

NSA provides German intelligence service with tools for eavesdropping - LinaLauneBaer
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spiegel.de%2Fpolitik%2Fausland%2Finterview-mit-edward-snowden-im-spiegel-nsa-und-bnd-arbeiten-zusammen-a-909800.html
Better translation:<p>http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.spiegel.de&#x2F;international&#x2F;world&#x2F;edward-snowden-accuses-germany-of-aiding-nsa-in-spying-efforts-a-909847.html
======
thomasjames
Again, this is not surprising. European politicians have just been caught with
their pants down: on the one hand drumming up populist support by pandering to
anti-American sentiments when the opportunity presents itself, and on the
other being party to the alleged crime, or in France's case having its own de
Gaulle-style internet-based signals intelligence network, which we can presume
it shares with no one, unless asked nicely.

------
LinaLauneBaer
In real english:

[http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/edward-snowden-
acc...](http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/edward-snowden-accuses-
germany-of-aiding-nsa-in-spying-efforts-a-909847.html)

------
rbehrends
This seems to largely be a non-story, actually.

What it does say is that the NSA provided the German BND with the technology
for its international dragnet search program.

However, that program is not and has never been secret. Its basic functioning
is spelled out precisely in §5 through §8 of the G10 Act [1]. This law is
hardly uncontroversial, but it is not as though anybody can claim to have been
surprised by it; its provisions are well known and frequently and hotly
debated.

Regarding information-sharing with the NSA: The law allows the result of §5
surveillance only to be shared with foreign agencies under the conditions of
§7a and §8. In particular, this means that all such information sharing has to
be reported to the parliamentary commission and the commission has to inform
the public about the amount of information sharing that occurred. For
2009-2011 (2011 is the year covered by the most recent report) no such
information sharing was reported to have occurred.

Now, if the BND broke that law and shared information with the NSA without
telling the parliamentary commission, then this would surprise just about
nobody. But that's not what the Spiegel is talking about.

The part that is potentially interesting is the NSA establishing a new
"Consolidated Intelligence Center" in Wiesbaden (to replace a similar center
in Darmstadt).

[1] [http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/g10_2001/](http://www.gesetze-im-
internet.de/g10_2001/)

~~~
thomasjames
Why is it only bad when the BND works with the NSA? If it is just intercepting
all day to flow across Germany's borders via DE-CIX it is potentially equally
problematic.

~~~
rbehrends
Because the G10 Act contains safeguards that the BND is required to adhere to,
but the NSA isn't.

\- The BND has to immediately delete all records except the ones that are
relevant for an enumerated set of purposes and has to document this deletion.
Per the parliamentary commission's reports [1], the remaining messages are
generally a few hundred annually.

\- The BND can only share them with law enforcement for the prevention and
prosecution of an enumerated list of serious crimes. Using them for other
purposes it not allowed, and evidence obtained as the result of such illegally
shared information is to be excluded by the courts [2].

\- The BND has to notify anybody whose messages have not been deleted
immediately that some of their telecommunication has been intercepted. This
has to occur within 12 months, unless the G10 commission authorizes a deferral
of the notification. The annual report of the parliamentary commission lists
how many people were and were not notified.

The BND is subject to these constraints, the NSA isn't.

Furthermore, if the BND breaks the law, remedies are available; Germany does
not have any recourse against NSA actions.

[1] E.g.:
[http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/127/1712773.pdf](http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/127/1712773.pdf)

[2] BGH, 2 Str 731/79\. [http://www.ejura-examensexpress.de/online-
kurs/entsch_show_n...](http://www.ejura-examensexpress.de/online-
kurs/entsch_show_neu.php?Alp=1&dok_id=5796)

~~~
thomasjames
FISA theoretically had restraints as well (50 U.S.C. § 1803, Pub.L. 95–511, 92
Stat. 1788, enacted October 25, 1978), but it did not stop the process from
being corrupted and automated. When the capability is there, there is nothing
stopping it from being abused similarly. The Western country and alleged
safeguards that happen to be in charge of said apparatus is really irrelevant.

~~~
rbehrends
You are misunderstanding. The question was why the BND sharing with the NSA
was worse than what the BND does on its own.

What I was saying in response was not there is perfect safety against abuse,
but that if the BND could share information freely with the NSA, it would
render the existing safeguards largely worthless, because the NSA is not bound
by the national laws of Germany.

------
znowi
As it seems, all the NSA revelations are only that for general public. The
allies knew about them and to some extent participated. Which explains how
readily helpful the EU is in catching Snowden. Critical commentary from Europe
is just to save face. When it settles down, they'll get back to business as
usual.

------
kriro
I don't get why Germany (or any sovereign nation) allows foreign military
bases in the first place.

I'm kind of curious though are there any size limitations on embassies or
consulates? Could I technically have a really huge one of those in a foreign
nation and run all the spying etc. from that?

~~~
kimlelly
> I don't get why Germany (or any sovereign nation) allows foreign military
> bases anyways.

Exactly.

What happens when the US gets out of control? (And with the power that the NSA
has, that kind of corruption is not science fiction anymore.) There would be
no Europe to try to push back and correct things. The world would be f##ked
for real, this time.

