One of the more "fun" things they use to justify what they do internally: the outer space theory. You have to know that the Federal Intelligence Service (BND) is (simplified) only allowed to operate outside Germany. Now they have antennas in Germany to monitor communication passively relayed on a satellite. As we all know, the satellite is located outside Germany, so they pretend this is legal.
In a similiar argument, internet exchange points in Frankfurt are declared "effectively outside Germany" and therefore fair game.
If you find that interesting, at last year's 32C3 they had a fun renenactment of some abstruse scenes full of such things[0] from the parliamentary investigation committee on the NSA and its cooperation with the BND (which itself is not filmed publicly). English interpretation is available. https://media.ccc.de/v/32c3-7225-grundrechte_gelten_nicht_im...
[0]: Did you know that US intelligence interrogated refugees in Germany on "the bread supply situation" in their home countries and used Google Maps for that?
[1]: Sometimes they have English-speaking witnesses. This week it's people from the ACLU but they also had an US drone pilot and a Verizon executive in the past.
Yes, all spy agencies tend to use "technically legal" stuff like that to operate around what the law intended to stop them from doing.
This is why it's so critical to have an oversight committee with deep knowledge of everything that's going on within the agency, regular audits, and a willingness to actually act as supervisors in favor of the law - NOT the agency.
That should be their job. Unfortunately, virtually all such committees tend to act more as cheerleaders for the spy agencies than actual supervisors meant to hold the agencies accountable.
You all need to understand... in the age of the Internet, every governmental body which deals with computers under any veil of secrecy/classification inevitably uses that veil of secrecy or classification to break the law.
Every. Single. One.
It's just too easy for them not to. The incentives are stacked against them to keep the law. There are too many internal controls that are necessary to pass in order to obey the law, so just like in any other human endeavor, management will follow the path of least resistance. They are protected by national security / classification law from anybody finding out. If it leaks anyway that they broke the law? Nobody will be fired or sent to jail, and the whistle-blower will be tried for treason for leaking classified information.
If we, as citizens, abhor this behavior - we must fix the incentives. There is no other way.
Professional criminals lives depend entirely on their ability to conceal their crimes, or more specially their connection to crimes. It's not surprising that the intel community who are the very best in the world at concealment and containment would use that same skillset to circumvent already ineffective control systems that limit their activity. Which is why they do whatever they want.
For example, Snowden didnt even have access to Tao or high level projects thanks to compartmentalization. Who knows how much deeper this stuff goes. I'd imagine we only got access to the low-hanging fruit of the NSA operations. The real dirty stuff would be in the CNE departments where they get total control of whomevers machines they want.
I've lost general respect for German intelligence and policing apparati after Thuringen willfully destroyed evidence regarding right-wing-terrorists to cover their misdeeds. Happened again later in a murder case in Kassel in the same investigation. It may be isolated incidents, but that this is possible and the fact that there have been no visible consequences to make up for it is telling.
If there are long-term interests/plans and these are games like those played by the CIA, then at least let the public know about this little detail and argue for keeping it confidential and excuse collateral damage. I won't condone it, but it would be an explanation, if it's not brought forward on every 2nd incident.
That said, I do have respect for the foot soldiers in the force, just as I do for hospital staff.
Yes, "it may". German agencies are famous for "isolated incidents". It's only a matter of definition what's to be called "isolated".
Those isolated incidents reach back even to the "Operation Gehlen"[0], the predecessor of the BND which was founded in 1946. One could say that the history of German agencies is the history of isolated incidents. While this may hold true for intelligence agencies all over the world, the historic ties leave a very bad taste regarding right-wing-terror in Germany. The "National Socialist Underground" (NSU)[1] was only the tip of the iceberg.
If you look at the media coverage of this topic in Germany so far one could come to the conclusion that those mass-surveillance operations which reach the public are considered more harmful when they are carried out by foreign agencies (Surprise!...I know). This report hit the major news front pages for only one day - my guess is that it has been longer if it was the NSA (or at least the GCHQ) instead of the BND.
It surprises me just how quickly the major world governments all started violating sovereign laws and spying on/surveilling their own citizens. Effectively, everyone is now monitored all the time by their own governments bereft of suspicion of having committed a crime - or under the blanket suspicion of everyone being capable of committing a crime (AKA "act of terrorism").
Conspiracy theorists might see the War on Terrorism as a premeditated concoction to justify massive state surveillance, since it's about everyone's justification. That's silly though. We all know they just took advantage of an existing situation, right?
What do you mean "how quickly"? Mass surveillance has been going on for decades. The only new thing is the amount of data the average person has travelling over networks that can be monitored, and the ease of increasing the volume captures.
My favourite example is that in the early 90's, while I was politically active for a period, I met a number of interesting characters, including the ex-editor of a tiny Norwegian communist newspaper. He told me about how he for many years had intelligence agents come up to him on the street to crack jokes about conversations he had with his wife in his own home. While that was outright bugging of his flat, it was part of a many decades long illegal surveillance operation covering pretty much everyone on the political left in Norway (well, to the left of the social democrats who started it) regardless of whether or not they were involved in anything at all.
It was finally rolled up in mid 90's, after the police and parliament had spent several decades ignoring reports from victims of it and insisting that kind of thing didn't happen.
So just because banks have always been robbed we should allow bank robberies to continue?
Intelligence agencies have to obey the law, just like every other government agency. We can make exceptions for them within the law, but that has to go through the usual legislative processes. If they just ignore our laws that's a problem we should attempt to fix.
why do we permit their assault on our democracies?
when was the last time a citizen benefitted from the surveillance of people not suspected of any crime?
if we know abuses are inevitable and will be hidden from us, why not slash their funding/imprison them/restructure their activities to be too compartmentalizad to hurt the public in this fashion?
The new thing is that more people are starting to understand what governments really do. And governments are gonna feel weaker, less in control and would have to resort to more non-"democratic" ways of doing business.
considering in a democratic system the government is a representation of the will of the governed and, you know, us governed types don't expect us to lie to ourselves.
Oh, and other countries' intelligence services would never think of violating any laws, heaven forbid...
You know how your government keeps convincing you of the supremacy of the "rule of law" and how "nobody is above the law", etc., etc... I think it's beyond obvious to anyone with half a brain that these are boogie-monster fairy tales.
When most people speak of law, what they mean is "rules that everyone must follow". When the lawmakers speak of law, they mean "rules we've been told to make everyone follow". Of course, the people and entities that these laws come from are above the law almost by definition. The amount of hypocrisy surrounding "justice" systems around the world is tremendous - it has always been. But people mostly like it this way - it's worked for a few thousands of years and is likely to work for a few thousand more.
You're taking the concept of, "knowledge," and the concept of, "government" and mixing them together into a very swirly, confused, nihilistic statement. Are laws written down on paper simply that they will be broken by the government, but not by the people? While that may almost inevitably happen over the decades and centuries of a republic existence, that is certainly not the intent of laws, at least in a western republic such as Germany or the US. Governments breaking laws is not, "above the law," - it is actually, by definition, breaking the law, when the Government breaks the law, which is the opposite of what you're saying. You're saying that everyone knew when those laws were written, that they would actually be breakable by the government. That's not true. The lawyers who bring and win cases against the Government don't know that...in fact, they know the opposite to be true. Now, as to the question of the conduct of individual politicians who believe they can break the law, that is a third question - is it OK for politicians to break the law to achieve a certain end? Well...sometimes yes, sometimes no...you can't just make a blanket statement saying that 100% of the time every time a politician has broken a law that it has been morally corrupt. There is a such thing as bad laws. Overall, I think your heart is in the right place in terms of wanting better moral conduct, but you are very confused on what Governments are, and you should perhaps consider delving further into historical literature on the subject.
I disagree. These are not fairy tales. These are what we shall tend for, even if we live in an imperfect world.
Stating that the constitution is bogus does not imply that we shall throw it out, but that we shall fix it. the NSA should not violate the law to make its job. Maybe the law shall be fixed, maybe behavior of the NSA shall change, probably both.
[+] [-] germanier|9 years ago|reply
In a similiar argument, internet exchange points in Frankfurt are declared "effectively outside Germany" and therefore fair game.
If you find that interesting, at last year's 32C3 they had a fun renenactment of some abstruse scenes full of such things[0] from the parliamentary investigation committee on the NSA and its cooperation with the BND (which itself is not filmed publicly). English interpretation is available. https://media.ccc.de/v/32c3-7225-grundrechte_gelten_nicht_im...
To anyone German-speaking[1] in Berlin I can recommend visiting a session of the committee. It's really illuminating to see those intelligence agents trying to save their face firsthand. https://www.bundestag.de/bundestag/ausschuesse18/ua/1untersu...
[0]: Did you know that US intelligence interrogated refugees in Germany on "the bread supply situation" in their home countries and used Google Maps for that?
[1]: Sometimes they have English-speaking witnesses. This week it's people from the ACLU but they also had an US drone pilot and a Verizon executive in the past.
[+] [-] mtgx|9 years ago|reply
This is why it's so critical to have an oversight committee with deep knowledge of everything that's going on within the agency, regular audits, and a willingness to actually act as supervisors in favor of the law - NOT the agency.
That should be their job. Unfortunately, virtually all such committees tend to act more as cheerleaders for the spy agencies than actual supervisors meant to hold the agencies accountable.
[+] [-] solatic|9 years ago|reply
Every. Single. One.
It's just too easy for them not to. The incentives are stacked against them to keep the law. There are too many internal controls that are necessary to pass in order to obey the law, so just like in any other human endeavor, management will follow the path of least resistance. They are protected by national security / classification law from anybody finding out. If it leaks anyway that they broke the law? Nobody will be fired or sent to jail, and the whistle-blower will be tried for treason for leaking classified information.
If we, as citizens, abhor this behavior - we must fix the incentives. There is no other way.
[+] [-] dmix|9 years ago|reply
For example, Snowden didnt even have access to Tao or high level projects thanks to compartmentalization. Who knows how much deeper this stuff goes. I'd imagine we only got access to the low-hanging fruit of the NSA operations. The real dirty stuff would be in the CNE departments where they get total control of whomevers machines they want.
[+] [-] cm3|9 years ago|reply
If there are long-term interests/plans and these are games like those played by the CIA, then at least let the public know about this little detail and argue for keeping it confidential and excuse collateral damage. I won't condone it, but it would be an explanation, if it's not brought forward on every 2nd incident.
That said, I do have respect for the foot soldiers in the force, just as I do for hospital staff.
[+] [-] schlowmo|9 years ago|reply
Yes, "it may". German agencies are famous for "isolated incidents". It's only a matter of definition what's to be called "isolated".
Those isolated incidents reach back even to the "Operation Gehlen"[0], the predecessor of the BND which was founded in 1946. One could say that the history of German agencies is the history of isolated incidents. While this may hold true for intelligence agencies all over the world, the historic ties leave a very bad taste regarding right-wing-terror in Germany. The "National Socialist Underground" (NSU)[1] was only the tip of the iceberg.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehlen_Organization [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Underground
[+] [-] schlowmo|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kuschku|9 years ago|reply
It’s been quite obvious in the past years that the only part of the state the people trust is the court system.
[+] [-] themartorana|9 years ago|reply
Conspiracy theorists might see the War on Terrorism as a premeditated concoction to justify massive state surveillance, since it's about everyone's justification. That's silly though. We all know they just took advantage of an existing situation, right?
[+] [-] vidarh|9 years ago|reply
My favourite example is that in the early 90's, while I was politically active for a period, I met a number of interesting characters, including the ex-editor of a tiny Norwegian communist newspaper. He told me about how he for many years had intelligence agents come up to him on the street to crack jokes about conversations he had with his wife in his own home. While that was outright bugging of his flat, it was part of a many decades long illegal surveillance operation covering pretty much everyone on the political left in Norway (well, to the left of the social democrats who started it) regardless of whether or not they were involved in anything at all.
It was finally rolled up in mid 90's, after the police and parliament had spent several decades ignoring reports from victims of it and insisting that kind of thing didn't happen.
[+] [-] nxzero|9 years ago|reply
Conspiracies aside, the term for this is a false flag operation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag
Given intelligence agencies like the CIA even do this internally to others within the agency, anything is possible: https://www.google.com/search?q=cia+eyewash
[+] [-] Sylos|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hutzlibu|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] krylon|9 years ago|reply
Let this roll around on your tongue for a moment. This is kind of like robbing a bank and then saying you really needed the money.
[+] [-] Artoemius|9 years ago|reply
That's a radical idea, but it has started to gain some popularity: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/stealing-food-not-a-crim...
[+] [-] raverbashing|9 years ago|reply
Though of course their overreach should be questioned
[+] [-] plandis|9 years ago|reply
Everyone was surprised with US spying but honestly, why isn't every country trying to or actively doing that too?
[+] [-] giardini|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pjmlp|9 years ago|reply
This is how secret services always worked since they exist, yes even in democratic countries.
[+] [-] wongarsu|9 years ago|reply
Intelligence agencies have to obey the law, just like every other government agency. We can make exceptions for them within the law, but that has to go through the usual legislative processes. If they just ignore our laws that's a problem we should attempt to fix.
[+] [-] cryoshon|9 years ago|reply
when was the last time a citizen benefitted from the surveillance of people not suspected of any crime?
if we know abuses are inevitable and will be hidden from us, why not slash their funding/imprison them/restructure their activities to be too compartmentalizad to hurt the public in this fashion?
[+] [-] zzzcpan|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mtgx|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Kerrygarry|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] fiatjaf|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pyvpx|9 years ago|reply
or something.
[+] [-] mpweiher|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] harrynotlarry|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jdimov10|9 years ago|reply
You know how your government keeps convincing you of the supremacy of the "rule of law" and how "nobody is above the law", etc., etc... I think it's beyond obvious to anyone with half a brain that these are boogie-monster fairy tales.
When most people speak of law, what they mean is "rules that everyone must follow". When the lawmakers speak of law, they mean "rules we've been told to make everyone follow". Of course, the people and entities that these laws come from are above the law almost by definition. The amount of hypocrisy surrounding "justice" systems around the world is tremendous - it has always been. But people mostly like it this way - it's worked for a few thousands of years and is likely to work for a few thousand more.
[+] [-] x2398dh1|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] reacweb|9 years ago|reply
Stating that the constitution is bogus does not imply that we shall throw it out, but that we shall fix it. the NSA should not violate the law to make its job. Maybe the law shall be fixed, maybe behavior of the NSA shall change, probably both.
[+] [-] PavlovsCat|9 years ago|reply