Charges Against Netzpolitik.org Are an Attack on the Free Press
eff.org
eff.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).
[1] https://netzpolitik.org/2015/generalbundesanwalt-bestaetigt-...
[2] http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stg...
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.
"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.
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 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.
"Verrat" -> "the act of treason"
"Verräter" -> "traitor"
"jemanden etwas verraten" -> "to disclose something to someone"
"Geheimnisverrat" -> "disclosure of secrets"http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/StGB.htm#BII
It's an English translation from 1998 but § 94 StGB hasn't changed since 1975:
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?
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 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.
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).
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.)