Yes! _IF_ this isn't immediately shot down, things will become interesting.
The German officials can always hide behind police/antiterror investigations for data they requested, HOWEVER: The collecting and storing of user data and metadata "verdachtsunabhängig", that is, without there being a investigation against the people whose data is being slurped specifically, is highly problematic under German law.
That is the vulnerable spot the CCC is trying to hit and I hope it works.
I don't think they can hide behind antiterror investigations. Main allegation here is that foreign espionage has been facilitated (which is illegal) and that knowingly is nothing done against it (that's also illegal under the term "Strafvereitelung"). This is definitely somewhat different from surveillance allegations which indeed are more politically inclined and can be argued under antiterror investigations. If state authorities would knowingly support industrial espionage they can get a hard time if it is possible to collect hard evidence for it (I doubt that).
The problem that this criminal complaint will face is the "Alliiertes Vorbehaltsrecht".
"erstens der Überwachungsvorbehalt, das Recht, den in- und ausländischen Post- und Fernmeldeverkehr in der Bundesrepublik auch weiterhin zu überwachen; zweitens den Geheimdienstvorbehalt, das Recht, die alliierten Geheimdienste mit Unterstützung des Bundesamtes für Verfassungsschutz außerhalb des deutschen Recht zu stellen, wenn es geheimdienstliche Interessen erforderte."
"firstly, the surveillance exception, the right to continue to monitor the domestic and international postal and telecommunications traffic in the Federal Republic, and secondly the intelligence exception, the right to the Allied intelligence with the support of the German Federal Office for Protection of the Constitution to act outside the German law if intelligence interests requires so."
While the "Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany" is considered to have made Germany become fully sovereign, the "Alliiertes Vorbehaltsrecht" is still in effect according to [1] and [2] (both links in German only, sorry, there seems to be no online source in English).
The wiki page states that the Alliiertes Vorbehaltsrecht ended when Germany was reunited in 1990. The only sentence indicating anything else seems to be a reference to some "secret contracts seen by Josef Foschepoth", but with no further details.
This is the same author that is being interviewed in your second link, so it sounds a bit like this is just one guy trying to sell books...
This is the stuff of conspiracy theories. The German constitution is pretty specific when it comes to whether and how the government can limit fundamental rights.
Article 10 of the Basic Law says that "telecommunications privacy shall be inviolable" and that "restrictions may be ordered only pursuant to a law". Secret agreements are no laws, so they cannot give the government the right to enact restrictions on telecommunications privacy. This requires a law passed by the German parliament following normal procedures (such as the G10 Act).
Prior to 1991, there might have been a (weak) international law argument based on Germany's limited sovereignty, but since 1991, this doesn't work, either.
The links you give rely entirely on the assumption that secret agreements can have the force of law; they do not.
in my opinion the same will happen here. if the laws don't fit, the laws will be adjusted, or the terminology will change. it happened with the now no longer unconstitutional wars. and obama said the same:
"we're not really spying on you guys, we're just helping our allies"
you have to applaud the germans for their efforts though. after all they were able to temporarily halt the data retention efforts. i say temporary, because i'm convinced that even if the european court of justice really bans it(which i'm not convinced of), it will be even more crucial for them to have someone from the outside spying.
and besides that there is this rather worrisome notion in politics and lobbyism that a no in court only stays no until you turn it into a yes.
Sure the law will be adjusted but having the CCC directly involved in the trial we'll see some interesting details and backgrounds explained.
I'm curious how the german media will handle it. It's Top-News atm on the main public broadcasters (also on their homepages http://www.tagesschau.de/http://www.heute.de/ 2nd one is ZDF. Close to the ruling CDU party). So I guess it will survive till the 8pm news. The trial coverage will be a different topic though.
Laws can't be changed retroactively, so I hope they won't get through with it. I just fear they'll grant immunity to those involved, or find some other way around.
"the germans have a saying [..] if the laws don't fit, the laws will be adjusted, or the terminology will change"
They are correct, and it happens worldwide. It leads to the conclusion that unless you are too big to fail/be touched, no one really lives in free and democratic countries.
"We accuse US, British and German secret agents, their supervisors, the German Minister of the Interior as well as the German Chancelor of illegal and prohibited covert intelligence activities, of aiding and abetting of those activities, of violation of the right to privacy and obstruction of justice in office by bearing and cooperating with the electronic surveillance of German citizens by NSA and GCHQ."
This reminds of Wyden and Udall's recent inquiry into whether CIA is hacking into American citizens' computers and violating CFAA. While I'm sure CFAA has exceptions for the federal government to do those "crimes" themselves (although not sure if the CIA is allowed to, since they are supposed to act only on foreign territory), I think Wyden and Udall are trying to use this inquiry to let the American people know that they are doing this, without actually saying it outright.
> It is unfortunate that those responsible and the circumstances of their crimes have not been investigated," says Dr. Julius Mittenzwei, attorney and long time member of the CCC.
This is great news. I'm sure they thought they were going to get away with it.
Dr. Mittenzwei, on the other hand, has better plans for them.
This is great news, unfortunately neither the German government nor the Federal Prosecutor General (Generalbundesanwalt) will have the balls to bring this to court.
Furthermore the Generalbundesanwalt is nominally independent of the government, but is traditionally very close to official politics.
A good thing by itself but I doubt it will have a real effect other than showing that "Separation of Powers" in theory works much better than in practice... (read "not")
Besides, for some reason complaints against the state via the state take years, just see the ongoing complaints whether EFSF, ESM and whatnot market stabilization mechanisms violate the no-bailout clause in the EU treaty.
And don't even get me started on the legal immunity of the (not democratically elected) governors of the ESM that have the power to demand more money (for ESM and themselves) no matter what...
Remember to watch the video footage from the latest CC congress if you haven't done so already: http://media.ccc.de/browse/congress/2013/
They cover really interesting topics.
At least this story didn't devolve into dismissive conversation about irrelevancies, like the Snowden interview story. In that thread, discussants invented a new notion of "journalistic equivalence" under which mass media news coverage of remarks by Snowden that officials were calling for his demise was supposed to be somehow equivalent to substantive coverage of the main points of the interview. The "proof" of this was the so-called "Reddit takedown."
The local news station talked about this today. They described it as a group of "lawyers and computer hackers" suing the government. I get what the CCC is, but I'm thinking the average member of the public is rolling their eyes at a bunch of criminals suing the government of surveillance.
[+] [-] sentenza|12 years ago|reply
The German officials can always hide behind police/antiterror investigations for data they requested, HOWEVER: The collecting and storing of user data and metadata "verdachtsunabhängig", that is, without there being a investigation against the people whose data is being slurped specifically, is highly problematic under German law.
That is the vulnerable spot the CCC is trying to hit and I hope it works.
[+] [-] chopin|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] weinzierl|12 years ago|reply
"erstens der Überwachungsvorbehalt, das Recht, den in- und ausländischen Post- und Fernmeldeverkehr in der Bundesrepublik auch weiterhin zu überwachen; zweitens den Geheimdienstvorbehalt, das Recht, die alliierten Geheimdienste mit Unterstützung des Bundesamtes für Verfassungsschutz außerhalb des deutschen Recht zu stellen, wenn es geheimdienstliche Interessen erforderte."
"firstly, the surveillance exception, the right to continue to monitor the domestic and international postal and telecommunications traffic in the Federal Republic, and secondly the intelligence exception, the right to the Allied intelligence with the support of the German Federal Office for Protection of the Constitution to act outside the German law if intelligence interests requires so."
While the "Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany" is considered to have made Germany become fully sovereign, the "Alliiertes Vorbehaltsrecht" is still in effect according to [1] and [2] (both links in German only, sorry, there seems to be no online source in English).
[1] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliiertes_Vorbehaltsrecht [2] http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2013-10/nsa-uerberwac...
[+] [-] DangerousPie|12 years ago|reply
The wiki page states that the Alliiertes Vorbehaltsrecht ended when Germany was reunited in 1990. The only sentence indicating anything else seems to be a reference to some "secret contracts seen by Josef Foschepoth", but with no further details.
This is the same author that is being interviewed in your second link, so it sounds a bit like this is just one guy trying to sell books...
[+] [-] rbehrends|12 years ago|reply
Article 10 of the Basic Law says that "telecommunications privacy shall be inviolable" and that "restrictions may be ordered only pursuant to a law". Secret agreements are no laws, so they cannot give the government the right to enact restrictions on telecommunications privacy. This requires a law passed by the German parliament following normal procedures (such as the G10 Act).
Prior to 1991, there might have been a (weak) international law argument based on Germany's limited sovereignty, but since 1991, this doesn't work, either.
The links you give rely entirely on the assumption that secret agreements can have the force of law; they do not.
[+] [-] Trufa|12 years ago|reply
The system of getting our rights taken away away, and the have to fight for get them back makes no sense.
Disclaimer: I do very little for my own rights.
[+] [-] rjzzleep|12 years ago|reply
"was nicht passt, wird passend gemacht"
in my opinion the same will happen here. if the laws don't fit, the laws will be adjusted, or the terminology will change. it happened with the now no longer unconstitutional wars. and obama said the same:
"we're not really spying on you guys, we're just helping our allies"
you have to applaud the germans for their efforts though. after all they were able to temporarily halt the data retention efforts. i say temporary, because i'm convinced that even if the european court of justice really bans it(which i'm not convinced of), it will be even more crucial for them to have someone from the outside spying.
and besides that there is this rather worrisome notion in politics and lobbyism that a no in court only stays no until you turn it into a yes.
[+] [-] aluhut|12 years ago|reply
I'm curious how the german media will handle it. It's Top-News atm on the main public broadcasters (also on their homepages http://www.tagesschau.de/ http://www.heute.de/ 2nd one is ZDF. Close to the ruling CDU party). So I guess it will survive till the 8pm news. The trial coverage will be a different topic though.
[+] [-] perlgeek|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rayiner|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] twobits|12 years ago|reply
They are correct, and it happens worldwide. It leads to the conclusion that unless you are too big to fail/be touched, no one really lives in free and democratic countries.
[+] [-] bachback|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] higherpurpose|12 years ago|reply
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140130/10052526049/wyden-...
[+] [-] sneak|12 years ago|reply
This is great news. I'm sure they thought they were going to get away with it.
Dr. Mittenzwei, on the other hand, has better plans for them.
[+] [-] puppetmaster3|12 years ago|reply
Can we in USA sue the president and Feinstein for crimes like they can?
[+] [-] ghayes|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] iSnow|12 years ago|reply
Furthermore the Generalbundesanwalt is nominally independent of the government, but is traditionally very close to official politics.
[+] [-] terranstyler|12 years ago|reply
Besides, for some reason complaints against the state via the state take years, just see the ongoing complaints whether EFSF, ESM and whatnot market stabilization mechanisms violate the no-bailout clause in the EU treaty.
Game theory is a bitch :(
[+] [-] terranstyler|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] c7b0rg|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] atmosx|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChristianMarks|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrottenkolber|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scottydelta|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NSAID|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raphman|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mangeletti|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bluegrid|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sergj|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CryptcWriter|12 years ago|reply