Germany's Secret Service just charged their leading Civil Rights group on treason for publishing information about the German government's plans to further expand domestic mass surveillance.
This is not different than what has happened in the United States - though the US uses National Security Letters, gag orders, financial and criminal leverage and defamation - its only when these don't work that the US will reach toward the Espionage Act.
We look back in history and question why citizens in history asked their governments to send civil rights activists to prison and to silence certain stories in the press.
Today we get modern answers to these questions at least every few months.
I have polled friends, family and acquaintances: the overwhelming response is that we don't feel safe.
I have also sampled the official stance from press releases and speeches: the overwhelming justification is that we are not safe.
As all things are, the truth is much more complicated.
The Espionage Act in the US serves a similar role to the broader treason laws in many other countries, which often include the kind of offenses included within the Espionage Act. So, while "espionage" and "treason" are, indeed, different words, being prosecuted for what German law calls treason may well be more analogous to being prosecuted in the US under the Espionage Act than it is to any other US offense.
> This is not different than what has happened in the United States - though the US uses National Security Letters, gag orders, financial and criminal leverage and defamation - its only when these don't work that the US will reach toward the Espionage Act.
The hell it isn't. When did the U.S.G. hit the ACLU with treason charges?
Ok, when was James Risen charged with treason by the US?
AFAICT, the most significant legal battle he's had with the US Justice Department was over the latter's attempt to force him to testify in the trial of Jeffery Sterling, a former CIA officer charged with leaking. Risen himself hasn't been charged with anything.
Source that Risen was charged with the Espionage Act? The Wikipedia page just mentions Sterling. Binney was never indicted for anything. As for Nacchio: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/qwests-joseph-nacchio-tries... ("Nacchio, after all, had deep pockets and millions of dollars in legal indemnification from Qwest. He fully exhausted the federal-appeals process and still lost his case, Eid said.")
You are right about Risen and Sterling. I think you get the point though. The leverage placed on Risen to reveal his sources and the placement of Sterling under the Espionage Act - the use of backroom deals to keep Risen's publication of mass surveillance out of the Times when it was first published - the use of NSLs - the hacking of the Associated Press to spoil their sources during the Benghazi Affair. The US uses these things to curdle journalistic coverage and their sources.
Binney wasn't indicted for anything. He and his family was held at gunpoint and threatened.
The link you gave just had people calling Nacchio pathetic. Was there a specific fact you were trying to highlight? (I mentioned character defamation in the top post.)
Nacchio was one of several executives at a variety of companies charged with bilking shareholders out of tens of millions of dollars. The case against him appears to have been quite strong: he stipulated to a number of high-dollar sales of his stocks during times where he knew the price of Qwest's stock was going to crater.
Right, he was involved in insider trading. If you don't do anything illegal it's hard to blackmail you for it. That was the claim. Blackmail. Sure, he did something wrong(-ish).
Do you have evidence for "blackmail" beyond the word of someone who bilked shareholders out of tens of millions of dollars by selling insider shares in advance of earnings restatements?
I'm not sure if he's paid, if his interests align (he's in the security contracting circle), or if he's genuinely naive in his cheerleading.
I think most of the stuff he has to say is legitimate. It's just he very often is fallacious and uncharitable as well - and that's when you hope others can see through the BS.
You write that as if the rest of your comments on this thread weren't there for everyone else to see, like maybe people will just read this one in isolation and believe you.
The OP had said that tptacek was a shill. I defended tptacek by saying I didn't know that he was paid or whether he was just in the circle of security contractors (he is) or whether he merely bought into and was regurgitating their propaganda.
I did not call tptacek a shill nor make a baseless accusation. It's absolutely true that tptacek is a stalwart defender of public narrative. This is the base of OP (not baseless) of his calling tptacek a shill. I entertained the possibility that he wasn't paid or anything like that.
Anyway, this isn't really interesting content any more. I think the real shame is that the main topic was downvoted to oblivion where people will not see the comparison to the US. The information about Binney (that tptacek clearly showed he was noncharitably and polemically engaging) and Risen and others won't be seen.
What does German law consider "Treason"? In the US, treason has a very specific meaning regarding the Mens rea of the accused. You have to prove that the accused meant to do harm to the republic by the action. (For example even worst case scenario, Snowden could never be accused of treason because there was no intent to harm; quite the contrary.)
To the downvoters: are you really that frightened to consider the possibility that the government is abusing its relationship with you?
What if your spouse treated you this way? Would you not feel betrayed if one day you found out that they were monitoring all of your communications "for your safety" without informing you or asking for your permission?
The reporting on this issue can at best be described as muddled, including the original articles by netzpolitik.org.
They are not actually investigating netzpolitik.org, but their (unknown) sources (clarified in a later article [1]), presumably for leaking the information.
"Treason" is a misleading translation; the closest equivalent to "Landesverrat" would probably be "espionage".
The leaked documents were (1) parts of the budget of the domestic intelligence service, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, and (2) plans by the same institution to create a new unit to conduct internet surveillance. Because these are purely domestic issues, it is unlikely that the leak qualifies as "Landesverrat", which requires creating a grave danger for the external security of the Federal Republic of Germany (creating a danger for Germany's internal security is insufficient, and neither is embarrassing the government, including in international affairs).
Leaking the documents is still likely a crime under §353b of the criminal code [2], but the German Federal Prosecutor is not competent to prosecute violations of §353b (this is the prerogative of the state prosecutors).
People don't like to acknowledge it, but the EFF is a lobbying organisation with an agenda, not some kind of disinterested "super court for Internet issues".
And the last months have shown that they have a habit of "misunderstanding" things and writing over-sensationalist press releases.
I mean, virtually everytime some press release of the EFF is discussed on HN, commenters have quickly pointed out factual errors or non-sequiturs.
Parent is right about it being unclear that the charges are being directed at Netzpolitik.org: I've just pushed a correction, a rewrite of the article, and included the original for reference.
I also have an issue with the sensationalist reporting of "treason" charges.
"Treason" is a correct translation for "Landesverrat" ("land treason"), similar to "high treason" being "Hochverrat".
The thing is, for all I can tell, there are no "Landesverrat" (StGB §94) charges. If anything, there would be charges for the lesser act of "disclosure of state secrets" (StGB §95, right below)
I don't think it would be controversial to consider the disclosure of secret documents as what it is: disclosure of secret documents. However, even with prosecution under §353b there is still the requirement of "threatening important public interest".
These seem to be ordinary (and expected) legal proceedings, no need to blow it out of proportion.
> "Treason" is a correct translation for "Landesverrat" ("land treason"), similar to "high treason" being "Hochverrat".
"Landesverrat" is the crime of communicating state secrets to a foreign power; this does not match the definition of "treason" that you find in English dictionaries [1]. "Hochverrat" is a closer equivalent of "treason".
Just because "Verrat" can mean "treason" (but also "betrayal", "treachery", "perfidy", etc.) does not mean that "Landesverrat" describes the same legal concept. We're looking at a false friend.
In fact, even the German Wikipedia page describes "Landesverrat" as a form of espionage: "Das Delikt des Landesverrates ist die Kernstraftat der Spionage."
> Yet, the press speaks of "Geheimnisverrat" (disclosure of secrets)
The press says all kinds of things, presumably because nobody knows exactly what's going on. What we do know is that the German Federal Prosecutor is investigating, and he does not have the power to prosecute "Geheimnisverrat" per §353b StGB [2]. As I said, the reporting is extremely muddled.
I don't fully agree with the classification as a false friend.
"Landesverrat" describes an act of information disclosure so grave and dangerous that it would fall under "treason" in many jurisdictions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason
Less strong forms of "mere" espionage are also covered in §96-§99 StGB.
As for your comment on the Federal Prosecutor: I'm not an expert on the legal system, but I would expect that he can file charges (like everyone else) according to whatever his investigations turned up with. I don't see how your link says otherwise.
41 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 59.8 ms ] threadThis is not different than what has happened in the United States - though the US uses National Security Letters, gag orders, financial and criminal leverage and defamation - its only when these don't work that the US will reach toward the Espionage Act.
We look back in history and question why citizens in history asked their governments to send civil rights activists to prison and to silence certain stories in the press.
Today we get modern answers to these questions at least every few months.
I have polled friends, family and acquaintances: the overwhelming response is that we don't feel safe.
I have also sampled the official stance from press releases and speeches: the overwhelming justification is that we are not safe.
As all things are, the truth is much more complicated.
The hell it isn't. When did the U.S.G. hit the ACLU with treason charges?
AFAICT, the most significant legal battle he's had with the US Justice Department was over the latter's attempt to force him to testify in the trial of Jeffery Sterling, a former CIA officer charged with leaking. Risen himself hasn't been charged with anything.
Risen got it better than others though in some ways. Binney and his family were held at gunpoint. Nacchio was blackmailed.
Binney wasn't indicted for anything. He and his family was held at gunpoint and threatened.
The link you gave just had people calling Nacchio pathetic. Was there a specific fact you were trying to highlight? (I mentioned character defamation in the top post.)
Nacchio was one of several executives at a variety of companies charged with bilking shareholders out of tens of millions of dollars. The case against him appears to have been quite strong: he stipulated to a number of high-dollar sales of his stocks during times where he knew the price of Qwest's stock was going to crater.
Right, he was involved in insider trading. If you don't do anything illegal it's hard to blackmail you for it. That was the claim. Blackmail. Sure, he did something wrong(-ish).
I think most of the stuff he has to say is legitimate. It's just he very often is fallacious and uncharitable as well - and that's when you hope others can see through the BS.
Luckily HN is a pretty smart crowd.
Baseless accusations of shillage are not allowed on Hacker News. Insinuation à la concern troll is a form of this. Please don't do it again.
Everything I said has been perfectly straightforward and honest.
Downvote brigades are usually only a thing on Reddit, but I experience them here occasionally.
The OP claimed you were a shill - I questioned whether you were paid. I said maybe you were just in the circle or bought into the narrative.
The OP had said that tptacek was a shill. I defended tptacek by saying I didn't know that he was paid or whether he was just in the circle of security contractors (he is) or whether he merely bought into and was regurgitating their propaganda.
I did not call tptacek a shill nor make a baseless accusation. It's absolutely true that tptacek is a stalwart defender of public narrative. This is the base of OP (not baseless) of his calling tptacek a shill. I entertained the possibility that he wasn't paid or anything like that.
Anyway, this isn't really interesting content any more. I think the real shame is that the main topic was downvoted to oblivion where people will not see the comparison to the US. The information about Binney (that tptacek clearly showed he was noncharitably and polemically engaging) and Risen and others won't be seen.
That's okay. One battle at a time.
Thanks dang, for your help and attention.
If you're going to make accusations like this, at least have the stomach to put your name behind it.
He has the benefit of being right, but not coming forth with his name is an 'optics' problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/StGB.htm#BII
It's an English translation from 1998 but § 94 StGB hasn't changed since 1975:
https://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/94.html
I have seen no evidence for any "treason" charges (according to §94 StGB), the charges are most likely "disclosure of secrets" (§353b StGB).
The cause for the confusion of the terms is most likely the relation of the words.
versus:What if your spouse treated you this way? Would you not feel betrayed if one day you found out that they were monitoring all of your communications "for your safety" without informing you or asking for your permission?
They are not actually investigating netzpolitik.org, but their (unknown) sources (clarified in a later article [1]), presumably for leaking the information.
"Treason" is a misleading translation; the closest equivalent to "Landesverrat" would probably be "espionage".
The leaked documents were (1) parts of the budget of the domestic intelligence service, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, and (2) plans by the same institution to create a new unit to conduct internet surveillance. Because these are purely domestic issues, it is unlikely that the leak qualifies as "Landesverrat", which requires creating a grave danger for the external security of the Federal Republic of Germany (creating a danger for Germany's internal security is insufficient, and neither is embarrassing the government, including in international affairs).
Leaking the documents is still likely a crime under §353b of the criminal code [2], but the German Federal Prosecutor is not competent to prosecute violations of §353b (this is the prerogative of the state prosecutors).
[1] https://netzpolitik.org/2015/generalbundesanwalt-bestaetigt-...
[2] http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stg...
Question: how can they push charges on the sources if they do not know who the sources are? (Or do they?)
Don't hold your breath.
People don't like to acknowledge it, but the EFF is a lobbying organisation with an agenda, not some kind of disinterested "super court for Internet issues".
And the last months have shown that they have a habit of "misunderstanding" things and writing over-sensationalist press releases.
I mean, virtually everytime some press release of the EFF is discussed on HN, commenters have quickly pointed out factual errors or non-sequiturs.
I also have an issue with the sensationalist reporting of "treason" charges.
"Treason" is a correct translation for "Landesverrat" ("land treason"), similar to "high treason" being "Hochverrat".
The thing is, for all I can tell, there are no "Landesverrat" (StGB §94) charges. If anything, there would be charges for the lesser act of "disclosure of state secrets" (StGB §95, right below)
Yet, the press speaks of "Geheimnisverrat" (disclosure of secrets): http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2015-07/verfassungssc...
That would most likely be the §353b you mention.
I don't think it would be controversial to consider the disclosure of secret documents as what it is: disclosure of secret documents. However, even with prosecution under §353b there is still the requirement of "threatening important public interest".
These seem to be ordinary (and expected) legal proceedings, no need to blow it out of proportion.
Note: I'm also a native speaker of German.
> "Treason" is a correct translation for "Landesverrat" ("land treason"), similar to "high treason" being "Hochverrat".
"Landesverrat" is the crime of communicating state secrets to a foreign power; this does not match the definition of "treason" that you find in English dictionaries [1]. "Hochverrat" is a closer equivalent of "treason".
Just because "Verrat" can mean "treason" (but also "betrayal", "treachery", "perfidy", etc.) does not mean that "Landesverrat" describes the same legal concept. We're looking at a false friend.
In fact, even the German Wikipedia page describes "Landesverrat" as a form of espionage: "Das Delikt des Landesverrates ist die Kernstraftat der Spionage."
> Yet, the press speaks of "Geheimnisverrat" (disclosure of secrets)
The press says all kinds of things, presumably because nobody knows exactly what's going on. What we do know is that the German Federal Prosecutor is investigating, and he does not have the power to prosecute "Geheimnisverrat" per §353b StGB [2]. As I said, the reporting is extremely muddled.
[1] E.g.: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/treason
[2] https://www.generalbundesanwalt.de/de/zust.php
"Landesverrat" describes an act of information disclosure so grave and dangerous that it would fall under "treason" in many jurisdictions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason
Less strong forms of "mere" espionage are also covered in §96-§99 StGB.
As for your comment on the Federal Prosecutor: I'm not an expert on the legal system, but I would expect that he can file charges (like everyone else) according to whatever his investigations turned up with. I don't see how your link says otherwise.