Hacker News Reader

Comment by leereeves | Hacker News Reader

> Germany has strict privacy laws to protect against surveillance. In the 20th Century Germans experienced abusive surveillance by the state - in Nazi Germany and communist East Germany.

Do these laws apply to the state?

View on HN

No. There is a so called BND-law (BND := Federal Intelligence Service) that is aligned to the practices of the German intelligence service.[1]

[1] https://netzpolitik.org/2016/das-neue-bnd-gesetz-alles-was-d...

True, but not the same as "privacy laws don't apply to the state".

In general, yes.

For example, there is currently a commission which investigates the "NSA Affair". Just yesterday, chancellor Merkel was questioned for hours.

Good german news about NSA-UA: https://netzpolitik.org/tag/nsa-ua/

Yeah it's getting investigated, but it's not looking like there will be any consequences.

I agree. However, can you imagine that the US president having to sit down and answer questions for hours? The situation in Germany is better than in the US and probably most other countries.

It is also depressing that they were unable to invite Snowden.

It is very well possible that the German chancellor Merkel worked for the former East German State security under the name "IM Erika". The once was a very compromising picture of her her on the internet, showing her in front of a house of a former "dissident". Possible doing "observation" work.

Do you have any reputable source for this allegation?

It is very well possible that this is a conspiration theory by people who fear democracy.

Democracy is one thing. For example I can be democratic to kill people. The constitution is the tool to prevent this. Merkel is currently breaking the German constitution and EU contracts (e.g. Dublin III)

This definitely needs a citation. It sounds like internet conspiracy theory trash. Wikipedia seems to have no mention of this either.

I am especially amused by the claim that at one point there was a compromising picture on the internet, as if there is a viable way to eliminate such a thing from continued existence on the internet.

As far as I remember, the picture was discovered by a government founded TV station.

There was a report and the picture was shown (I've seen it!) in a Swiss magazine. The website does not work anymore: http://schweizmagazin.ch/news/336/ARTICLE/4283/2008-05-29.ht...

Ms. Merkel disputed the publication of this image since it would violate her "privacy rights". http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/vorab/a-377389.html

Otherwise, just google "IM Eirka" https://www.google.com/#q=%22im+erika%22+merkel

On a discussion board someone asked if the German chancellor could be blackmailed if someone had this information? Answer from another user:"How? Everybody knows already she was working for the state security..."

My German is really bad but there seems to be little of substance here. One of the first results cites "the internet rumor mill".

I'm not saying it's guaranteed untrue, but it seems without real evidence and therefore without merit.

Spiegel is THE MAJOR German magazine.

Here is a bad English translation of some information: https://antilobby.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/stasi.pdf

This picture in front of Havemann actually IS in the pdf. 1. What was she doing, far in the outskirts of Berlin, in front of the house if this dissident?

2. Why does this picture violate her "privacy rights"? (What in fact proofs that it is her on the picture)

I know what the Spiegel is. That's a story about the supposed picture, though, not a story claiming that Merkel was a security informant.

> What was she doing, far in the outskirts of Berlin, in front of the house if this dissident?

I have no idea. I don't know why being in the outskirts of Berlin seems questionable. Maybe it's odd that she was in front of a dissident's house. Maybe there was a clear reason to be there. Maybe she was going to a pub. I have no clue and don't think this random picture is very interesting by itself.

If you can read German, read this, despite the source http://www.pravda-tv.com/2013/11/platzt-die-bombe-war-angela...

"I have no idea. I don't know why being in the outskirts of Berlin seems questionable." Because there war nothing to do there. No Pubs. No Bars. Nothing. And his house was observed around the clock, including by many unofficial state security helpers.

Why does she not say what she was doing there?

Why does the publication of the picture violate her privacy?

It was media from Switzerland that asked the serious questions. Not German media. So what was she doing there? Nothing? Just chance? Take her word for it! She admitted she was requested to become an unofficial state security member but never signed (still was admitted to University). Take her word for it! Her father was a pastor, something that was not liked in the GDR. Still she was allowed to study in the UdSSR as an exchange student, a huge privilege. Just luck, take her word for it! Later as a scientist she was allowed to visit conferences abroad, again a huge privilege. During the break-up of the GDR she walked "by chance" by church were all the dissidents met and thought "why not let's have a look?"

Look, do I know that Merkel was working for the Stasi? No. Do I like her? No. But I think there are many serious questions to be asked and basically for all answers we have to take her word.

One thing I wonder. The Russians prefer that Merkel does not stay chancellor. If she worked for the State security it is likely that the Russians have compromising material. We may now before the next elections.

"I am especially amused by the claim that at one point there was a compromising picture on the internet, as if there is a viable way to eliminate such a thing from continued existence on the internet."

Suprisingly, you are right. https://antilobby.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/merkel_im.jpg

Sure. That's why you have to always fill out all forms again and again, because previous forms at one office cannot be shared with the office next door (And because their IT sucks).

In all seriousness, as an example, data retention laws are a huge topic in Germany, that have been rejected by courts again and again.

> In all seriousness, as an example, data retention laws are a huge topic in Germany, that have been rejected by courts again and again.

The EU data retention directive was struck down at an EU level by an Irish campaign group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive

Yes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundesdatenschutzgesetz

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think this law only applies to legal entities.

You are wrong: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_bdsg/englisch_bds...

No, it explicitly also applies to public authorities.

Germans are well read and most are aware of state hypocrisy. The ccc, general public and governmental watchdogs keep a good watch over things. There is some restrained discontent regarding state cooperation with various agencies, and the government is well aware. So they don't push it.

This specific law (which among others prohibit owning such equipment) contains a clause allowing the federal and state governments to issue exceptions. They do this for police. For actually using that equipment one needs to through another process including legal review.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com