haven't given themselves away and search their cars and houses arbitrarily. The constitution should be there to actually defend those rights, not just so people have something to pound their chests about every day while being undermined by all kinds of laws and exceptions, making it selectively worthless.