6 ms·

I think the main problem is that Germany does not have a constitutional equivalent to the U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Instead, each federal state an

I think the main problem is that Germany does not have a constitutional equivalent to the U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Instead, each federal state and the federal government have fragmented information access laws, often with broad exemptions for official secrecy. In many cases, even investigative journalists cannot obtain details about governance processes and decisions made behind closed doors. The government often cites strict data protection rules and uses them as a shield against disclosure. Another example: In Germany, you are generally not allowed to film law enforcement. If someone feels they have been treated "unfairly", good luck to prove that in court when two officers present a completely different version of events, especially since body cameras are very rare in germany.

jijijijij 1y ago
> I think the main problem is that Germany does not have a constitutional equivalent to the U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Instead, each federal state and the federal government have fragmented information access laws, often with broad exemptions for official secrecy. At first sight, I don't see how the FOIA is much different to the Informationsfreiheitsgesetz (freedom of information law). https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informationsfreiheitsgesetz https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informationsfreiheitsgesetz Isn't the FOIA also applied on the federal level? > In Germany, you are generally not allowed to film law enforcement I think this is misleading. It's not especially prohibited. Generally, law enforcement enjoys the same rights as everyone else, that is having a right to privacy and the confidentiality of the spoken, non-public word. You can't film law enforcement folks preemptively, or without cause, if they have the reasonable expectation of confidentiality of the spoken word. If law enforcement is breaking the law, you are allowed to collect video evidence. In any case, you are not allowed to publish non-public video recordings or pictures of anyone, taken without explicit, or implicit consent. Public or non-public here means the implied confidentiality of communication, not necessarily where it happened. Eg. talking on a public street doesn't make every conversation public. Mind you, in Germany, illegally obtained evidence isn't as easily dismissed as it is in the US. If you record the police without cause (illegally) and they happen to commit a crime, your recording isn't tainted evidence as far as I know, but rather you may (if indicted) face legal consequences yourself, independently. Again, publication is a completely different matter. Legality of video recordings is pretty much irrelevant, regarding the legal power dynamics you described, as the police could just confiscate your phone and find some excuse for destroying the evidence. Independent oversight seems more important to address this. On the other hand, I do think law enforcement should enjoy privacy, generally, as everyone else. I don't think, having a camera in your face with every interaction is helpful for anyone, all things considered, but would rather aid escalation and discourage leniency. Constant video surveillance just sucks, no matter who is doing the recording.
- randomtoast 1y ago
  You think that law enforcement should enjoy privacy in the course of their duty and in public, so I guess you are against body cameras then. Also you say that my information about filming law enforcement is misleading, but then you make a legal analysis and conclude that even when you consider all these facts, you can still be charged for illegally obtained evidence. For me, what you describe is very much the same as it is not allowed to film law enforcement by de facto.
  - jijijijij 1y ago
    > You think that law enforcement should enjoy privacy in the course of their duty and in public Yes, law enforcement officers should be allowed to have e.g. confidential conversations with each other. Just like you do (or should have) chatting with your work colleagues. > so I guess you are against body cameras then. I am conflicted, because I don't want to be filmed during police interactions, either. It really depends on the legal setup. If they are mandatory, encrypted, only readable with a court orders, always on, not fed into the general surveillance stream (AI shit, face recognition), reliable and tamper proof, I am in favor of them, I guess. That is, if they are useful to hold officers accountable, as well. Pretty utopic, tho. However, regarding the officers privacy they are fundamentally different than a right to film law enforcement without cause, in any "public" situation. > For me, what you describe is very much the same as it is not allowed to film law enforcement by de facto. Yes, but not because they are law enforcement. You can also be charged for illegally filming anyone else. Eg. dash cams as used around the world are also not legal in Germany. They have to be constructed to loop a short time interval and only retain the recording in case of an accident. You can't continuously record traffic or public life in Germany. Personally, I think it's quite awesome you got legal leverage against someone filming, or surveilling you against your will.
    - randomtoast 1y ago
      I get where you're coming from. The dashcam example is a good illustration. Body cameras work in a similar way, since they do not continuously save all footage but instead record in a loop and preserve material only when triggered by an incident. That makes sense, because it provides immediate video evidence of what has happened. I also agree that law enforcement should be able to hold confidential conversations. That is why body cameras come with an option to be switched off, giving officers discretion over when to record and when not to. The real problem, however, is that in Germany there is no legal foundation for filming in the other direction. If you believe an officer is misbehaving, you are generally not allowed to record the misconduct. Even if the device operates on a short loop and automatically deletes older footage, an officer can still legally instruct you to turn it off. That creates a significant issue. In the United States, it would be unthinkable for law enforcement to approach a journalist or cameraman in a public space and demand they stop filming.

jijijijij 1y ago

> I think the main problem is that Germany does not have a constitutional equivalent to the U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Instead, each federal state and the federal government have fragmented information access laws, often with broad exemptions for official secrecy. At first sight, I don't see how the FOIA is much different to the Informationsfreiheitsgesetz (freedom of information law). https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informationsfreiheitsgesetz https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informationsfreiheitsgesetz Isn't the FOIA also applied on the federal level? > In Germany, you are generally not allowed to film law enforcement I think this is misleading. It's not especially prohibited. Generally, law enforcement enjoys the same rights as everyone else, that is having a right to privacy and the confidentiality of the spoken, non-public word. You can't film law enforcement folks preemptively, or without cause, if they have the reasonable expectation of confidentiality of the spoken word. If law enforcement is breaking the law, you are allowed to collect video evidence. In any case, you are not allowed to publish non-public video recordings or pictures of anyone, taken without explicit, or implicit consent. Public or non-public here means the implied confidentiality of communication, not necessarily where it happened. Eg. talking on a public street doesn't make every conversation public. Mind you, in Germany, illegally obtained evidence isn't as easily dismissed as it is in the US. If you record the police without cause (illegally) and they happen to commit a crime, your recording isn't tainted evidence as far as I know, but rather you may (if indicted) face legal consequences yourself, independently. Again, publication is a completely different matter. Legality of video recordings is pretty much irrelevant, regarding the legal power dynamics you described, as the police could just confiscate your phone and find some excuse for destroying the evidence. Independent oversight seems more important to address this. On the other hand, I do think law enforcement should enjoy privacy, generally, as everyone else. I don't think, having a camera in your face with every interaction is helpful for anyone, all things considered, but would rather aid escalation and discourage leniency. Constant video surveillance just sucks, no matter who is doing the recording.

randomtoast 1y ago
You think that law enforcement should enjoy privacy in the course of their duty and in public, so I guess you are against body cameras then. Also you say that my information about filming law enforcement is misleading, but then you make a legal analysis and conclude that even when you consider all these facts, you can still be charged for illegally obtained evidence. For me, what you describe is very much the same as it is not allowed to film law enforcement by de facto.
- jijijijij 1y ago
  > You think that law enforcement should enjoy privacy in the course of their duty and in public Yes, law enforcement officers should be allowed to have e.g. confidential conversations with each other. Just like you do (or should have) chatting with your work colleagues. > so I guess you are against body cameras then. I am conflicted, because I don't want to be filmed during police interactions, either. It really depends on the legal setup. If they are mandatory, encrypted, only readable with a court orders, always on, not fed into the general surveillance stream (AI shit, face recognition), reliable and tamper proof, I am in favor of them, I guess. That is, if they are useful to hold officers accountable, as well. Pretty utopic, tho. However, regarding the officers privacy they are fundamentally different than a right to film law enforcement without cause, in any "public" situation. > For me, what you describe is very much the same as it is not allowed to film law enforcement by de facto. Yes, but not because they are law enforcement. You can also be charged for illegally filming anyone else. Eg. dash cams as used around the world are also not legal in Germany. They have to be constructed to loop a short time interval and only retain the recording in case of an accident. You can't continuously record traffic or public life in Germany. Personally, I think it's quite awesome you got legal leverage against someone filming, or surveilling you against your will.
  - randomtoast 1y ago
    I get where you're coming from. The dashcam example is a good illustration. Body cameras work in a similar way, since they do not continuously save all footage but instead record in a loop and preserve material only when triggered by an incident. That makes sense, because it provides immediate video evidence of what has happened. I also agree that law enforcement should be able to hold confidential conversations. That is why body cameras come with an option to be switched off, giving officers discretion over when to record and when not to. The real problem, however, is that in Germany there is no legal foundation for filming in the other direction. If you believe an officer is misbehaving, you are generally not allowed to record the misconduct. Even if the device operates on a short loop and automatically deletes older footage, an officer can still legally instruct you to turn it off. That creates a significant issue. In the United States, it would be unthinkable for law enforcement to approach a journalist or cameraman in a public space and demand they stop filming.