Nsa Contractor Identifies Himself As Source

[Credo]

No. He is still a traitor. The domestic surveillance is unconstitutional. The international surveillance is not.

He has also passed on secrets about how the NSA operates and gathers information, which would put him far outside the parameters of being a simple whistleblower.

[DavyJones88]

I agree that Snowden is much more than just a simple Whistleblower, he is a Hero, a Rolemodel, a Patriot, a Humanitarian, a Crusader for truth and justice. He deserves the congressional medal of honor more than any military man, he has more courage and honor than anyone in the us military today.

[Sing_Sling]

No. He is still a traitor. The domestic surveillance is unconstitutional. The international surveillance is not.

He has also passed on secrets about how the NSA operates and gathers information, which would put him far outside the parameters of being a simple whistleblower.

So, the NSA's activities in other countries are illegal, therefore Snowden is a great man . . . and he is a hero to the millions and millions of Americans whose government has broken the law vis-a-vis their rights.

Why are you now so concerned with what goes on internationally?

[F430murci]

No. He is still a traitor. The domestic surveillance is unconstitutional. The international surveillance is not.

He has also passed on secrets about how the NSA operates and gathers information, which would put him far outside the parameters of being a simple whistleblower.

So, the NSA's activities in other countries are illegal, therefore Snowden is a great man . . . and he is a hero to the millions and millions of Americans whose government has broken the law vis-a-vis their rights.

Why are you now so concerned with what goes on internationally?

Haha, some of you are so funny. It is the "US Constitution." It is not the world or interplanetary Constitution. The US Constitution is generally designed to protects US citizens and not foreigners in other countries or aliens in space.

Illegal in your mind perhaps, but what is in your mind is not necessarily truth or reality. I would also hope that people would have more lofty goals than viewing someone like Snowden as a hero. Funny, funny stuff.

BTW, I really doubt you are so important that US or NSA is listening to your phone calls, tracking your every movement or watching lie in bad at night with their high powered spy satellites. There is just a chance, or perhaps even a great chance, you got nothing to worry about.

[englishoak]

No. He is still a traitor. The domestic surveillance is unconstitutional. The international surveillance is not.

He has also passed on secrets about how the NSA operates and gathers information, which would put him far outside the parameters of being a simple whistleblower.

So, the NSA's activities in other countries are illegal, therefore Snowden is a great man . . . and he is a hero to the millions and millions of Americans whose government has broken the law vis-a-vis their rights.

Why are you now so concerned with what goes on internationally?

And i hope Snowden continues to cause a total S***storm and others pick up the baton and bring as much into the light as possible. Whisteblowers are being threatened and muzzled all over the world, its not because its for the good of the people but purely so govs can continue to break laws and do what they wish...

One law for you one for me.... Rule 101 you can do whatever you wish from taking bribes to actual murder if a gov just don't get caught.

[lomatopo]

The US Constitution is generally designed to protects (sic) US citizens

The key word being "generally",

until such time as it is inconvenient to do so.

[lomatopo]

Edward Snowden's former colleague calls him 'a genius among geniuses' and was given unprecedented access to the classified materials that he later leaked

His former colleague tells how Snowden wore a hacker sweatshirt to the NSA offices in Hawaii and kept a Constitution on his desk

The hacker is remembered as really talented consultant who was quickly moved up the food chain because they wanted to use his skills

He regularly reported security breaches to his superiors that went unfixed

Comes as government officials continue to call him a felonious traitor

A former contracting colleague of Edward Snowden's has spoken out in an effort to fight back against the way that he is being depicted by government officials. A coworker has revealed that despite the picture that has been painted of Snowden- which casts him as a man who stole colleagues passwords and hid his feelings about the controversial surveillance tactics used by the NSA to collect citizens phone records- the reason why he was given so much access is clear.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2525502/Edward-Snowden-genius-geniuses-says-colleague.html

[DavyJones88]

He is a Genius, only a Genius could have beaten the NSA like he did, he made them look like fools, and he exposed the criminality, hypocrisy and corruption of the sinking ship known as the US fed government.. He was too smart to be an average NSA peeping Tom, his fellow co-worker tyrants who were getting off on reading other people's email probably disgusted him as it rightly should have. Just as US police are chosen making sure they are not too intelligent for the job, people with lukewarm intelligence make the best tyrants and thugs. I bet the NSA and fed government will in the future try harder to weed out people who are too intelligent for the job. The purposeful dumbing down of education in the USA may be so that the Government has a constant supply of morons willing to spy on, harass, intimidate and kill their fellow people in exchange for a few shekels and a position of false, deluded "authority". Thank God for Snowdens genius, and that he used that genius for good, if there are any geniuses involved in the Us police state they are using that genius for absolute evil.

[Sing_Sling]

No. He is still a traitor. The domestic surveillance is unconstitutional. The international surveillance is not.

He has also passed on secrets about how the NSA operates and gathers information, which would put him far outside the parameters of being a simple whistleblower.

So, the NSA's activities in other countries are illegal, therefore Snowden is a great man . . . and he is a hero to the millions and millions of Americans whose government has broken the law vis-a-vis their rights.

Why are you now so concerned with what goes on internationally?

Haha, some of you are so funny. It is the "US Constitution." It is not the world or interplanetary Constitution. The US Constitution is generally designed to protects US citizens and not foreigners in other countries or aliens in space.

Illegal in your mind perhaps, but what is in your mind is not necessarily truth or reality. I would also hope that people would have more lofty goals than viewing someone like Snowden as a hero. Funny, funny stuff.

BTW, I really doubt you are so important that US or NSA is listening to your phone calls, tracking your every movement or watching lie in bad at night with their high powered spy satellites. There is just a chance, or perhaps even a great chance, you got nothing to worry about.

Haha, some of you can't read. Haha.

The NSA's activities in other countries are illegal - how you fail to comprehend that is beyond me . . . Haha

[Credo]

Ha, ha. So who is going to arrest the NSA? Who is going to charge them? Who is going to provide the evidence and what court is the case going to be heard of?

Heroin is illegal in most countries, but you don't get arrested for growing the poppies in another country.

[F430murci]

No. He is still a traitor. The domestic surveillance is unconstitutional. The international surveillance is not.

He has also passed on secrets about how the NSA operates and gathers information, which would put him far outside the parameters of being a simple whistleblower.

So, the NSA's activities in other countries are illegal, therefore Snowden is a great man . . . and he is a hero to the millions and millions of Americans whose government has broken the law vis-a-vis their rights.

Why are you now so concerned with what goes on internationally?

Haha, some of you are so funny. It is the "US Constitution." It is not the world or interplanetary Constitution. The US Constitution is generally designed to protects US citizens and not foreigners in other countries or aliens in space.

Illegal in your mind perhaps, but what is in your mind is not necessarily truth or reality. I would also hope that people would have more lofty goals than viewing someone like Snowden as a hero. Funny, funny stuff.

BTW, I really doubt you are so important that US or NSA is listening to your phone calls, tracking your every movement or watching lie in bad at night with their high powered spy satellites. There is just a chance, or perhaps even a great chance, you got nothing to worry about.

Haha, some of you can't read. Haha.

The NSA's activities in other countries are illegal - how you fail to comprehend that is beyond me . . . Haha

You are certainly entitled to be silly, dishonest or say whatever makes you feel complete, but . . . You saying its illegal does not make it illegal.

Back in July or August and in this very thread, I cited and quoted many Federal Circuit Court and District Court cases addressing foreign wire tap issues, all of which concluded it was legal. Until these cases are reversed, foreign wire taps are not per se illegal.

If it is illegal, then provide citation to a case stating that foreign, not domestic, wire taps are illegal. If you cannot, then you are just being dishonest as usual by making such statements and confusing your beliefs with legality.

The correct vernacular would be you think it's wrong as opposed to using the term illegal or breaking the law.

Edited December 18, 2013 by F430murci

[manarak]

Haha, some of you can't read. Haha.

The NSA's activities in other countries are illegal - how you fail to comprehend that is beyond me . . . Haha

You are certainly entitled to be silly, dishonest or say whatever makes you feel complete, but . . . You saying its illegal does not make it illegal.

Back in July or August and in this very thread, I cited and quoted many Federal Circuit Court and District Court cases addressing foreign wire tap issues, all of which concluded it was legal. Until these cases are reversed, foreign wire taps are not per se illegal.

If it is illegal, then provide citation to a case stating that foreign, not domestic, wire taps are illegal. If you cannot, then you are just being dishonest as usual by making such statements and confusing your beliefs with legality.

The correct vernacular would be you think it's wrong as opposed to using the term illegal or breaking the law.

So I think it's fair game if foreign intelligence agencies do the same in the USA, right? There would be no reason for the US to be offended about such practices, right?

[F430murci]

Haha, some of you can't read. Haha.

The NSA's activities in other countries are illegal - how you fail to comprehend that is beyond me . . . Haha

You are certainly entitled to be silly, dishonest or say whatever makes you feel complete, but . . . You saying its illegal does not make it illegal.

Back in July or August and in this very thread, I cited and quoted many Federal Circuit Court and District Court cases addressing foreign wire tap issues, all of which concluded it was legal. Until these cases are reversed, foreign wire taps are not per se illegal.

If it is illegal, then provide citation to a case stating that foreign, not domestic, wire taps are illegal. If you cannot, then you are just being dishonest as usual by making such statements and confusing your beliefs with legality.

The correct vernacular would be you think it's wrong as opposed to using the term illegal or breaking the law.

So I think it's fair game if foreign intelligence agencies do the same in the USA, right? There would be no reason for the US to be offended about such practices, right?

Yep. It has been going on for years. Not sure that matters. The issue is legality. I do not think it violates the US constitution or US laws for China, Russia et al. to eaves drop on me or any US citizen. Who the frick cares? I also sincerely doubt they would have interests in snooping on me, but if they do and waste the time and resources to do it . . . I am flattered.

As far as government intrusion, I do wish we had the upper hand and could steal all of their secrets and they could not steal ours just so we could maintain a security advantage. I think the Chinese ripping off our designs and patented products for production and re sell sucks for the patent holders.

[lomatopo]

Obama’s Surprising NSA Review Panel

Panels appointed in response to government scandals rarely produce anything revelatory or interesting, much less readable. The panel that President Barack Obama appointed to look into reforming the National Security Agency came up with something different: a critical and specific document that seriously questions some of the basic premises of the NSA’s expanded global mission since Sept. 11.

Some of the panel’s recommendations make sense. Some do not. But the overwhelming message is clear: The days of the NSA doing anything it pleases -- in secret and largely free from public criticism -- are coming to an end.

The report offers 46 recommendations of varying worth and plausibility. Its proposal to strengthen the technical expertise of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and to include a public-interest advocate in its proceedings, is a smart one. The panel’s call for the agency to store the phone metadata it collects with telephone companies or a third party could provide an important firewall. And the report rightly acknowledges that the decision to monitor communications of foreign leaders is an inherently political one that should be made by the White House.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-19/the-big-surprise-of-obama-s-nsa-review-panel.html

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304866904579266381778464284

Turn Off the Data Vacuum

In the days after one of the biggest national security leaks in United States history revealed the existence of vast, largely unchecked government surveillance programs, President Obama said he would “welcome” a robust national debate over the appropriate balance between protecting national security and respecting individual privacy and civil liberties.

The recommendations demonstrate how far afield the National Security Agency has wandered in its zeal to vacuum up the phone and Internet data of virtually every American, not to mention world leaders and other non-American citizens.

They also show the lack of regard for the Constitution that has led those efforts, and the virtual absence of supervision and restraint by Mr. Obama and his predecessor, President George W. Bush.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/19/opinion/turn-off-the-data-vacuum.html?_r=0

You can read the report here: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/12/19/us/politics/19nsa-review.html

[Sing_Sling]

Ha, ha. So who is going to arrest the NSA? Who is going to charge them? Who is going to provide the evidence and what court is the case going to be heard of?

Heroin is illegal in most countries, but you don't get arrested for growing the poppies in another country.

Ha Ha? I guess it's an American thing. Ok, Ha Ha.

The evidence is already there - isn't that what you decry abut Snowden?

Which court? How about a court in Germany. A court in France. A court in Spain etc . . . ad infinitum.

Heroin is illegal in most countries, this is true.

As for you next statement 'you don't get arrested for growing poppies in another country' . . .

I'll allow you to re-phrase that or even to take that back.

Let's take it one step further . . . yes, you do get arrested if you import the drugs into a country where it is illegal.

Difficult to comprehend? Clearly.

[Sing_Sling]

So, the NSA's activities in other countries are illegal, therefore Snowden is a great man . . . and he is a hero to the millions and millions of Americans whose government has broken the law vis-a-vis their rights.

Why are you now so concerned with what goes on internationally?

Haha, some of you are so funny. It is the "US Constitution." It is not the world or interplanetary Constitution. The US Constitution is generally designed to protects US citizens and not foreigners in other countries or aliens in space.

Illegal in your mind perhaps, but what is in your mind is not necessarily truth or reality. I would also hope that people would have more lofty goals than viewing someone like Snowden as a hero. Funny, funny stuff.

BTW, I really doubt you are so important that US or NSA is listening to your phone calls, tracking your every movement or watching lie in bad at night with their high powered spy satellites. There is just a chance, or perhaps even a great chance, you got nothing to worry about.

Haha, some of you can't read. Haha.

The NSA's activities in other countries are illegal - how you fail to comprehend that is beyond me . . . Haha

You are certainly entitled to be silly, dishonest or say whatever makes you feel complete, but . . . You saying its illegal does not make it illegal.

Back in July or August and in this very thread, I cited and quoted many Federal Circuit Court and District Court cases addressing foreign wire tap issues, all of which concluded it was legal. Until these cases are reversed, foreign wire taps are not per se illegal.

If it is illegal, then provide citation to a case stating that foreign, not domestic, wire taps are illegal. If you cannot, then you are just being dishonest as usual by making such statements and confusing your beliefs with legality.

The correct vernacular would be you think it's wrong as opposed to using the term illegal or breaking the law.

Firstly, talking about silly . . . I believe you introduced the 'haha' childishness - so please feel complete with that.

Further, it would be necessary for you to think outside the FOXBOX as you are not discussing issues only with your fellow citizens. I really don't care much about the citation regarding illegal wire taps - oh, they have been found to be illegal.

I am not commenting on YOUR domestic laws . . . again, whether or not to YOU foreign wire taps are illegal is a topic which is quite tedious and not germane to my points.

YOUR wire taps are illegal in Germany, France etc... ad infinitum

The correct vernacular, therefore, as used. They are illegal.

You may now continue, hopefully I have cleared up for you that the US is not the world and gave you a little lesson on distinguishing sovereign countries' laws from local laws, be they Aussie laws, Kiwi laws etc . . .

[Sing_Sling]

Haha, some of you can't read. Haha.

The NSA's activities in other countries are illegal - how you fail to comprehend that is beyond me . . . Haha

You are certainly entitled to be silly, dishonest or say whatever makes you feel complete, but . . . You saying its illegal does not make it illegal.

Back in July or August and in this very thread, I cited and quoted many Federal Circuit Court and District Court cases addressing foreign wire tap issues, all of which concluded it was legal. Until these cases are reversed, foreign wire taps are not per se illegal.

If it is illegal, then provide citation to a case stating that foreign, not domestic, wire taps are illegal. If you cannot, then you are just being dishonest as usual by making such statements and confusing your beliefs with legality.

The correct vernacular would be you think it's wrong as opposed to using the term illegal or breaking the law.

So I think it's fair game if foreign intelligence agencies do the same in the USA, right? There would be no reason for the US to be offended about such practices, right?

No reason at all . . . unless one, like Murci, gets offended at others stealing secrets . . . then it is a different ballgame

[Credo]

Ha, ha. So who is going to arrest the NSA? Who is going to charge them? Who is going to provide the evidence and what court is the case going to be heard of?

Heroin is illegal in most countries, but you don't get arrested for growing the poppies in another country.

Ha Ha? I guess it's an American thing. Ok, Ha Ha.

The evidence is already there - isn't that what you decry abut Snowden?

Which court? How about a court in Germany. A court in France. A court in Spain etc . . . ad infinitum.

Heroin is illegal in most countries, this is true.

As for you next statement 'you don't get arrested for growing poppies in another country' . . .

I'll allow you to re-phrase that or even to take that back.

Let's take it one step further . . . yes, you do get arrested if you import the drugs into a country where it is illegal.

Difficult to comprehend? Clearly.

Apparently it is difficult for YOU to comprehend. Have any of those countries, including the ones where there seems to be some verifiable evidence of spying on a PM, taken legal action? Oh, they haven't, have they? I wonder why? Could it be that German, Spanish, or French Courts don't have any jurisdiction in the US over the NSA?

This thread is about what the NSA is doing to US citizens because the courts have little, if any authority, over what the NSA does outside of the USA.

[Sing_Sling]

Ha, ha. So who is going to arrest the NSA? Who is going to charge them? Who is going to provide the evidence and what court is the case going to be heard of?

Heroin is illegal in most countries, but you don't get arrested for growing the poppies in another country.

Ha Ha? I guess it's an American thing. Ok, Ha Ha.

The evidence is already there - isn't that what you decry abut Snowden?

Which court? How about a court in Germany. A court in France. A court in Spain etc . . . ad infinitum.

Heroin is illegal in most countries, this is true.

As for you next statement 'you don't get arrested for growing poppies in another country' . . .

I'll allow you to re-phrase that or even to take that back.

Let's take it one step further . . . yes, you do get arrested if you import the drugs into a country where it is illegal.

Difficult to comprehend? Clearly.

Apparently it is difficult for YOU to comprehend. Have any of those countries, including the ones where there seems to be some verifiable evidence of spying on a PM, taken legal action? Oh, they haven't, have they? I wonder why? Could it be that German, Spanish, or French Courts don't have any jurisdiction in the US over the NSA?

This thread is about what the NSA is doing to US citizens because the courts have little, if any authority, over what the NSA does outside of the USA.

I'll make allowances for your education, or lack of it . . .

Please show me where I said - or even intimated - that anyone has jurisdiction in another country . . . and it fits perfectly into the thread, so please don't try to play thread police - the mods here at TV do a good job at that without requiring your assistance.

So, nice try at obfuscation, but fail at your intended result.

What the NSA is doing in Germany, France etc... is illegal in Germany, France, Italy and Snowden's leaks (do you see the connection??????) have shown the world what the NSA is doing etc . . . Capisce?

[F430murci]

Ha, ha. So who is going to arrest the NSA? Who is going to charge them? Who is going to provide the evidence and what court is the case going to be heard of?

Heroin is illegal in most countries, but you don't get arrested for growing the poppies in another country.

Ha Ha? I guess it's an American thing. Ok, Ha Ha.

The evidence is already there - isn't that what you decry abut Snowden?

Which court? How about a court in Germany. A court in France. A court in Spain etc . . . ad infinitum.

Heroin is illegal in most countries, this is true.

As for you next statement 'you don't get arrested for growing poppies in another country' . . .

I'll allow you to re-phrase that or even to take that back.

Let's take it one step further . . . yes, you do get arrested if you import the drugs into a country where it is illegal.

Difficult to comprehend? Clearly.

Apparently it is difficult for YOU to comprehend. Have any of those countries, including the ones where there seems to be some verifiable evidence of spying on a PM, taken legal action? Oh, they haven't, have they? I wonder why? Could it be that German, Spanish, or French Courts don't have any jurisdiction in the US over the NSA?

This thread is about what the NSA is doing to US citizens because the courts have little, if any authority, over what the NSA does outside of the USA.

I'll make allowances for your education, or lack of it . . .

Please show me where I said - or even intimated - that anyone has jurisdiction in another country . . . and it fits perfectly into the thread, so please don't try to play thread police - the mods here at TV do a good job at that without requiring your assistance.

So, nice try at obfuscation, but fail at your intended result.

What the NSA is doing in Germany, France etc... is illegal in Germany, France, Italy and Snowden's leaks (do you see the connection??????) have shown the world what the NSA is doing etc . . . Capisce?

Then you must be able to cite a rule, statute or case in Germany or France that says it is illegal for US or a foreign county to collect data from German or French citizens. Surely the citation to the statute, rule or case is right at your finger tips for you to keep making such statements so please share it with us so you don't just sound old, senile or obstinate.

I believe Germany has a law, like the US, that prohibits its own government from from certain conduct or that potentially prohibits it from collecting its own citizens' data and transmitting that to a foreign country, but there is no law applicable to US, NSA or a foreign county's activities.

I believe there is talk to pass a UN resolution to make certain acts illegal in 2015, but that has yet to happen. There would be no need for such a UN resolution if it was already illegal in Germany or France You cannot use UN talks of possibly passing a future resolution as that would be ex post facto.

Good luck on getting the UN resolution through. Why? Because every country with any technology and national security concerns including Germany, France, England, China and Russia have done it for years, are still doing it and will continue to do it into the future.

Again, I challenge you to cite a rule, statute or case from Germany or France that prohibits US or the USA's NSA from collecting data inside Germany or France.

[manarak]

I believe Germany has a law, like the US, that prohibits its own government from from certain conduct or that potentially prohibits it from collecting its own citizens' data and transmitting that to a foreign country, but there is no law applicable to US, NSA or a foreign county's activities.

actually, the German Laws, similarly to many other European Laws, were not made to limit governments' powers. Instead, the laws specifically protect confidentiality, this means breach of the confidentiality without a legal warrant by *anyone*, including police, government, third parties, private persons, etc. is illegal.

So there is no need for a specific law banning US government from spying.

[F430murci]

I believe Germany has a law, like the US, that prohibits its own government from from certain conduct or that potentially prohibits it from collecting its own citizens' data and transmitting that to a foreign country, but there is no law applicable to US, NSA or a foreign county's activities.

actually, the German Laws, similarly to many other European Laws, were not made to limit governments' powers. Instead, the laws specifically protect confidentiality, this means breach of the confidentiality without a legal warrant by *anyone*, including police, government, third parties, private persons, etc. is illegal.

So there is no need for a specific law banning US government from spying.

Cite? Show the provision and not your belief.

-----

The study’s authors note that the German G-10 law – just like laws in the US – only protects residents in Germany. But as soon as these people communicate with someone outside of the country, this communication is not covered by the law and can be intercepted. Conversations and messages that cross borders are not subject to any control mechanisms. In practice, the BND operates at this point in a legal vacuum.

http://www.intelligencequarterly.com/2013/10/german-intelligence-service-is-as-bad-as-the-nsa/

-----

Heumann and Scott are not the first to say this. The Berlin-based lawyer Niko Härting, for example, has compared the legal foundations for the work of the NSA and the BND. He also found that both agencies are essentially doing the same thing in that they consider everyone living outside their territory to be "without rights". In short: intelligence services are allowed to spy on foreigners completely unimpeded. Härting points out that it is, after all, the job of foreign intelligence services to watch everybody else.

But Heumann and Scott go one step further, deploring the weakness of legal controls on the intelligence services, which they say are far too limited.

All three countries, they conclude, lack robust systems capable of protecting citizens from unwarranted surveillance.

"In all three countries the services enjoy great secrecy and freedom when it comes to gathering information abroad. National legal limits and control mechanisms only apply to domestic citizens. And in most cases these limits only come into effect after the event, once the communication data in question has already been intercepted."

Of the three countries they looked at, the authors said checks and balances in Britain are the weakest. Neither parliament nor the courts are involved in regulating or authorising surveillance programmes. Oversight is limited exclusively to within the service itself.

http://www.intelligencequarterly.com/2013/10/german-intelligence-service-is-as-bad-as-the-nsa/

[manarak]

I believe Germany has a law, like the US, that prohibits its own government from from certain conduct or that potentially prohibits it from collecting its own citizens' data and transmitting that to a foreign country, but there is no law applicable to US, NSA or a foreign county's activities.

actually, the German Laws, similarly to many other European Laws, were not made to limit governments' powers. Instead, the laws specifically protect confidentiality, this means breach of the confidentiality without a legal warrant by *anyone*, including police, government, third parties, private persons, etc. is illegal.

So there is no need for a specific law banning US government from spying.

Cite? Show the provision and not your belief.

-----

The study’s authors note that the German G-10 law – just like laws in the US – only protects residents in Germany. But as soon as these people communicate with someone outside of the country, this communication is not covered by the law and can be intercepted. Conversations and messages that cross borders are not subject to any control mechanisms. In practice, the BND operates at this point in a legal vacuum.

http://www.intelligencequarterly.com/2013/10/german-intelligence-service-is-as-bad-as-the-nsa/

-----

Heumann and Scott are not the first to say this. The Berlin-based lawyer Niko Härting, for example, has compared the legal foundations for the work of the NSA and the BND. He also found that both agencies are essentially doing the same thing in that they consider everyone living outside their territory to be "without rights". In short: intelligence services are allowed to spy on foreigners completely unimpeded. Härting points out that it is, after all, the job of foreign intelligence services to watch everybody else.

But Heumann and Scott go one step further, deploring the weakness of legal controls on the intelligence services, which they say are far too limited.

All three countries, they conclude, lack robust systems capable of protecting citizens from unwarranted surveillance.

"In all three countries the services enjoy great secrecy and freedom when it comes to gathering information abroad. National legal limits and control mechanisms only apply to domestic citizens. And in most cases these limits only come into effect after the event, once the communication data in question has already been intercepted."

Of the three countries they looked at, the authors said checks and balances in Britain are the weakest. Neither parliament nor the courts are involved in regulating or authorising surveillance programmes. Oversight is limited exclusively to within the service itself.

http://www.intelligencequarterly.com/2013/10/german-intelligence-service-is-as-bad-as-the-nsa/

The article you quote is correct - laws are territorial.

I.e. it would be illegal for the US to spy inside German jurisdiction.

If German data is sent abroad and spied on there, it is not against German Law.

But spying onto systems geographically located in Germany is very much illegal.

[F430murci]

I believe Germany has a law, like the US, that prohibits its own government from from certain conduct or that potentially prohibits it from collecting its own citizens' data and transmitting that to a foreign country, but there is no law applicable to US, NSA or a foreign county's activities.

actually, the German Laws, similarly to many other European Laws, were not made to limit governments' powers. Instead, the laws specifically protect confidentiality, this means breach of the confidentiality without a legal warrant by *anyone*, including police, government, third parties, private persons, etc. is illegal.

So there is no need for a specific law banning US government from spying.

It appears as if even tapping Merkel's own cell phone was not illegal under privacy laws, but could potentially be viewed as espionage violations which would be hard to nail on US agency and definitely would not be applicable to common citizens that are wire tapped.

-----

There has been great indignation at the news that Chancellor Merkel's phone was tapped by American intelligence services. But according to experts, the spying could actually have been legal under current laws.

. . .

In other words, as the historian points out, it's possible that even the tapping of German Chancellor Angela Merkel's mobile phone had some sort of legal basis. Although the treaty documents do not explicitly allow the US secret service to spy on the German government, they do not explicitly forbid it, either.

. . .

In an effort to avoid future spying controversies between allies, the European states are working on a so-called "no spying agreement," the signatories of which would promise not to spy on each other. Germany and France, which was also affected by the NSA's surveillance activities, want the US to sign agreements with them to this effect.

http://www.dw.de/was-us-eavesdropping-possibly-legal/a-17185614

[F430murci]

I believe Germany has a law, like the US, that prohibits its own government from from certain conduct or that potentially prohibits it from collecting its own citizens' data and transmitting that to a foreign country, but there is no law applicable to US, NSA or a foreign county's activities.

actually, the German Laws, similarly to many other European Laws, were not made to limit governments' powers. Instead, the laws specifically protect confidentiality, this means breach of the confidentiality without a legal warrant by *anyone*, including police, government, third parties, private persons, etc. is illegal.

So there is no need for a specific law banning US government from spying.

Cite? Show the provision and not your belief.

-----

The study’s authors note that the German G-10 law – just like laws in the US – only protects residents in Germany. But as soon as these people communicate with someone outside of the country, this communication is not covered by the law and can be intercepted. Conversations and messages that cross borders are not subject to any control mechanisms. In practice, the BND operates at this point in a legal vacuum.

http://www.intelligencequarterly.com/2013/10/german-intelligence-service-is-as-bad-as-the-nsa/

-----

Heumann and Scott are not the first to say this. The Berlin-based lawyer Niko Härting, for example, has compared the legal foundations for the work of the NSA and the BND. He also found that both agencies are essentially doing the same thing in that they consider everyone living outside their territory to be "without rights". In short: intelligence services are allowed to spy on foreigners completely unimpeded. Härting points out that it is, after all, the job of foreign intelligence services to watch everybody else.

But Heumann and Scott go one step further, deploring the weakness of legal controls on the intelligence services, which they say are far too limited.

All three countries, they conclude, lack robust systems capable of protecting citizens from unwarranted surveillance.

"In all three countries the services enjoy great secrecy and freedom when it comes to gathering information abroad. National legal limits and control mechanisms only apply to domestic citizens. And in most cases these limits only come into effect after the event, once the communication data in question has already been intercepted."

Of the three countries they looked at, the authors said checks and balances in Britain are the weakest. Neither parliament nor the courts are involved in regulating or authorising surveillance programmes. Oversight is limited exclusively to within the service itself.

http://www.intelligencequarterly.com/2013/10/german-intelligence-service-is-as-bad-as-the-nsa/

The article you quote is correct - laws are territorial.

I.e. it would be illegal for the US to spy inside German jurisdiction.

If German data is sent abroad and spied on there, it is not against German Law.

But spying onto systems geographically located in Germany is very much illegal.

You miss the point. It is entirely reciprocal and the laws are only applicable domestically as far as authorization or prohibition. The article I cited above deal with this and even concludes that Merk's own cell phone was not protected from NSA tapping by German privacy laws.

Again, cite something other than your opinion when calling it illegal. Some of you guys are so knotted up internally by a litany of factors that you apparently cannot view things objectively.

You are caught in subjective belief or personal opinion driven by personal beliefs.

Candidly, I generally disagree with the subjective aspect of tapping and warrantless intrusions and I am all for privacy rights, but I also can set aside my personal beliefs and view the law objectively.

-----

Was US eavesdropping possibly legal?

http://www.dw.de/was-us-eavesdropping-possibly-legal/a-17185614

Edited December 19, 2013 by F430murci

[manarak]

The article you quote is correct - laws are territorial.

I.e. it would be illegal for the US to spy inside German jurisdiction.

If German data is sent abroad and spied on there, it is not against German Law.

But spying onto systems geographically located in Germany is very much illegal.

You miss the point. It is entirely reciprocal and the laws are only applicable domestically as far as authorization or prohibition. The article I cited above deal with this and even concludes that Merk's own cell phone was not protected from NSA tapping by German privacy laws.

Again, cite something other than your opinion when calling it illegal. Some of you guys are so knotted up internally by a litany of factors that you apparently cannot view things objectively.

You are caught in subjective belief or personal opinion driven by personal beliefs.

Candidly, I generally disagree with the subjective aspect of tapping and warrantless intrusions and I am all for privacy rights, but I also can set aside my personal beliefs and view the law objectively.

-----

Was US eavesdropping possibly legal?

http://www.dw.de/was-us-eavesdropping-possibly-legal/a-17185614

I don't know if you had training or classes in Law and international Law as I did, but I'd guess you didn't.

You have to consider territoriality and jurisdiction when examining the legality of anything.

The tapping of Chancellor Merkel's phone is a good example.

Relevant is: where did the tapping take place? Within German jurisdiction or not?

Apparently, the signal of Merkel's phone could be received from within the territory of the US embassy, which is not under German jurisdiction. So, the waves traveled through the air within territory under US jurisdiction and were captured there and therefore this interception occured outside of German jurisdiction, therefore German Law does not apply.

Now let's examine some alternate scenarios:

If the NSA had put electronic listening devices in Merkel's office, it would have been very much illegal, since the action would have taken place on German territory.

Another case is if the NSA did actively hack from US territory into a system within German jurisdiction. In this case, the action is illegal, but the perpetrator did it from outside German territory.

In practice, the perps would not be investigated or prosecuted because the US would not cooperate - but in theory, hacking of foreign systems is also illegal under US Law, so in theory the US should investigate the matter and possibly extradite the perps to Germany to be prosecuted, as was the case earlier with hackers that were extradited to the USA, if I remember well.

When the crime is international, i.e. the perp sits in another country, then two things have to be considered:

- in which jurisdiction did the actual action take place and is that action illegal under the applicable laws in that jurisdiction ?

- in which jurisdiction is the perp physically located and is the action illegal under the applicable laws in that jurisdiction ?

[F430murci]

The article you quote is correct - laws are territorial.

I.e. it would be illegal for the US to spy inside German jurisdiction.

If German data is sent abroad and spied on there, it is not against German Law.

But spying onto systems geographically located in Germany is very much illegal.

You miss the point. It is entirely reciprocal and the laws are only applicable domestically as far as authorization or prohibition. The article I cited above deal with this and even concludes that Merk's own cell phone was not protected from NSA tapping by German privacy laws.

Again, cite something other than your opinion when calling it illegal. Some of you guys are so knotted up internally by a litany of factors that you apparently cannot view things objectively.

You are caught in subjective belief or personal opinion driven by personal beliefs.

Candidly, I generally disagree with the subjective aspect of tapping and warrantless intrusions and I am all for privacy rights, but I also can set aside my personal beliefs and view the law objectively.

-----

Was US eavesdropping possibly legal?

http://www.dw.de/was-us-eavesdropping-possibly-legal/a-17185614

I don't know if you had training or classes in Law and international Law as I did, but I'd guess you didn't.

You have to consider territoriality and jurisdiction when examining the legality of anything.

The tapping of Chancellor Merkel's phone is a good example.

Relevant is: where did the tapping take place? Within German jurisdiction or not?

Apparently, the signal of Merkel's phone could be received from within the territory of the US embassy, which is not under German jurisdiction. So, the waves traveled through the air within territory under US jurisdiction and were captured there and therefore this interception occured outside of German jurisdiction, therefore German Law does not apply.

Now let's examine some alternate scenarios:

If the NSA had put electronic listening devices in Merkel's office, it would have been very much illegal, since the action would have taken place on German territory.

Another case is if the NSA did actively hack from US territory into a system within German jurisdiction. In this case, the action is illegal, but the perpetrator did it from outside German territory.

In practice, the perps would not be investigated or prosecuted because the US would not cooperate - but in theory, hacking of foreign systems is also illegal under US Law, so in theory the US should investigate the matter and possibly extradite the perps to Germany to be prosecuted, as was the case earlier with hackers that were extradited to the USA, if I remember well.

When the crime is international, i.e. the perp sits in another country, then two things have to be considered:

- in which jurisdiction did the actual action take place and is that action illegal under the applicable laws in that jurisdiction ?

- in which jurisdiction is the perp physically located and is the action illegal under the applicable laws in that jurisdiction ?

You can make silly statements about my law training all you want, but the fact remains that I am sitting behind my desk as a managing partner in a large law firm representing Fortune 500 and international companies on an international level. Other than you taking a business law class in undergrad, what are you doing today?

You try and distinguish, but the fact remains that there was no mention of Merkel's privacy rights being violated. Whether the tap emanated from an embassy or from US soil would be of no consequence if Germany privacy laws truly prohibited the NSA from tapping German residents inside Germany. That is the issue.

You evade the issue and still have not cited any law or statute that unequivocally prohibits US or NSA from tapping or collecting data related to German residents inside Germany.

Candidly, your little analysis reflects that you have zero legal training and reflects how absolutely clueless you are about the subject matter. I quoted multiple case blurbs and provided parentheticals in this thread back in July or August addressing the legality of foreign wire tap. Your "in theory, hacking of foreign systems is also illegal under US Law" statement is contrary to that law.

-----

According to German representative to the UN Peter Wittig, a line between valid security concerns and intrusion needs to be drawn. "Today there seem to be hardly any technical limitations for accessing, storing or combining personal data. But, should everything that is technically feasible also be allowed?" he said in a statement.

"Where do we draw the line between legitimate security interests and the individual right to privacy?"

Edited December 19, 2013 by F430murci

[manarak]

The article you quote is correct - laws are territorial.

I.e. it would be illegal for the US to spy inside German jurisdiction.

If German data is sent abroad and spied on there, it is not against German Law.

But spying onto systems geographically located in Germany is very much illegal.

You miss the point. It is entirely reciprocal and the laws are only applicable domestically as far as authorization or prohibition. The article I cited above deal with this and even concludes that Merk's own cell phone was not protected from NSA tapping by German privacy laws.

Again, cite something other than your opinion when calling it illegal. Some of you guys are so knotted up internally by a litany of factors that you apparently cannot view things objectively.

You are caught in subjective belief or personal opinion driven by personal beliefs.

Candidly, I generally disagree with the subjective aspect of tapping and warrantless intrusions and I am all for privacy rights, but I also can set aside my personal beliefs and view the law objectively.

-----

Was US eavesdropping possibly legal?

http://www.dw.de/was-us-eavesdropping-possibly-legal/a-17185614

I don't know if you had training or classes in Law and international Law as I did, but I'd guess you didn't.

You have to consider territoriality and jurisdiction when examining the legality of anything.

The tapping of Chancellor Merkel's phone is a good example.

Relevant is: where did the tapping take place? Within German jurisdiction or not?

Apparently, the signal of Merkel's phone could be received from within the territory of the US embassy, which is not under German jurisdiction. So, the waves traveled through the air within territory under US jurisdiction and were captured there and therefore this interception occured outside of German jurisdiction, therefore German Law does not apply.

Now let's examine some alternate scenarios:

If the NSA had put electronic listening devices in Merkel's office, it would have been very much illegal, since the action would have taken place on German territory.

Another case is if the NSA did actively hack from US territory into a system within German jurisdiction. In this case, the action is illegal, but the perpetrator did it from outside German territory.

In practice, the perps would not be investigated or prosecuted because the US would not cooperate - but in theory, hacking of foreign systems is also illegal under US Law, so in theory the US should investigate the matter and possibly extradite the perps to Germany to be prosecuted, as was the case earlier with hackers that were extradited to the USA, if I remember well.

When the crime is international, i.e. the perp sits in another country, then two things have to be considered:

- in which jurisdiction did the actual action take place and is that action illegal under the applicable laws in that jurisdiction ?

- in which jurisdiction is the perp physically located and is the action illegal under the applicable laws in that jurisdiction ?

You can make silly statements about my law training all you want, but the fact remains that I am sitting behind my desk as a managing partner in a large law firm representing Fortune 500 and international companies on an international level. Other than you taking a business law class in undergrad, what are you doing today?

You try and distinguish, but the fact remains that there was no mention of Merkel's privacy rights being violated. Whether the tap emanated from an embassy or from US soil would be of no consequence if Germany privacy laws truly prohibited the NSA from tapping German residents inside Germany. That is the issue.

You evade the issue and still have not cited any law or statute that unequivocally prohibits US or NSA from tapping or collecting data related to German residents inside Germany.

Candidly, your little analysis reflects that you have zero legal training and reflects how absolutely clueless you are about the subject matter. I quoted multiple case blurbs and provided parentheticals in this thread back in July or August addressing the legality of foreign wire tap. Your "in theory, hacking of foreign systems is also illegal under US Law" statement is contrary to that law.

Thank you for that post - it explains so much about how the US view the world and the conceptual problems the US have in understanding "territoriality".

Privacy of communications and telecommunications is a civil right granted by article 10 of the 1949 constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany:

http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/art_10.html

It specifically stipulates that exceptions can only be granted based on a Law (either by a court, or in the case of intelligence services, by the G10 commission).

Breaches of this article are sanctioned in German Criminal Law as well as in the German Law on Telecommunications:

http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__206.html

http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/tkg_2004/__148.html

The above collection of articles is unequivoquial and explicitly bans spying on the content of commincations as well as spying on metadata.

[F430murci]

You miss the point. It is entirely reciprocal and the laws are only applicable domestically as far as authorization or prohibition. The article I cited above deal with this and even concludes that Merk's own cell phone was not protected from NSA tapping by German privacy laws.

Again, cite something other than your opinion when calling it illegal. Some of you guys are so knotted up internally by a litany of factors that you apparently cannot view things objectively.

You are caught in subjective belief or personal opinion driven by personal beliefs.

Candidly, I generally disagree with the subjective aspect of tapping and warrantless intrusions and I am all for privacy rights, but I also can set aside my personal beliefs and view the law objectively.

-----

Was US eavesdropping possibly legal?

http://www.dw.de/was-us-eavesdropping-possibly-legal/a-17185614

I don't know if you had training or classes in Law and international Law as I did, but I'd guess you didn't.

You have to consider territoriality and jurisdiction when examining the legality of anything.

The tapping of Chancellor Merkel's phone is a good example.

Relevant is: where did the tapping take place? Within German jurisdiction or not?

Apparently, the signal of Merkel's phone could be received from within the territory of the US embassy, which is not under German jurisdiction. So, the waves traveled through the air within territory under US jurisdiction and were captured there and therefore this interception occured outside of German jurisdiction, therefore German Law does not apply.

Now let's examine some alternate scenarios:

If the NSA had put electronic listening devices in Merkel's office, it would have been very much illegal, since the action would have taken place on German territory.

Another case is if the NSA did actively hack from US territory into a system within German jurisdiction. In this case, the action is illegal, but the perpetrator did it from outside German territory.

In practice, the perps would not be investigated or prosecuted because the US would not cooperate - but in theory, hacking of foreign systems is also illegal under US Law, so in theory the US should investigate the matter and possibly extradite the perps to Germany to be prosecuted, as was the case earlier with hackers that were extradited to the USA, if I remember well.

When the crime is international, i.e. the perp sits in another country, then two things have to be considered:

- in which jurisdiction did the actual action take place and is that action illegal under the applicable laws in that jurisdiction ?

- in which jurisdiction is the perp physically located and is the action illegal under the applicable laws in that jurisdiction ?

You can make silly statements about my law training all you want, but the fact remains that I am sitting behind my desk as a managing partner in a large law firm representing Fortune 500 and international companies on an international level. Other than you taking a business law class in undergrad, what are you doing today?

You try and distinguish, but the fact remains that there was no mention of Merkel's privacy rights being violated. Whether the tap emanated from an embassy or from US soil would be of no consequence if Germany privacy laws truly prohibited the NSA from tapping German residents inside Germany. That is the issue.

You evade the issue and still have not cited any law or statute that unequivocally prohibits US or NSA from tapping or collecting data related to German residents inside Germany.

Candidly, your little analysis reflects that you have zero legal training and reflects how absolutely clueless you are about the subject matter. I quoted multiple case blurbs and provided parentheticals in this thread back in July or August addressing the legality of foreign wire tap. Your "in theory, hacking of foreign systems is also illegal under US Law" statement is contrary to that law.

Thank you for that post - it explains so much about how the US view the world and the conceptual problems the US have in understanding "territoriality".

Privacy of communications and telecommunications is a civil right granted by article 10 of the 1949 constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany:

http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/art_10.html

It specifically stipulates that exceptions can only be granted based on a Law (either by a court, or in the case of intelligence services, by the G10 commission).

Breaches of this article are sanctioned in German Criminal Law as well as in the German Law on Telecommunications:

http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__206.html

http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/tkg_2004/__148.html

The above collection of articles is unequivoquial and explicitly bans spying on the content of commincations as well as spying on metadata.

Bans who. Problem is Germany perhaps has no ability to pass any law prohibiting US or NSA from doing anything, but it can prohibit actions of its own government or those acting under color of state law. This is why the UN is getting involved in trying to come up with a resolution.

Germany's solution is simple from a political stand point if what the NSA is doing violates German privacy laws. Anyone in Germany could seek injunctive relief. May not work, but it would be evidence that the acts are illegal or prohibited. This has not been done because there is no prohibition and it is not illegal.

Edited December 19, 2013 by F430murci

[manarak]

You can make silly statements about my law training all you want, but the fact remains that I am sitting behind my desk as a managing partner in a large law firm representing Fortune 500 and international companies on an international level. Other than you taking a business law class in undergrad, what are you doing today?

You try and distinguish, but the fact remains that there was no mention of Merkel's privacy rights being violated. Whether the tap emanated from an embassy or from US soil would be of no consequence if Germany privacy laws truly prohibited the NSA from tapping German residents inside Germany. That is the issue.

You evade the issue and still have not cited any law or statute that unequivocally prohibits US or NSA from tapping or collecting data related to German residents inside Germany.

Candidly, your little analysis reflects that you have zero legal training and reflects how absolutely clueless you are about the subject matter. I quoted multiple case blurbs and provided parentheticals in this thread back in July or August addressing the legality of foreign wire tap. Your "in theory, hacking of foreign systems is also illegal under US Law" statement is contrary to that law.

Thank you for that post - it explains so much about how the US view the world and the conceptual problems the US have in understanding "territoriality".

Privacy of communications and telecommunications is a civil right granted by article 10 of the 1949 constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany:

http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/art_10.html

It specifically stipulates that exceptions can only be granted based on a Law (either by a court, or in the case of intelligence services, by the G10 commission).

Breaches of this article are sanctioned in German Criminal Law as well as in the German Law on Telecommunications:

http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__206.html

http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/tkg_2004/__148.html

The above collection of articles is unequivoquial and explicitly bans spying on the content of commincations as well as spying on metadata.

Bans who. Problem is Germany perhaps has no ability to pass any law prohibiting US or NSA from doing anything, but it can prohibit actions of its own government or those acting under color of state law. This is why the UN is getting involved in trying to come up with a resolution.

Germany's solution is simple from a political stand point if what the NSA is doing violates German privacy laws. Anyone in Germany could seek injunctive relief. May not work, but it would be evidence that the acts are illegal or prohibited. This has not been done because there is no prohibition and it is not illegal.

the law explicitly bans "anyone". there is no room for speculation.