Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Helgoland]

Whoops, I should have used a less ambiguous sentence: I didn't mean that these opinions were more prevalent in Germany, I mean that they can have much worse consequences. And anti-Americanism is pretty much en vogue: On both ends of the political spectrum you have the true 'America is the source of all evil'-guys, but at the very least Die Linke (~8%) and to some extent the Greens (~8%) as well voice similar opinions - within parliament; and I didn't even mention the right-wing crazies (AfD) that luckily failed to get in. It's a sad fact that 'trans-atlanticist' now has a bad smell; and you frequently encounter the opinion that "Germany should free itself from its American shackles and become wholly independent".
All this has of course gotten worse under Bush, but the leftist movements (some of whose members now form the top tier of Green personnel) have a long history of denouncing anything American as 'imperialist' - and by proxy, anything Israeli as well; but that's another rant.

About that 'not fully sovereign' thing: It's a popular myth. Under the 2+4 agreement Germany regained full sovereignity - the US troops still stationed here are not part of an occupying force.

[10ebbor10]

Besides, US troops are everywhere. (Really, 150 of the world's 190something countries have some US force around)

[Evil Knievel]

Whoops, I should have used a less ambiguous sentence: I didn't mean that these opinions were more prevalent in Germany, I mean that they can have much worse consequences.

That sounds more agreeable to me. Although I don't believe it is dangerous for anyone, Germans might shot themselves in the foot.

About that 'not fully sovereign' thing: It's a popular myth. Under the 2+4 agreement Germany regained full sovereignity - the US troops still stationed here are not part of an occupying force.

Yes, that's right, at least technically Germany is a sovereign state (depending a bit on definitions). It became that several times even.

The "right of self-defence for the American army in Germany" is an additional note to the G10-law (an addition to the constitution 1968 on intercepting telecommunications and mail), which grants not only full cooperation of the German intelligence in monitoring all Germans or persons in Germany when asked for by western allies, but also allowed them for the first time to act on their own. This was accepted by W. Brandt in 1968, basically to free German mailmen from having to sift German letters for the western allies (which was the situation before, according to the General treaty from 1952 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Treaty when Germany became a sovereign state for the first time after the war. Germany was not allowed an intelligence service, but was obliged to carry out the surveillance.)
To address this, they finally installed a proper German intelligence, but also gave all allied military commanders the legal right to carry out everything from their own preventive intelligence up to use of lethal force. This addition is the legal basis for the currently reported surveillance by (not only US, English and French but also German) intelligence taking place in and outgoing from Germany by NSA and the British. This means that the presence of the troops is the condition for this. Notably, it  is not a condition for any surveillance that is carried out from outside Germany.
Now, when Germany became a sovereign state for the second time in 1990, all these treaties and conditions were ratified again in secret and become part of the 2+4 agreement under the term inheritance ("Erbmasse"). Thus, they are all valid to the present day.

That may explain why Merkel was ready to accept all of the "NSA monitors all Germans etc"-news without reacting, but when it was about her phone, she became aware of the dimensions... or possibly it was an election maneuver to keep quiet before, i don't know really.

[Flare]

And how effective is this domestic spying? How many times has the NSA domestic spying program stopped an act of terrorism or a major crime? And, how many times has there been a false-positive that was acted upon? I doubt the government would keep all their great successes a secret. I suspect it's less about stopping crime and more about suppressing dissidents. And of course now that it's leaked, the chilling effect on speech and demonstration.

I think when we the public measure the effectiveness of intelligence agencies, we need to keep in mind that inyelligence agencies don't let their successes be known, most of the time they just sit back and let the public agencies take the credit.
They do this for several reasons, the foremost being that their methods might not actually work again if they went public with it.
But then how sophisticated are teror networks anyway? I don't think large networks like prism or agencies like the NSA only track terrorists despite it being what everyone says about their aim.
There was a lawyer that worked for the FSA court that gave an interview to a news outlet a bit after ther first revelations came out, one relevant thing he said was that he believed that there is justification for what they were doing, and that the NSA needs to make them.
I think the latest cases sheds some light onto what he was hinting at, the NSA and prism are not just confined to terrorism suspects. Before this whole thing came out the US kept calling China out for cyber espionage, and in one case that I remember, had the ability to point out the building the attacks were originating from. It seems as though that the NSA is as preoccupied, if not more so than counter terrorism, with espionage and counter espionage as well.

[Evil Knievel]

Another Applebaum.

Apparently from May 2013. He gives testimony to the European parliament. There is not much in this that you have not heard in this thread already, but he is very good at putting bits and bops together into context. Good entertainment for a gloomy sunday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdLKje1IydQ

I am sure the viewpoint he presents sounds extremist to many people. I think it sounds quite reasonable. He is questioned because of his "insider-knowledge" as a trusted contact of Snowden, if I understood it correctly.

OT: There is a neat comment underneath of how Applebaum resembles Clark Kent.

edit: and please no comments on my habits of proscrastination.

[SalmonGod]

From Infoshop's Facebook stream.  A little perspective piece on surveillance and activism.

Fighting the Surveillance State & Racism is the Same Fight

Written by: A.J. Brown

October 26 is the 12th year of the oxymoronic PATRIOT Act and this year, much like the past 10 years, there will be protests against the Surveillance State, including the Stop Watching Us rally. October 26 also marks the 12-year anniversary of the Secret Service knocking on my door because of an anti-George W. Bush poster that was located inside my apartment when I was a nineteen-year-old kid. The secret service appeared just hours after George Bush signed the PATRIOT Act into law, meaning I was the law’s first victim.

We saw the first pushes against surveillance happening after 9/11 around 2002 thanks in part to the ACLU's Keep America Safe and Free campaign, though surveillance wasn’t anything new. Before the PATRIOT Act, there was COINTELPRO. Before that, it was McCarthyism. Before that, there were the Sedition laws, etc. The history of repression in this land now known as the USA is so old and numerously repeated that the fabric of this very country was sown together with it. Thus, Stop Watching Us isn’t actually organizing around anything new, not when viewing the event historically.

What is new, however, is that 12 years later white people have finally started paying attention, thanks to the Occupy movement. White folks get really rowdy when they’re forced awake from their privileged slumber. It always seems to take a homegrown, patriotic, white, cisgender, heterosexual American male to get a conditioned white supremacist world, as obsessed by status as it is with whiteness, to listen-up.

That being said, much thanks goes out to Edward Snowden. Snowden is a former government employee turned all-American whistle-blower; he was not an activist who understood what it meant to use his privilege without in turn criminalizing his ethnicity and/or culture, or without being personally assassinated, blackmailed, or discredited beyond rebuttal. I can't say the same about the Stop Watching Us Now organizers who are co-organizing the rally with an organization called Restore the Forth, they should know better. Furthermore, the organizers behind the Stop Watching Us rally need to be called out for defaulting to their white elitist exclusivity in fighting this universal worldwide fight for liberty.

What makes me say such a thing?

I contacted Stop Watching Us Now to volunteer for a speaking slot. After all, I am the first known victim of the PATRIOT Act. To hold such a rally on the 12th anniversary of the PATRIOT Act and not even reply back to the first victim of the PATRIOT Act is beyond irony. Then again, racism can only exist within and among the absurd.

I am a low-income, still in college, female-bodied androgynous person of color (PoC) and I wasn’t even given a reply, not even a rejection. I’ve heard nothing from the Stop Watching Us rally organizers regarding my offer to speak out against the Surveillance State and share the wisdom I have accumulated over the years spent fighting the Surveillance State. Of course, rejecting me would mean acknowledging I exist in the first place, and the first thing white folks often do is make people of color (PoC) experiences invisible.

As far as white supremacy is concerned, the PATRIOT Act should apply to Brown people. However, not only are such racist attitudes a fallacy, they commit a grave mistake. Even problematic as hell Tim Wise pointed out recently that many tragedies could have — and still can be — avoided, but only if whites listen to the people who experience the power imbalances that white folks speak on, power imbalances that many white folks couldn’t even previously identify as “issues.” Shutting out PoC will not serve in the best interests of anyone, especially white folks.

If my voice is erased because of white male elitism, that loss is only being suffered by white folks, not me or my community. As a media professional I know the toolbox of publicity, if the State ramps up its efforts against me for my activism, it’s required that I up my efforts in being more public because if you are a more public figure, you become safer. As a PoC I had to deal with State Surveillance before it was "cool" in the activist camps to have a dossier file on you. As a female-bodied person, I have had to navigate State Surveillance in a unique way that my male counterparts will never be aware of. As a gender non-conformist and as an ideological pacifist radical, I know the power and value of community when being pitted against a multi-tentacle all seeing eye monster bent on global domination. That is the wisdom I have to offer, along with the knowledge of intersectional history passed on to me by my predecessors.

Why is this important, when predominantly conservative white Libertarians would at best use me as a token? Every person who's spoken out against the Surveillance State after Edward Snowden blew the whistle has been a white male. While playing the white male card does aid in legitimizing the issue at first, if in the long-run white males continue to dominate the space, they will weaken the effort to dismantle the Surveillance State. Apparently, white folks need to be slapped by the Surveillance State a few more times before they appreciate the strategy of real coalition-building, because the reality is that we must be a united front on this issue. The sooner that is realized, the stronger we will become. Otherwise it’s white folks' loss, really. They can't claim a PoC never volunteered for such a job because hello, I'm right here and I'm not going to let you forget I tried.

[Bauglir]

I, uh, gotta be honest, that sounds like somebody who's got a bit of an ego problem. Many organizations won't respond to unsolicited offers to speak, regardless of the source, and I don't think that's actually a bad policy. I mean, yes, it's true and probably a problem that the prominent figures are all white men, but good lord.

EDIT: If they did have a request for speakers up, then I retract that. The linked sites didn't when I looked, but they may have at the time of the quoted post.

[Neonivek]

Goodness... I suddenly feel bad for being born.

I had more, but I figured that what is written there is considered "uncommentable". At least if I don't want nasty looks by everyone here.

[Bouchart]

October 26 also marks the 12-year anniversary of the Secret Service knocking on my door because of an anti-George W. Bush poster that was located inside my apartment when I was a nineteen-year-old kid. The secret service appeared just hours after George Bush signed the PATRIOT Act into law, meaning I was the law’s first victim.

This strikes me as highly suspect.

[misko27]

I switched from reading to skimming when race became involved. When I saw the phrase "female-bodied", I started getting suspicious. When I googled the phrase "female-bodied", suspicions became confirmations. Reading it, now in it's entirety, things fell into place

I would like to see a little more explanation-wise from Salmon on this.

[SalmonGod]

TBH, I agree with you guys.  What I had just read didn't really sink in until after I'd posted it.  I was too pre-occupied at first with the idea (especially based on the title) that this was rubbing shoulders with one of my main points regarding the surveillance issue - that it should be the first and foremost issue for anyone who is involved in any issue, because by its very nature, it's an obstacle to pursuing any challenge to the status quo.

But yeah... it was mostly not about that.  And everything else seems like it was more her personal issues than anything.

[Max White]

Maybe it is a govenment plant, writing articles so horribly self-centric and race driven that it will make people think all protesters against such a level of survallence are that messed up?

[GlyphGryph]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/11/uk-spies-continue-quantum-insert-attack-via-linkedin-slashdot-pages/

Delivering malware with versions of LinkedIn and Slashdot custom built to covertly install it onto the targets computers, targeted at several key industries.

[Descan]

Jesus Christ it's like they're trying to kill the internet economy.

Or the internet entirely.

That's it, isn't it? They're scared of the internet and trying to kill it.

[Zangi]

Jesus Christ it's like they're trying to kill the internet economy.

Or the internet entirely.

That's it, isn't it? They're scared of the internet and trying to kill it.

Well, internet is where free speech and ideas go... some people in positions of power like to censor some of that stuff.  Not too different in the thinking behind the actions of past governments over the ages.