4 ms·

As the Berlin Wall fell, the last thing the Stasi did was start shredding. That shredding only stopped when a mob physically seized control of the buildings it

by jlgreco 13y ago

As the Berlin Wall fell, the last thing the Stasi did was start shredding. That shredding only stopped when a mob physically seized control of the buildings it was taking place in. The slower you take down a surveillance state, the more time they have to destroy the evidence of their wrong-doing. I don't know how you can prevent that. With any luck we can dismantle them, but we will have to cope with the possibility that after the dismantling is complete, the evidence that the dismantling was warranted will be long gone.

jacquesm 13y ago
Give them time to shred! After all, who is to say what the finders of the data will eventually end up doing with it. Those documents are proof of wrongdoing, but they are also a source of possible future wrongdoing.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  I absolutely understand where you are coming from. However I think it is necessary we preserve those records, as the Federal Commissioner for the Stasi Archives does, so that crime committed by the surveillance system and its members can be investigated (being able to prosecute individuals like Erich Mielke is essential to allow the population to regain trust in their new government), and the people should be allowed access to their own files so they can have insight into the full extent of widespread untargeted surveillance. You could consider such a preservation to be a shameful monument to what we became. It would be a lighthouse on the rocks, looking over the wreckage of countless ships, warning us to stay away.
  - aeturnum 13y ago
    I agree that any information left over from a totalitarian regime should be preserved and available to the interested parties. There's a great deal of value in preserving the shameful events of the past. That being said, if I had to choose between stopping "shredding" (or whatever form the digital equivalent takes) and life / freedom / order / etc, I think I'd let them shred. We want those records, but they're among the least of many goals.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      I completely understand. This is actually something that I have 'waffled' on several times. What is putting me on the side of preservation right now is the hope that with preservation, future generations will benefit, but shredding the document would only help the existing victims. People living in Germany have something concrete to show their children when they teach them about the value of privacy. With that, hopefully the "anti-surveillance immunization" will span generations.
  - Gormo 13y ago
    I think it's far more important to destroy the resources and apparatus that enables totalitarianism than to punish the people who participated in a previous police state after it's already collapsed. After the DDR fell, Mielke wasn't going to be operating the Stasi any longer. Going after people like him might bring some emotional closure to people persecuted under the regime, but if the regime is gone, that's all it can do: there's no argument for deterrence. If a new police state emerges, it's not likely to be administered by the same individuals who ran the old one. Keeping the resources used by the old police state on hand, and acting to cultivate public trust in the new government seems like a combination to be wary of. The corruptability of human institutions demonstrated by the existence of previous police states should caution us against putting excessive trust in any institutions.
Create 13y ago
CIA agents acquired the records after the 1989 fall of the Berlin Wall http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/703303.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/703303.stm
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Yes, it was obviously a very chaotic situation, it doesn't surprise me that the CIA got their beak wet. Whether the mission of the Federal Commissioner for the Stasi Archives was to destroy or preserve the records probably makes little difference in this case, those records were seemingly stolen before a policy towards the records was decided upon.
  - jacquesm 13y ago
    I don't want the CIA to have this data anymore than I wanted the stasi to have it. Incidentally, I'm in there (for several reasons).
giardini 13y ago
Why would they shred the information? They (the ubiquitous "they", meaning "someone with access") are much more likely to "take it with them" to some other organization or for private/personal use. The data is too valuable (to someone) to shred even years after collection.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  The Stasi shredded it because they knew it was incriminating and, realistically, there was no way to smuggle out a copy or hide it. They were under siege (literally). The organization was finished and they knew it. Perhaps digital records will be easier for enterprising individuals to smuggle out or hide, but even if that happens it seems likely that an effort will once again be made to keep the data out of the hands of the public. When a spy agency is in its death throes, that data stops being valuable and becomes a liability to the surviving individuals that will no longer enjoy the protection of the agency. It becomes evidence. During the chaotic storming of the Stasi headquarters, there were incidents of Stasi officers hiding among the crowds so that they could destroy even more documents even as the public seized them. The headquarters were being sacked, there was really no remaining chain of command that could realistically make them do that, but they did anyway. Maybe Nicolae Ceaușescu, executed less than three weeks earlier, was in the back of their minds.
enraged_camel 13y ago
Shredding paper documents takes time. Deleting electronic records is almost instantaneous. I would say that we don't have much chance in terms of preventing it from happening.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Deleting electronic records is particularly instantaneous if they were stored with that eventuality in mind. I hope they weren't. I hope they have extensive unencrypted cold backups. I am probably being very naive to think that we stand a chance though.

by jlgreco 13y ago

jacquesm 13y ago

Give them time to shred! After all, who is to say what the finders of the data will eventually end up doing with it. Those documents are proof of wrongdoing, but they are also a source of possible future wrongdoing.

jlgreco 13y ago
I absolutely understand where you are coming from. However I think it is necessary we preserve those records, as the Federal Commissioner for the Stasi Archives does, so that crime committed by the surveillance system and its members can be investigated (being able to prosecute individuals like Erich Mielke is essential to allow the population to regain trust in their new government), and the people should be allowed access to their own files so they can have insight into the full extent of widespread untargeted surveillance. You could consider such a preservation to be a shameful monument to what we became. It would be a lighthouse on the rocks, looking over the wreckage of countless ships, warning us to stay away.
- aeturnum 13y ago
  I agree that any information left over from a totalitarian regime should be preserved and available to the interested parties. There's a great deal of value in preserving the shameful events of the past. That being said, if I had to choose between stopping "shredding" (or whatever form the digital equivalent takes) and life / freedom / order / etc, I think I'd let them shred. We want those records, but they're among the least of many goals.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    I completely understand. This is actually something that I have 'waffled' on several times. What is putting me on the side of preservation right now is the hope that with preservation, future generations will benefit, but shredding the document would only help the existing victims. People living in Germany have something concrete to show their children when they teach them about the value of privacy. With that, hopefully the "anti-surveillance immunization" will span generations.
- Gormo 13y ago
  I think it's far more important to destroy the resources and apparatus that enables totalitarianism than to punish the people who participated in a previous police state after it's already collapsed. After the DDR fell, Mielke wasn't going to be operating the Stasi any longer. Going after people like him might bring some emotional closure to people persecuted under the regime, but if the regime is gone, that's all it can do: there's no argument for deterrence. If a new police state emerges, it's not likely to be administered by the same individuals who ran the old one. Keeping the resources used by the old police state on hand, and acting to cultivate public trust in the new government seems like a combination to be wary of. The corruptability of human institutions demonstrated by the existence of previous police states should caution us against putting excessive trust in any institutions.

Create 13y ago

CIA agents acquired the records after the 1989 fall of the Berlin Wall http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/703303.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/703303.stm

jlgreco 13y ago
Yes, it was obviously a very chaotic situation, it doesn't surprise me that the CIA got their beak wet. Whether the mission of the Federal Commissioner for the Stasi Archives was to destroy or preserve the records probably makes little difference in this case, those records were seemingly stolen before a policy towards the records was decided upon.
- jacquesm 13y ago
  I don't want the CIA to have this data anymore than I wanted the stasi to have it. Incidentally, I'm in there (for several reasons).

giardini 13y ago

Why would they shred the information? They (the ubiquitous "they", meaning "someone with access") are much more likely to "take it with them" to some other organization or for private/personal use. The data is too valuable (to someone) to shred even years after collection.

jlgreco 13y ago
The Stasi shredded it because they knew it was incriminating and, realistically, there was no way to smuggle out a copy or hide it. They were under siege (literally). The organization was finished and they knew it. Perhaps digital records will be easier for enterprising individuals to smuggle out or hide, but even if that happens it seems likely that an effort will once again be made to keep the data out of the hands of the public. When a spy agency is in its death throes, that data stops being valuable and becomes a liability to the surviving individuals that will no longer enjoy the protection of the agency. It becomes evidence. During the chaotic storming of the Stasi headquarters, there were incidents of Stasi officers hiding among the crowds so that they could destroy even more documents even as the public seized them. The headquarters were being sacked, there was really no remaining chain of command that could realistically make them do that, but they did anyway. Maybe Nicolae Ceaușescu, executed less than three weeks earlier, was in the back of their minds.

enraged_camel 13y ago

Shredding paper documents takes time. Deleting electronic records is almost instantaneous. I would say that we don't have much chance in terms of preventing it from happening.

jlgreco 13y ago
Deleting electronic records is particularly instantaneous if they were stored with that eventuality in mind. I hope they weren't. I hope they have extensive unencrypted cold backups. I am probably being very naive to think that we stand a chance though.