4 ms·

Well, German intelligence can't spy on Der Spiegel legally, so getting tips from a friendly intelligence agency as to who is leaking info to the press seems to

by andreyf 11y ago

Well, German intelligence can't spy on Der Spiegel legally, so getting tips from a friendly intelligence agency as to who is leaking info to the press seems to make a lot of sense.

chinathrow 11y ago
No for fucks sake, it does not make a lot of sense. If we allow this shit to happen, we lose as a democracy. How on earth do you think it could be even remotely acceptable to spy on a journalistic outlet? /rant
- istvan__ 11y ago
  You mean we already lost.
- carbocation 11y ago
  I don't see andreyf's comment as being supportive; rather, it comes across as sardonic but lucid.
  - chinathrow 11y ago
    I hope OP will reply - stating that some totally unacceptable thing "makes sense" does indeed sound supportive, at least to my naive soul.
    - carbocation 11y ago
      It's written in a wry, underhanded way, invoking the mindset of someone at the intelligence agencies. I really see no need for the OP to clarify. But if I'm wrong, and OP's true position differs from ours, what of it? Edit: chinathrow is actually correct, I thought OP was being sardonic but they seem to be sincere based on their follow-up comments.
      - task_queue 11y ago
        Poe's law at work.
        chinathrow 11y ago
        Ha! Good one! Had to look it up though :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law
      - andreyf 11y ago
        I'm not sure what sardonic means without a smile, but I am very much trying to avoid opinions in leu of explanations of reality as I understand it.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - MichaelGG 11y ago
      If your premise was true, no one would be able to even superficially understand the motives of someone they believe is wrong.
- andreyf 11y ago
  I meant it makes sense legally or practically - it's not unheard of that allied intelligence communities cooperate to spy on each other's citizenry. I don't think we lose as a Democracy just from the spying alone, but rather what is done with it.
  - chinathrow 11y ago
    Legally? No it does not make sense either legally. It is forbidden by law to spy as a foreign nation on german soil. Hence the upcoming lawsuit.
    - andreyf 11y ago
      Not in the sense that intelligence agencies follow every law of every place they operate (does anyone think they do?), but in a more practical sense - there is no legal mechanism for enforcing rules on the IC externally, and while it's not outside of the realm of possibility, I'm not super convinced we need one. What lawsuit? Would you like to wager how likely it is that an American will be convicted? Treating the law as "a list of rules everyone follows or they get in trouble" is a model that works for when you have a state to judge and enforce the rules. It does not work when organizations like powerful nation states are interacting with one another. A similarly non-traditional-law model can be seen in banking, where fines and settlements are often reached without a judicial process.
      - chinathrow 11y ago
        Der Spiegel filed a complaint as stated within the article. Not a lawsuit but the start of one. "As a target of the surveillance, SPIEGEL has requested more information from the Chancellery. At the same time, the magazine filed a complaint on Friday with the Federal Public Prosecutor due to suspicion of intelligence agency activity." Fines and settlement by the way are in quite a lot of countries part of an actual judicial process.
        andreyf 11y ago
        Ah, a request and a complaint! How did it go, do you think? "Dear Chancellor, Snowden said the Americans spied on our paper and told you our source in your organization. Could you provide us with some more evidence so that we can make a legal case against them, please?". Even if the Chancellor wanted to pursue American spies, do you think she has enough evidence to prosecute anyone? If you don't want to answer about the chance of conviction, what do you wager the chances of a prosecutor simply bringing a case to a German court are? Fines and settlements negotiated without a case ever being made public is an example of the laws working differently than they do for most. The banking example isn't much like foreign intelligence activity, of course, but it's similar in that powerful organizations' relationships with laws is different than yours or mine.

by andreyf 11y ago

Well, German intelligence can't spy on Der Spiegel legally, so getting tips from a friendly intelligence agency as to who is leaking info to the press seems to make a lot of sense.

chinathrow 11y ago

No for fucks sake, it does not make a lot of sense. If we allow this shit to happen, we lose as a democracy. How on earth do you think it could be even remotely acceptable to spy on a journalistic outlet? /rant

istvan__ 11y ago
You mean we already lost.
carbocation 11y ago
I don't see andreyf's comment as being supportive; rather, it comes across as sardonic but lucid.
- chinathrow 11y ago
  I hope OP will reply - stating that some totally unacceptable thing "makes sense" does indeed sound supportive, at least to my naive soul.
  - carbocation 11y ago
    It's written in a wry, underhanded way, invoking the mindset of someone at the intelligence agencies. I really see no need for the OP to clarify. But if I'm wrong, and OP's true position differs from ours, what of it? Edit: chinathrow is actually correct, I thought OP was being sardonic but they seem to be sincere based on their follow-up comments.
    - task_queue 11y ago
      Poe's law at work.
      - chinathrow 11y ago
        Ha! Good one! Had to look it up though :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law
    - andreyf 11y ago
      I'm not sure what sardonic means without a smile, but I am very much trying to avoid opinions in leu of explanations of reality as I understand it.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - MichaelGG 11y ago
    If your premise was true, no one would be able to even superficially understand the motives of someone they believe is wrong.
andreyf 11y ago
I meant it makes sense legally or practically - it's not unheard of that allied intelligence communities cooperate to spy on each other's citizenry. I don't think we lose as a Democracy just from the spying alone, but rather what is done with it.
- chinathrow 11y ago
  Legally? No it does not make sense either legally. It is forbidden by law to spy as a foreign nation on german soil. Hence the upcoming lawsuit.
  - andreyf 11y ago
    Not in the sense that intelligence agencies follow every law of every place they operate (does anyone think they do?), but in a more practical sense - there is no legal mechanism for enforcing rules on the IC externally, and while it's not outside of the realm of possibility, I'm not super convinced we need one. What lawsuit? Would you like to wager how likely it is that an American will be convicted? Treating the law as "a list of rules everyone follows or they get in trouble" is a model that works for when you have a state to judge and enforce the rules. It does not work when organizations like powerful nation states are interacting with one another. A similarly non-traditional-law model can be seen in banking, where fines and settlements are often reached without a judicial process.
    - chinathrow 11y ago
      Der Spiegel filed a complaint as stated within the article. Not a lawsuit but the start of one. "As a target of the surveillance, SPIEGEL has requested more information from the Chancellery. At the same time, the magazine filed a complaint on Friday with the Federal Public Prosecutor due to suspicion of intelligence agency activity." Fines and settlement by the way are in quite a lot of countries part of an actual judicial process.
      - andreyf 11y ago
        Ah, a request and a complaint! How did it go, do you think? "Dear Chancellor, Snowden said the Americans spied on our paper and told you our source in your organization. Could you provide us with some more evidence so that we can make a legal case against them, please?". Even if the Chancellor wanted to pursue American spies, do you think she has enough evidence to prosecute anyone? If you don't want to answer about the chance of conviction, what do you wager the chances of a prosecutor simply bringing a case to a German court are? Fines and settlements negotiated without a case ever being made public is an example of the laws working differently than they do for most. The banking example isn't much like foreign intelligence activity, of course, but it's similar in that powerful organizations' relationships with laws is different than yours or mine.