backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 48 comment(s) - last by Reclaimer77.. on Jun 6 at 6:23 PM


Protestors on the streets of Frankfurt.

Artists, like these firedancers in Berlin, contributed heavily to the rallies.  (Source: Working Group photo wiki)
Concerned over privacy incursions, citizens strike back

Fed up Germans took to the streets last Saturday (English), speaking out against the German government’s data retention policies at protests and rallies in over 30 different cities, including Berlin, Frankfurt, Munich, and Hamburg.

The protest, the first in 2008 in a growing series of “Freedom Not Fear” rallies, reflects a rising pro-privacy and anti-surveillance sentiment stretching across Europe as citizens realize the extent of government monitoring in their personal lives. The rallies’ organizer, Stoppt Die Vorratsdatenspeicherung (German Working Group on Data Retention), says it is specifically targeting recent German legislation, passed January 2008, that allows government officials to store and recall detailed information on all phone and e-mail conversations for a period of six months.

Germany’s Telecoms Data Retention Act is the manifestation of a larger European Union directive dating back to 2006, which forced member countries to enact data retention legislation laws in order to enhance crime-fighting and terrorism investigations. The directive has met heavy resistance thus far, writes the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and rights groups in Ireland and Germany are slowing the process further with a handful of constitutional challenges against the directive’s many forms. Digital Rights Ireland’s challenge is set to be heard today, and the Working Group says it has another challenge pending.

While attendance figures are currently unknown, a similar rally taking place last September drew in over 25,000 people. Current reports indicate that over 2,500 showed up for the rally in Munich alone, and the Working Group said it has plans to “expand across Europe” for “an even larger protest on September 20th of this year.”

“Until 2007, telecommunications providers were permitted to retain only data required for billing purposes,” reads a Working Group summary, which goes on to point out that retention policies place heavy financial strains on businesses, violate basic privacy rights, and disrupts professional activities that rely on discretion, such as those in the fields of medicine, law, or journalism.

Curiously, German government officials are investigating private companies’ storage and use of private data. Criminal investigations are currently underway against the actions of Deutsche Telekom, for example, which recently rocked the country last month after the company admitted to spying on prominent company executives and journalists in order to root out leaks.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

It's policies like these...
By amanojaku on 6/5/2008 9:18:30 AM , Rating: 2
That make me wonder if we should have stayed in our caves. Technology was supposed to make our lives better, not have us running in fear of our own governments. And it's still yet to be proved that this type of spying protects us. Now I wonder if I should bother starting a business. I don't want to enable these policies, and the financial burden is ridiculous.




RE: It's policies like these...
By Polynikes on 6/5/2008 9:44:21 AM , Rating: 5
It is ridiculous. I'm glad the Europeans are finally waking up to this and fighting it.


RE: It's policies like these...
By Drexial on 6/5/2008 9:52:31 AM , Rating: 5
Europeans are fighting it... The US just kinda rolled over and let it happen. We have read articles about black boxes in rooms at telecommunications locations and that was the end of it.


RE: It's policies like these...
By FITCamaro on 6/5/08, Rating: -1
RE: It's policies like these...
By Drexial on 6/5/2008 10:03:57 AM , Rating: 2
And what exactly is suspicious content?

And have you programed them/worked on them/even seen a photograph of one? The only person that knows what they do and monitor are the people in the dark room somewhere monitoring them for big brother.


RE: It's policies like these...
By FITCamaro on 6/5/08, Rating: -1
RE: It's policies like these...
By Drexial on 6/5/2008 11:52:58 AM , Rating: 5
read my response to straycat74 below. Has nothing to do with what they are doing now. but what they have the power to do later.

and there is still due process for pedophiles... not as much for political dissenters (they are really easy to label along with bastard terrorists)


RE: It's policies like these...
By straycat74 on 6/5/08, Rating: -1
RE: It's policies like these...
By Drexial on 6/5/2008 1:30:46 PM , Rating: 2
congrats on quoting other people that are completely unrelated to me in any way in an effort to make me look crazy.

You are probably one of the same people that thought they would never be tracking our conversations online... but they are now. Just because you kiss this administrations ass doesn't mean the rest of us do. Most people like the idea that the people of the nation have more freedoms then the companies they labor under.

And by the way. don't even pretend that every president hasn't has some crazy speech about how they are a vessel through which god works.

George W said he even talked to god and that god told him what he should do.


RE: It's policies like these...
By amanojaku on 6/5/2008 1:44:51 PM , Rating: 2
Bush was just doing what he was told. Clearly, God was WRONG. </sarcasm>

quote:
Statements that Iraq had a partnership with al Qaeda were wrong and unsupported by intelligence, the report said.

It said that Bush's and Cheney's assertions that Saddam was prepared to arm terrorist groups with weapons of mass destruction for attacks on the United States contradicted available intelligence.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/iraq_usa_intelligence_d...


RE: It's policies like these...
By NeoConned08 on 6/5/2008 10:58:57 AM , Rating: 2
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. We have NO idea what the government is or is not storing which is why they shouldn't have been allowed to do it in the first place. I don't care how you slice it or try to reason around it. It's to protect us against terrorists? Please. Provisions of the Patriot Act are what were used to take down Eliot Spitzer, a political rival.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This right isn't something that is negotiable. It's not a right the government GIVES us. It's something that the government was put in place to PROTECT. We get this right to privacy because we are born, not because the government provides it to us. Therefore, they don't have any legitimate power to take it away.


RE: It's policies like these...
By FITCamaro on 6/5/08, Rating: -1
RE: It's policies like these...
By Gul Westfale on 6/5/2008 8:30:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually it is the government that gives us that right.


yes, in a dictatorship. in a democracy, the government is supposed to serve the people, not the other way around.


RE: It's policies like these...
By Ringold on 6/5/2008 9:52:18 PM , Rating: 2
Government exists, or should exist, at the whim of the people. The people do not exist or live at the whim of the government. To steep it in religious terminology, since any other way eludes me at the moment, the rights of the people originate with god, and the rights of the government originate with the permission of the people.

This is why the constitution, if followed as intended, limits the power of government with almost every word. I think it's also why we have the 2nd Amendment. I think it was Franklin who said our democracy would be proven strong if we had an armed rebellion every few years that keeps the government safe.

And in the 1860s, 600,000 died fighting over the limits of federal power. Guess who lost.


By NeoConned08 on 6/6/2008 12:06:34 PM , Rating: 1
You are sorely deluded in what the role of government is. It is people with your mindset that are going to allow for the slow erosion of our liberties until it winds down into a tyrannical state. Democracy isn't a lasting form of government. It's a weight station from one form of government to another, typically, fascism/communism/insert other bad stuff here. That is why the Founding Fathers gave us a Republic....if we could keep it. Because the masses here are uneducated and think the government gives them rights they allow them to be taken away. That's not how it works bub. Government is of, by, and for the people and THEIR rights. That's how it is SUPPOSED to be. We are seeing a radical shift in that, and it isn't just Bush. It's been going on for multiple decades and it probably will not stop because we have a bunch of noobs that think ever expanding government is something good. It's not. That's why we are in the crap we are in right now. We aren't China or Nazi Germany.....yet. But keep having legislation like the Patriot Act, which has been wielded to take down political rivals, and HR1955, which goes hand in hand with labeling politcal dissenters as terrorists, and we have some really bad stuff coming down the pipe.


RE: It's policies like these...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/5/2008 5:40:42 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. We have NO idea what the government is or is not storing which is why they shouldn't have been allowed to do it in the first place. I don't care how you slice it or try to reason around it. It's to protect us against terrorists? Please. Provisions of the Patriot Act are what were used to take down Eliot Spitzer, a political rival.


Why do people always talk about the Patriot Act in this context ? The biggest part of the Patriot Act involves reversing the complete screw up Bill Clinton enacted that prevented the FBI and CIA and other government agencies from sharing data to protect this country. If the big evil Patriot Act was in place before , 911 never would have happened. Chew on that for a while.

No liberties have been violated by the Patriot Act to this day. The Democrats have " independently investigated " it several times. Not only were they unable to prove it violates rights, they could not even bring forth a SINGLE legitimate complaint by anyone who had been " violated ".

And how quickly we forget ! The Patriot Act already HAS foiled attempts of terrorism. And thats just the ones we know about.

quote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Normally I would agree. But the Constitution was never meant to be a suicide pact. We have liberty now and more security then ever as well. Whats the problem ?

This is NOT the European Union. I think we have achieved a very nice balance given the current situation. But it sounds like you want to bury your head in the sand and pretend there is no situation. Weren't we doing that in the years leading up to 911 ? USS Cole bombed ? Oh theres no terrorist problem ! First World Trade Center bombing ? Bah, just a few radicals not terrorists !

quote:
This right isn't something that is negotiable. It's not a right the government GIVES us. It's something that the government was put in place to PROTECT. We get this right to privacy because we are born, not because the government provides it to us. Therefore, they don't have any legitimate power to take it away.


Again, show me that we have lost these rights. How ? Our rights only extend as far as the law allows. I can't run a meth lab in my house can I ? I mean, its private so I should be able to right ?

I' a die hard Conservative and I agree with objections to the Patriot Act on principle. Key word, PRINCIPLE. But its been poked and proded and investigated and I'm simply forced at this point to agree its good legislation. It was ASSANINE to block our law enforcement and intelligence departments from working together. There is NO WAY we should go back to that.

Also its shameful that your preying on the ignorance of others to push your anti-Bush anti-Patriot Act viewpoint. You know damn well monitoring and privacy " violations " have been going on since Bill Clinton. And it NEVER made the news.

Does the word ECHELON ring a bell ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
http://www.cybercitycafe.com/explore/echelon.html


RE: It's policies like these...
By FITCamaro on 6/5/2008 6:59:44 PM , Rating: 2
Well said.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/5/2008 11:48:11 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Yes and those black boxes are not storing the email, browsing history, etc. of every citizen in the country for 6 months. It flags suspicious things according to a filter and doesn't record or store the rest.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?


RE: It's policies like these...
By straycat74 on 6/5/2008 11:25:36 AM , Rating: 3
You are not that important. Watching you would take away valuable resources from where they need to be.

So.....

Put away the tinfoil hats, big brother is not watching you, because you are not that important. Give me a list of flagged words or phrases, then circle the ones you use, and then I and others will see how cool you are.


RE: It's policies like these...
By Drexial on 6/5/2008 11:49:40 AM , Rating: 2
It has nothing to do with what I'm doing now but what tools they have in place for when they decide things later.

Lets say one day the government realizes how powerful we have let it get. Now with this new found power they decide to make religion mandatory, lets be honest its not a far stretch of the imagination for this to happen.

Now CLEARLY this inconveniences the people that either A: don't belong to the religion the government decided. Lets for example place B as the people that already believed that religion and were excited for it.

Now its Sunday, mandatory church showing. You are a willing member. But you are running late. lets say someone slipped in the shower while getting ready and sprained their ankle (just so were sure its a completely innocent reason for being late) Now you are caught on the way to church. Just like someone that tells the cops now "look sir I was just running late I'm heading there now, honestly" Do you expect someone that listens to excuses every day to buy yours?

I know I wont get arrested or imprisoned for my view of the government today. But who's to say what I'm allowed to say wont change. Then they will already have tools in place to silence people.

We put these systems in place and call it "defending freedom" China puts monitoring systems up and we call them "soulless communists"


RE: It's policies like these...
By FITCamaro on 6/5/2008 11:53:34 AM , Rating: 2
a) If what you describe ever happened, there would be a revolution. It'll probably happen before then. But not because of the government infringing on our privacy.

b) When you find yourself unable to connect to a news website because it doesn't match the teachings of the government, you can compare us to China. When you can't go on YouTube, you can compare us to China. When you can't use the internet in a cafe without registering with the government first, you can compare us to China. When putting anti-government literature on your blog gets you arrested, you can compare us to China. Do I need to continue?


RE: It's policies like these...
By masher2 (blog) on 6/5/2008 11:56:40 AM , Rating: 2
> "If what you describe ever happened, there would be a revolution"

How? Gun ownership is already de facto or de jure illegal in most municipalities. Do you really expect the people to "rise up" against military troops, armed with nothing but baseball bats and harsh language?


RE: It's policies like these...
By amanojaku on 6/5/2008 12:13:35 PM , Rating: 2
The military can bring their weapons. I've got mine: posters of Roseanne Barr and Rosie O'Donnell. Naked. That's right, run, bitches! RUN!!!

Seriously, though, I was speaking with someone about gun control laws and how it seems criminals can get their hands on guns no matter how many laws are passed. I'm not a gun lover, but it's clear that restricting guns makes it more difficult for populations to defend themselves against tyrannical governments. First gun control, then invasion of privacy. What's next? This isn't grounds for revolution, but we definitely need our foreign and domestic politicians to back the hell off.


RE: It's policies like these...
By GotDiesel on 6/5/2008 1:14:50 PM , Rating: 2
OMG.. your sick.. why would you release such a horrific weapon on us all.. !! rofl


RE: It's policies like these...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/5/2008 6:05:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How? Gun ownership is already de facto or de jure illegal in most municipalities. Do you really expect the people to "rise up" against military troops, armed with nothing but baseball bats and harsh language?


As a responsible owner of three firearms myself, not just some kid on the Internet blowing hot air, I want to set the records straight.

I would never even consider turning my firearm on a lawman or government agent. The very idea their putting forth that we're all a bunch of gungho soldier of fortune junkies just waiting for our chance to " cap a G-MAN " is offensive to me and every gun owner.

I don't agree with rampant gun control. But this idea that gun owners would ever have to " rise up " and start killing military troops is just...crazy.

Masher you got a real level head and I totally agree with most everything you say generally. Am I just taking something out of context here ? If I am I apologize.


RE: It's policies like these...
By masher2 (blog) on 6/5/2008 9:27:44 PM , Rating: 2
> "But this idea that gun owners would ever have to " rise up " and start killing military troops is just...crazy."

That's the very purpose of the Second Amendment: an absolute last possible check on tyranny. One of the first steps taken by a dictatorial government is to confiscate all private firearms -- an unarmed populace can't resist. And the only thing crazy is the notion that it can't possibly happen in the "good 'ol USA". History says otherwise.

Of course there's no need to "turn a gun on a lawman" today. We don't live under a tyrannical government. And -- if the people are allowed to retain their arms -- we never will.


RE: It's policies like these...
By Ringold on 6/5/2008 10:25:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And -- if the people are allowed to retain their arms -- we never will.


I almost said never is a very long time, but then I thought of Switzerland. If we had that kind of pervasive gun ownership here, then I'd agree. It wouldn't matter if couple million soldiers deployed across the country had body armor and assault rifles; fifty million people with rifles, shotguns, and handguns of their own would tear them to shreds.

But in America, where gun ownership seems to be a hobby only for white conservative males and criminals for the most part, it seems more precarious.

I put a lot of hope in the military to keep it from going that far; some top general overthrowing a civilian government engaging in unconstitutional deeds.. but I recognize that can be extremely dangerous as well.


By Reclaimer77 on 6/6/2008 6:23:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But in America, where gun ownership seems to be a hobby only for white conservative males and criminals for the most part, it seems more precarious.


wtf kind of profiling is that ? Come on man thats just insulting.


By Reclaimer77 on 6/6/2008 6:09:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's the very purpose of the Second Amendment: an absolute last possible check on tyranny. One of the first steps taken by a dictatorial government is to confiscate all private firearms -- an unarmed populace can't resist. And the only thing crazy is the notion that it can't possibly happen in the "good 'ol USA". History says otherwise.


Yes but back then a person with a handgun or rifle never had to face an armored tank. Soldiers/SWAT with fully automatic weapons and body armor. Helicopters with night vision. Etc etc. Lets face it, even IF somehow we had to " defend ourselves against a tyranical government ", could we ?

Again, I'm a legal gun owner. But its to defend myself from criminals and looters. Nobody buys a gun so they can one day defend themselves from tyranny. Its not going to happen. And bringing up examples from the Revolutionary War period can only be taken so far.

Liberalism is at the heart of gun control. Not some attempt to set us up for a tyranical take over. Liberals think they can teach your children, spend your money, AND defend your home better than you can. So why would you need a gun right ?

Liberalism is far more effective then a tyranny uprising. It accomplishes the same goals while being more subtle, less violent, and far more sinister. If people just realized it for what it was, and stopped voting these jackasses into positions of power, conversations like this wouldn't need to happen.


RE: It's policies like these...
By Strunf on 6/6/2008 6:20:54 PM , Rating: 2
If the US army turned on the Americans I wouldn't give you guys much of chance be it with weapons or not, your gun wouldn't do much against a tank, or any other armored vehicle...


RE: It's policies like these...
By SouthCA on 6/5/2008 9:42:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I would never even consider turning my firearm on a lawman or government agent.


I'm sure many of the founding fathers once had the same thought. Of course, we all know how those traitorous rebels turned against the crown, even using firearms against government troops!

I wonder how that would have turned out had the king simply forced all the good law abiding colonists to simply turn in their firearms before everything boiled over?


By Reclaimer77 on 6/6/2008 6:20:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm sure many of the founding fathers once had the same thought. Of course, we all know how those traitorous rebels turned against the crown, even using firearms against government troops!


Way off base. I'm a legal gun owner of three firearms. Don't you dare preach to me like I'm some gun control wacko.

People with this attitude are HURTING the Second Amendment. Your painting a picture of us gun owners as being some paranoid good old boys barricaded into our own homes waiting for the next revolution. Please, just stop.

Can't we just say we should have a right to own guns without the silly Revolutionary War examples ? I'm just a normal guy interested in defending my home and the ones I love. You guys can go around making us look like cooks if you actually think that will help our cause.

quote:
I wonder how that would have turned out had the king simply forced all the good law abiding colonists to simply turn in their firearms before everything boiled over?


The King didn't have armored personnel carriers, main battle tanks, helicopter gunships with night vision, and soldiers and SWAT teams with heavy weaponry and battle armor. Things are a bit more one sided today don't you think ? I can't find any articles in this months NRA magazine about how Susie Homemaker with her snubnosed .38 can hold off an Abrams with troop support.


RE: It's policies like these...
By Drexial on 6/5/2008 12:10:05 PM , Rating: 2
Just remember, they didn't start with full regulation, they started with monitoring, and realized they could control. They saw the people organizing through chats, IM's, blogs and clamped down. Cutting off those channels of communication to disrupt a revolt.


RE: It's policies like these...
By aos007 on 6/5/2008 4:26:13 PM , Rating: 3
...then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me.

With your attitude, you advocate taking the action at this last step. At which point there will be no action left to take anyway.


By Reclaimer77 on 6/5/2008 5:54:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Lets say one day the government realizes how powerful we have let it get. Now with this new found power they decide to make religion mandatory, lets be honest its not a far stretch of the imagination for this to happen .


I'm fine with hypothetical scenarios. But the part I bolded seriously makes me question your narcotics intake levels.

The Constitution specifically blocks the government from running, setting up, and involving itself in a religion. That separation of Church and State libs bring up when the ten commandments show up somewhere public ? Yeah, thats not what the Constitution meant by it. It means that your scenario would never, and could never, happen.

There will be no government sponsored "mandatory " religion in this country. EVER. Its illegal, and besides that, the people would NEVER stand for it.

Americans bend on a lot of issues. But I can tell you THIS would be the breaking point.


By NeoConned08 on 6/6/2008 12:09:13 PM , Rating: 2
EXACTLY. HR1955 anyone???


RE: It's policies like these...
By Polynikes on 6/6/2008 12:13:01 PM , Rating: 2
It beats cameras on every street corner, if you ask me.


RE: It's policies like these...
By Polynikes on 6/6/2008 12:14:38 PM , Rating: 2
I forgot to mention: We've still got guns as a last defense.


RE: It's policies like these...
By wordsworm on 6/5/2008 10:10:25 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Technology was supposed to make our lives better


Ok, you go back to your cave. Anyways, as to technology making our lives better was just a slogan you believed until the bitter prejudice of old age began gnashing you in its teeth. Should everyone live in glass houses, or should we all be exposed so that all the deviants in society can be routed out and kept in prisons? I wonder how God has managed to do it all these years.


RE: It's policies like these...
By FITCamaro on 6/5/2008 10:46:49 AM , Rating: 2
He flips a quarter.


RE: It's policies like these...
By bendrx on 6/5/2008 10:36:56 PM , Rating: 2
for as smart as yall think you are ,to say somewhere there is a lingering remnant of this? i thought i had confidentiality ,theres more dumbasses in the world than i thought.


Beginning of the end...
By Vim on 6/5/2008 9:19:25 AM , Rating: 1
For the EU? Possibly?




RE: Beginning of the end...
By sh3rules on 6/5/2008 9:59:55 AM , Rating: 2
It will be the end as soon as Turkey gets accepted as a member. Until then, the EU still has the chance to turn over a new page.


RE: Beginning of the end...
By Ringold on 6/5/2008 10:37:42 PM , Rating: 2
In the end, whats the difference between Turkey and the 'banlieus' of France?

Like everything else in Europe, it'll take them an incredibly long time to finally achieve it, but they'll end up at least trying to achieve a unified federal government like we in the United States achieved relatively quickly after our founding (though the sovereignty issue took until the 1860s to pound out). It's possible that'll fizzle out if the governments listen to the people, but at least as a tool of economic integration, the EU won't go anywhere.

Indeed, the economic integration is a good thing, so it'll definitely probably never be abolished, not until some sort of global integration takes place. Turkey or no Turkey.


RE: Beginning of the end...
By FITCamaro on 6/5/2008 10:47:17 AM , Rating: 2
I won't cry.


I'm glad for the Germans
By sh3rules on 6/5/2008 9:55:38 AM , Rating: 2
I hope more Germans will stand up and protest this nonsense. Big Brother is watching you!




Don't we already store info
By hitman699 on 6/5/2008 11:26:43 AM , Rating: 2
If Im not mistaken.. the broadband companies for instance in the US are required to keep logs for 1 yr. same as google. either that or thats what is supposed to happen soon. they may not store the content.. but where you go to view websites is just a subpeona away...




It's completely wrong
By P4blo on 6/6/2008 7:58:42 AM , Rating: 2
With the traditional postal system, the government didn't get the opportunity to steam open every letter and leer at the private contents then take a photocopy and stick it in a massive filing cabinet for conventient later reading.

Why should they be allowed to do this with emails?

With the traditional telephone system the government had no option of recording everyones calls and listening through them later.

Why on earth should we allow this with modern digital telephony systems and SMS?

I'm totally fed-up, shocked and dismayed to learn that the privacy afforded by western governments in years gone by was really just complete BS with no truly ethical foundation to speak of! Am I to beleive that the ONLY reason we weren't 'owned by big brother' in the past was because they couldn't monitor us!!?? Is that it? The minute the technology enables such activities our civil liberties get flushed away in the blink of an eye?

Is this the future we see for ourselves? I dont think so. These over-bearing political bullies should be reminded that it wasn't acceptable before and IT'S STILL NOT ACCEPTABLE.

These leaders are living in a dream land, trying to sweep civil rights under the carpet thanks to the information age. No go u bozos.




"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini














botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki