Snowdon is a dummy

Thank you, !

You've done democracy a great service with your historic ruling on data retention. Finally, we have certainty on an issue that shouldn't be controversial in a liberal society in the first place: indiscriminate mass retention of all telecommunications data is a particularly severe intrusion on basic rights.

The ruling by the EU's top court corrects what governments, parliaments and security agencies across the European Union for years adjusted to suit their needs: the right of the individual to a private life.
And the ruling has consequences: in future, investigators fighting crimes of any kind, and that includes terrorism, will have to do without a tool that seems so useful. The question remains: what they will miss? It's a fact that security authorities have never provided evidence that showed they had greater success with the help of data retention than without it.

Authorities have access to numerous instruments to wiretap phones and computers in Germany - on the basis of existing laws, in cases where there is reasonable suspicion and with judicial authorization.
[...]
Perhaps investigators will realize in light of the European ruling that less can be more. Now state investigators can concentrate on the basics since they no longer need to review billions of unimportant and thus useless items of data. The relevancy of the comparatively small amount of data that will still be retained in future will automatically be clear.

Apart from the purely practical side of the ruling, it has a psychological aspect that should not be underestimated.

Knowledge that the state may only legally breach its citizens' privacy in exceptional cases strengthens trust between the people and those in power. One must hope that the individual will be able to rely on the fact that his communication is largely protected from state control - and that is the best protection against mutual distrust.
[... ... ...]
What constitutional experts declared to be a state policy guideline almost 30 years ago has shaped German attitudes to how fundamental personal rights are to be handled legally. Few of the many so-called anti-terror laws that inevitably would have affected individual freedoms lasted for long. The same is true for the data-retention law which the Constitutional Court ruled unconstitutional in 2010. The European Court of Justice has now ruled in a similar vein.

Again, thank you!

It's not just me disagreeing with you, Frank!
Opinion: A lesson for security fanatics

Quote:

Thank you, !

You've done democracy a great service with your historic ruling on data retention. Finally, we have certainty on an issue that shouldn't be controversial in a liberal society in the first place: indiscriminate mass retention of all telecommunications data is a particularly severe intrusion on basic rights.

The ruling by the EU's top court corrects what governments, parliaments and security agencies across the European Union for years adjusted to suit their needs: the right of the individual to a private life.
And the ruling has consequences: in future, investigators fighting crimes of any kind, and that includes terrorism, will have to do without a tool that seems so useful. The question remains: what they will miss? It's a fact that security authorities have never provided evidence that showed they had greater success with the help of data retention than without it.

Authorities have access to numerous instruments to wiretap phones and computers in Germany - on the basis of existing laws, in cases where there is reasonable suspicion and with judicial authorization.
[...]
Perhaps investigators will realize in light of the European ruling that less can be more. Now state investigators can concentrate on the basics since they no longer need to review billions of unimportant and thus useless items of data. The relevancy of the comparatively small amount of data that will still be retained in future will automatically be clear.

Apart from the purely practical side of the ruling, it has a psychological aspect that should not be underestimated.

Knowledge that the state may only legally breach its citizens' privacy in exceptional cases strengthens trust between the people and those in power. One must hope that the individual will be able to rely on the fact that his communication is largely protected from state control - and that is the best protection against mutual distrust.
[... ... ...]
What constitutional experts declared to be a state policy guideline almost 30 years ago has shaped German attitudes to how fundamental personal rights are to be handled legally. Few of the many so-called anti-terror laws that inevitably would have affected individual freedoms lasted for long. The same is true for the data-retention law which the Constitutional Court ruled unconstitutional in 2010. The European Court of Justice has now ruled in a similar vein.

Again, thank you!

Well, obviously we have more trust in our constitution, and obviously, Frank, you can't imagine that an agency works under the constitution and observes laws.

It is my opinion that the intelligence community of Germany will do, insofar as it is capable, the same thing the intelligence community of America is doing.

If you think differently...so be it.

It is my opinion that the intelligence community of Germany will do, insofar as it is capable, the same thing the intelligence community of America is doing.

A dispute in Berlin about whether to seek testimony from NSA leaker Edward Snowden has prompted a senior conservative to quit as chairman of a new German parliamentary inquiry.

Clemens Binninger of Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives, who was due to head a high-profile German parliamentary inquiry into surveillance by the US National Security Agency (NSA), resigned as committee chairman suddenly on Wednesday.

In a written statement, Binninger complained that the opposition Greens and Left party were "exclusively" focused on obtaining testimony from Snowden, the former NSA analyst, who currently has temporary asylum in Moscow.
[...]
Veteran Greens parliamentary Christian Ströbele, who caused a sensation last year by visiting Snowden in Moscow, said he suspected that the NSA has put pressure on Binninger to hinder public testimony from Snowden.
[...]

The Faculty of Humanities of Rostock University, Germany, will reward Snowden with the doctorate title "Doktor Philosophiae
honoris causa" (honorary doctor) it has been announced yesterday.
(He has been called by the deputy desn as "the Columbus of the digital age".)

Due to formality reasons, there will be a second voting in the faculty's assembly (The first yesterday came out with a 3/4 majority.)

Silliness is not confined to grammar schools.

The N.S.A. at this point not only knows I raised complaints, but that there is evidence that I made my concerns known to the N.S.A.'s lawyers, because I did some of it through e-mail. I directly challenge the N.S.A. to deny that I contacted N.S.A. oversight and compliance bodies directly via e-mail and that I specifically expressed concerns about their suspect interpretation of the law, and I welcome members of Congress to request a written answer to this question [from the N.S.A.].

“Look at the language officials use in sworn testimony about these records: ‘could have,’ ‘may have,’ ‘potentially.’ They’re prevaricating. Every single one of those officials knows I don’t have 1.7 million files, but what are they going to say? What senior official is going to go in front of Congress and say, ‘We have no idea what he has, because the N.S.A.’s auditing of systems holding hundreds of millions of Americans’ data is so negligent that any high-school dropout can walk out the door with it?’ ”

“I know exactly how many documents I have,” Snowden continues. “Zero.”

I would welcome this too

Edward Snowden wrote:

The N.S.A. at this point not only knows I raised complaints, but that there is evidence that I made my concerns known to the N.S.A.'s lawyers, because I did some of it through e-mail. I directly challenge the N.S.A. to deny that I contacted N.S.A. oversight and compliance bodies directly via e-mail and that I specifically expressed concerns about their suspect interpretation of the law, and I welcome members of Congress to request a written answer to this question [from the N.S.A.].

Also,

Quote:

“Look at the language officials use in sworn testimony about these records: ‘could have,’ ‘may have,’ ‘potentially.’ They’re prevaricating. Every single one of those officials knows I don’t have 1.7 million files, but what are they going to say? What senior official is going to go in front of Congress and say, ‘We have no idea what he has, because the N.S.A.’s auditing of systems holding hundreds of millions of Americans’ data is so negligent that any high-school dropout can walk out the door with it?’ ”

“I know exactly how many documents I have,” Snowden continues. “Zero.”

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140408/12024526841/snowden-says-nsa-is-lying-when-it-claims-he-didnt-raise-concerns-through-proper-channels.shtml

Why do you suppose the wording was crafted the way it was?

Angela Merkel denied access to her NSA file
The US government is refusing to grant Angela Merkel access to her NSA file or answer formal questions from Germany about its surveillance activities, raising the stakes before a crucial visit by the German chancellor to Washington.
[...]
In October, Obama personally assured Merkel that the US is no longer monitoring her calls, and promised it will not do so in the future. However, Washington has not answered a list of questions submitted by Berlin immediately after Snowden's first tranche of revelations appeared in the Guardian and Washington Post in June last year, months before the revelations over Merkel's phone.

The Obama's administration has also refused to enter into a mutual "no-spy" agreement with Germany, in part because Berlin is unwilling or unable to share the kinds of surveillance material the Americans say would be required for such a deal.

Merkel is intensely aware of the importance of the surveillance controversy for her domestic audience, and is planning to voice Germany's concerns privately with White House officials and leading senators. She will also be "forthright" in confronting the issue if she is asked by reporters during a press conference with Obama, according to a well-placed source with knowledge of the trip.
[...]
The latest information about the US refusal to divulge surveillance information about Merkel was revealed by in response to a parliamentary query by Green MP Omid Nouripour, who asked if the German chancellor had requested the release of paperwork relating to US intelligence agents' surveillance of her phone calls.

In its response, which is believed to have been released some weeks ago, but which only recently surfaced in public, a spokesperson for the German interior ministry confirmed that Merkel's government had submitted an official request on 24 October, but that the US government "had not supplied information in this regard".

Two weeks ago, the German magazine Der Spiegel said the NSA kept more than 300 reports on Merkel in a special databank concerning heads of state.

The report, published in partnership with The Intercept, a website set up by the former Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, was based on documents provided by Snowden. Previously, Der Speigel revealed the NSA had monitored Merkel's mobile phone for as long as 10 years.

Nouripour, who is the Green party's spokesperson on foreign affairs, said he intended to make further inquiries with the government and would seek to clarify if Merkel had asked for her NSA file to be destroyed.

Nouripour criticised both the German and the US governments for their response to the NSA revelations. "Last year, their failure to answer questions could have been due to genuine ignorance – now it looks like deliberate obfuscation. The Germans aren't asking the tough questions so they can protect their notion of a transatlantic partnership, and the US is happy that the Germans aren't asking tough questions so they can avoid further diplomatic scandals."

The news comes amid growing German frustration with the US and UK governments' failure to yield basic information about their surveillance activities. Earlier this week, interior minister Thomas de Maizière told Der Spiegel that the US response to the affair remained "inadequate".

"If two-thirds of what Edward Snowden reports, or of what is reported with attribution to him, is correct, then I come to the conclusion: the USA is acting without any restraint," said de Maizière, who emphasised that he was still a "transatlanticist by conviction". "America should be interested in improving the current situation. And words alone won't achieve that."
[...]
The US government's refusal to allow Merkel access to her own file contrasts with the relative ease with which German citizens are able to access files relating to the surveillance activities of the East German secret service, the Stasi.

In January 1992, after pressure from human rights activists, the German government took the unprecedented step of opening up the Stasi archive to the public – the federal agency in charge of the Stasi archives still receives around 5,000 applications a month.
In 1992, 13,088 pages worth of files relating to the NSA's surveillance of the West German government, sold to the Stasi by the US spy James W Hall, had been returned to the US, with permission of the German interior ministry.

Angela Merkel has defended the decision to keep access to the Stasi archive open to German citizens, and has reportedly used the opportunity to view her own Stasi file in person. "Many in former socialist countries envy us for this opportunity", she said in 2009.

In Germany, the aftermath of the Snowden revelations continues to be debated with vigour. On Wednesday, the head of a parliamentary inquiry into NSA surveillance resigned over a disagreement as to whether Snowden should be invited as a witness. Green and left politicians insist that the whistleblower should be invited to give testimony in person, but panel chairman Clemens Binninger, of Merkel's Christian Democrats, was more sceptical, arguing that most of the key information was already out in the public realm.

Academics at Rostock University, meanwhile, have voted to award Edward Snowden an honorary doctorate. Members of the philosophy faculty said they wanted to reward Snowden's "civil courage" and his "substantial contribution to a new global discourse about freedom, democracy, cosmopolitanism and the rights of the individual".

"There is no spying on Americans," said President Obama.

In a testimony, Clapper was asked directly by Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon: "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?"
Clapper responded: "No sir.
Wyden then asked: "They do not?"
Clapper responded: "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps collect, but not wittingly."

Now, in a letter to Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat on the intelligence committee, the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, has confirmed the use of this legal authority to search for data related to “US persons”.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Why do you suppose the wording was crafted the way it was?

I must have missed your post, Frank, where you explained why the above quoted wording was crafted the way it was.
Seems to me two different things, the president and the director were about months ago.

Quote:

Angela Merkel denied access to her NSA file
The US government is refusing to grant Angela Merkel access to her NSA file or answer formal questions from Germany about its surveillance activities, raising the stakes before a crucial visit by the German chancellor to Washington.
[...]
In October, Obama personally assured Merkel that the US is no longer monitoring her calls, and promised it will not do so in the future. However, Washington has not answered a list of questions submitted by Berlin immediately after Snowden's first tranche of revelations appeared in the Guardian and Washington Post in June last year, months before the revelations over Merkel's phone.

The Obama's administration has also refused to enter into a mutual "no-spy" agreement with Germany, in part because Berlin is unwilling or unable to share the kinds of surveillance material the Americans say would be required for such a deal.

Merkel is intensely aware of the importance of the surveillance controversy for her domestic audience, and is planning to voice Germany's concerns privately with White House officials and leading senators. She will also be "forthright" in confronting the issue if she is asked by reporters during a press conference with Obama, according to a well-placed source with knowledge of the trip.
[...]
The latest information about the US refusal to divulge surveillance information about Merkel was revealed by in response to a parliamentary query by Green MP Omid Nouripour, who asked if the German chancellor had requested the release of paperwork relating to US intelligence agents' surveillance of her phone calls.

In its response, which is believed to have been released some weeks ago, but which only recently surfaced in public, a spokesperson for the German interior ministry confirmed that Merkel's government had submitted an official request on 24 October, but that the US government "had not supplied information in this regard".

Two weeks ago, the German magazine Der Spiegel said the NSA kept more than 300 reports on Merkel in a special databank concerning heads of state.

The report, published in partnership with The Intercept, a website set up by the former Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, was based on documents provided by Snowden. Previously, Der Speigel revealed the NSA had monitored Merkel's mobile phone for as long as 10 years.

Nouripour, who is the Green party's spokesperson on foreign affairs, said he intended to make further inquiries with the government and would seek to clarify if Merkel had asked for her NSA file to be destroyed.

Nouripour criticised both the German and the US governments for their response to the NSA revelations. "Last year, their failure to answer questions could have been due to genuine ignorance – now it looks like deliberate obfuscation. The Germans aren't asking the tough questions so they can protect their notion of a transatlantic partnership, and the US is happy that the Germans aren't asking tough questions so they can avoid further diplomatic scandals."

The news comes amid growing German frustration with the US and UK governments' failure to yield basic information about their surveillance activities. Earlier this week, interior minister Thomas de Maizière told Der Spiegel that the US response to the affair remained "inadequate".

"If two-thirds of what Edward Snowden reports, or of what is reported with attribution to him, is correct, then I come to the conclusion: the USA is acting without any restraint," said de Maizière, who emphasised that he was still a "transatlanticist by conviction". "America should be interested in improving the current situation. And words alone won't achieve that."
[...]
The US government's refusal to allow Merkel access to her own file contrasts with the relative ease with which German citizens are able to access files relating to the surveillance activities of the East German secret service, the Stasi.

In January 1992, after pressure from human rights activists, the German government took the unprecedented step of opening up the Stasi archive to the public – the federal agency in charge of the Stasi archives still receives around 5,000 applications a month.
In 1992, 13,088 pages worth of files relating to the NSA's surveillance of the West German government, sold to the Stasi by the US spy James W Hall, had been returned to the US, with permission of the German interior ministry.

Angela Merkel has defended the decision to keep access to the Stasi archive open to German citizens, and has reportedly used the opportunity to view her own Stasi file in person. "Many in former socialist countries envy us for this opportunity", she said in 2009.

In Germany, the aftermath of the Snowden revelations continues to be debated with vigour. On Wednesday, the head of a parliamentary inquiry into NSA surveillance resigned over a disagreement as to whether Snowden should be invited as a witness. Green and left politicians insist that the whistleblower should be invited to give testimony in person, but panel chairman Clemens Binninger, of Merkel's Christian Democrats, was more sceptical, arguing that most of the key information was already out in the public realm.

Academics at Rostock University, meanwhile, have voted to award Edward Snowden an honorary doctorate. Members of the philosophy faculty said they wanted to reward Snowden's "civil courage" and his "substantial contribution to a new global discourse about freedom, democracy, cosmopolitanism and the rights of the individual".

They must have a reason, isn't it, Frank? (Once a Nazi-country = always a Nazi-country. And additionally, Merkel lived in a commi-country half of her life!)

Ah, and yes: Silliness is not confined to grammar schools.