3 ms·

The reporting on this issue can at best be described as muddled, including the original articles by netzpolitik.org. They are not actually investigating netzp

The reporting on this issue can at best be described as muddled, including the original articles by netzpolitik.org. They are not actually investigating netzpolitik.org, but their (unknown) sources (clarified in a later article [1]), presumably for leaking the information. "Treason" is a misleading translation; the closest equivalent to "Landesverrat" would probably be "espionage". The leaked documents were (1) parts of the budget of the domestic intelligence service, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, and (2) plans by the same institution to create a new unit to conduct internet surveillance. Because these are purely domestic issues, it is unlikely that the leak qualifies as "Landesverrat", which requires creating a grave danger for the external security of the Federal Republic of Germany (creating a danger for Germany's internal security is insufficient, and neither is embarrassing the government, including in international affairs). Leaking the documents is still likely a crime under §353b of the criminal code [2], but the German Federal Prosecutor is not competent to prosecute violations of §353b (this is the prerogative of the state prosecutors). [1] https://netzpolitik.org/2015/generalbundesanwalt-bestaetigt-strafanzeige-des-verfassungsschutzes-gegen-unsere-quellen/ https://netzpolitik.org/2015/generalbundesanwalt-bestaetigt-... [2] http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p3016 http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stg...

itistoday2 11y ago
Thanks for pointing that out! I hope the EFF updates their article. Question: how can they push charges on the sources if they do not know who the sources are? (Or do they?)
- baertram 11y ago
  If they don't know, they can still file charges against "Unknown" ("Anzeige gegen Unbekannt")
- Tomte 11y ago
  I hope the EFF updates their article. Don't hold your breath. People don't like to acknowledge it, but the EFF is a lobbying organisation with an agenda, not some kind of disinterested "super court for Internet issues". And the last months have shown that they have a habit of "misunderstanding" things and writing over-sensationalist press releases. I mean, virtually everytime some press release of the EFF is discussed on HN, commenters have quickly pointed out factual errors or non-sequiturs.
- dannyobrien 11y ago
  Parent is right about it being unclear that the charges are being directed at Netzpolitik.org: I've just pushed a correction, a rewrite of the article, and included the original for reference.
baertram 11y ago
(native german speaker here) I also have an issue with the sensationalist reporting of "treason" charges. "Treason" is a correct translation for "Landesverrat" ("land treason"), similar to "high treason" being "Hochverrat". The thing is, for all I can tell, there are no "Landesverrat" (StGB §94) charges. If anything, there would be charges for the lesser act of "disclosure of state secrets" (StGB §95, right below) Yet, the press speaks of "Geheimnisverrat" (disclosure of secrets): http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2015-07/verfassungsschutz-geheimdienst-hans-georg-maassen-praesident-anzeige http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2015-07/verfassungssc... That would most likely be the §353b you mention. I don't think it would be controversial to consider the disclosure of secret documents as what it is: disclosure of secret documents. However, even with prosecution under §353b there is still the requirement of "threatening important public interest". These seem to be ordinary (and expected) legal proceedings, no need to blow it out of proportion.
- rbehrends 11y ago
  > (native german speaker here) Note: I'm also a native speaker of German. > "Treason" is a correct translation for "Landesverrat" ("land treason"), similar to "high treason" being "Hochverrat". "Landesverrat" is the crime of communicating state secrets to a foreign power; this does not match the definition of "treason" that you find in English dictionaries [1]. "Hochverrat" is a closer equivalent of "treason". Just because "Verrat" can mean "treason" (but also "betrayal", "treachery", "perfidy", etc.) does not mean that "Landesverrat" describes the same legal concept. We're looking at a false friend. In fact, even the German Wikipedia page describes "Landesverrat" as a form of espionage: "Das Delikt des Landesverrates ist die Kernstraftat der Spionage." > Yet, the press speaks of "Geheimnisverrat" (disclosure of secrets) The press says all kinds of things, presumably because nobody knows exactly what's going on. What we do know is that the German Federal Prosecutor is investigating, and he does not have the power to prosecute "Geheimnisverrat" per §353b StGB [2]. As I said, the reporting is extremely muddled. [1] E.g.: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/treason http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/treason [2] https://www.generalbundesanwalt.de/de/zust.php https://www.generalbundesanwalt.de/de/zust.php
  - 11y ago

itistoday2 11y ago

Thanks for pointing that out! I hope the EFF updates their article. Question: how can they push charges on the sources if they do not know who the sources are? (Or do they?)

baertram 11y ago
If they don't know, they can still file charges against "Unknown" ("Anzeige gegen Unbekannt")
Tomte 11y ago
I hope the EFF updates their article. Don't hold your breath. People don't like to acknowledge it, but the EFF is a lobbying organisation with an agenda, not some kind of disinterested "super court for Internet issues". And the last months have shown that they have a habit of "misunderstanding" things and writing over-sensationalist press releases. I mean, virtually everytime some press release of the EFF is discussed on HN, commenters have quickly pointed out factual errors or non-sequiturs.
dannyobrien 11y ago
Parent is right about it being unclear that the charges are being directed at Netzpolitik.org: I've just pushed a correction, a rewrite of the article, and included the original for reference.

baertram 11y ago

(native german speaker here) I also have an issue with the sensationalist reporting of "treason" charges. "Treason" is a correct translation for "Landesverrat" ("land treason"), similar to "high treason" being "Hochverrat". The thing is, for all I can tell, there are no "Landesverrat" (StGB §94) charges. If anything, there would be charges for the lesser act of "disclosure of state secrets" (StGB §95, right below) Yet, the press speaks of "Geheimnisverrat" (disclosure of secrets): http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2015-07/verfassungsschutz-geheimdienst-hans-georg-maassen-praesident-anzeige http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2015-07/verfassungssc... That would most likely be the §353b you mention. I don't think it would be controversial to consider the disclosure of secret documents as what it is: disclosure of secret documents. However, even with prosecution under §353b there is still the requirement of "threatening important public interest". These seem to be ordinary (and expected) legal proceedings, no need to blow it out of proportion.

rbehrends 11y ago
> (native german speaker here) Note: I'm also a native speaker of German. > "Treason" is a correct translation for "Landesverrat" ("land treason"), similar to "high treason" being "Hochverrat". "Landesverrat" is the crime of communicating state secrets to a foreign power; this does not match the definition of "treason" that you find in English dictionaries [1]. "Hochverrat" is a closer equivalent of "treason". Just because "Verrat" can mean "treason" (but also "betrayal", "treachery", "perfidy", etc.) does not mean that "Landesverrat" describes the same legal concept. We're looking at a false friend. In fact, even the German Wikipedia page describes "Landesverrat" as a form of espionage: "Das Delikt des Landesverrates ist die Kernstraftat der Spionage." > Yet, the press speaks of "Geheimnisverrat" (disclosure of secrets) The press says all kinds of things, presumably because nobody knows exactly what's going on. What we do know is that the German Federal Prosecutor is investigating, and he does not have the power to prosecute "Geheimnisverrat" per §353b StGB [2]. As I said, the reporting is extremely muddled. [1] E.g.: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/treason http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/treason [2] https://www.generalbundesanwalt.de/de/zust.php https://www.generalbundesanwalt.de/de/zust.php
- 11y ago