While I haven't read it, yet, I see film maker and journalist Laura Poitras at the top of the article. One reason she's described in interviews for moving, is that she could not pass through U.S. border control and customs without enduring an extensive search and the likely confiscation of all her digital equipment.
Perhaps that's not directly the NSA. But it's a legitimate reason to have a home somewhere that does not constantly put you through such. And she's not the only one in such a position.
I agree with your opinion that the German government and agencies may not be the most sympathetic. A significant portion of the German public, on the other hand...
The Stasi are still a fairly fresh memory, for many.
>The Stasi are still a fairly fresh memory, for many.
Including, no doubt, for the chancellor, Angela Merkel.
"She is ... the first German Chancellor to be born after World War II, and the first post-reunification Chancellor to be raised in the former East Germany" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Merkel]
My impression is that she was upset about her own phone, but not too much about the rest.
Also, as I recall, rumor is that behind the scenes, the German government was already clued in on much of what was going on.
And... various aspects of the German governments (Federal as well as the states, etc.) continue to be pretty aggressive about pushing spyware and otherwise insisting a unilateral "right" to do whatever they damn well please.
However, they are part of the EU. And border control is thereby not so easy to just zip up. Nor, perhaps, would the population stand for something so overt, as opposed to covert.
It's not rumors, Germany has their own full-fledged NSA-equivalent (the BND) spying on the populace cooperating with the NSA as a Tier 2 nation.
The German government was not just complicit, they were actively pushing for wider surveillance on their own citizens. Likely this is part of the motivation for the rumblings about European-based Internet services: the BND would have more negotiating leverage and power if they could directly access e.g. Facebook servers rather than having to go through the NSA.
Including, no doubt, for the chancellor, Angela Merkel.
"Concerned", perhaps yes. But not so much as to prevent her from not only joining the FDJ, but joining the local district board as well, and becoming its secretary for Agitprop:
I've only read about half of the article so far, but it's pretty clear they're not talking about people the US wants extradited; that's a completely different story.
These are activists who ostensibly haven't committed any crimes, but suspect they're under surveillance, or get harassed for being activists and want to go somewhere where the culture seems to be deeply and overtly set against state sponsored spying on the populace.
Poitras wasn't being stopped at airports because she was an activist - she was stopped because she was under suspicion for allegedly having foreknowledge of a planned insurgent attack against US troops in Iraq and filming it from the rooftops instead of warning them. She initially denied that she was the woman the troops saw filming from the rooftop during the initial military investigation, then later admitted to it in an e-mail to John Bruning, author of The Devil's Sandbox.
As someone who believes in the rule of law, I don't find these assertions particularly compelling, or even relevant. If Poitras committed a crime or was suspected of committing a crime, she should be charged and entitled to defend her actions in open court in front of a jury of her peers.
But what reportedly happened to her--since we're talking about Germany--reminds me of some of the Stasi's zersetzung: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zersetzung. Instead of enforcing laws, she was repeatedly harassed, seemingly with the intent to intimidate and destabilize her and her work.
> If Poitras [...] was suspected of committing a crime, she should be charged
If she was suspected of committing a crime, she should be investigated to determine whether or not there's sufficient evidence to show that she did commit the crime. You don't charge someone with a crime until you're fairly sure they committed it. Questioning her at the airport is one means of investigation.
Based on the descriptions given in the two articles I linked to, she traveled out of country 40 times over the course of 6 years, went to places like Iraq and Yemen, and openly hung out with Sunni insurgents and two close associates of Osama bin Laden - on top of already being reported filming at the scene of an ambush on US troops that resulted in multiple casualties. Maybe she didn't do anything, but the border control agents wouldn't have been doing their jobs if they didn't stop her and investigate.
Unless Poitras committed 40 different crimes or various crimes spanning 6 years, I think there's still something to be said about the rule of law based on what's been reported...which I think we both agree may not be the full story.
It's one thing to question/investigate someone in conjunction with specific, credible evidence as part of a larger, legitimate investigation; but having your devices searched or being questioned repeatedly at border crossings dozens of times over six years--especially for someone at least occasionally based in NYC who could have trivially been visited by law enforcement while home--seems a lot more likely to be part of an intimidation strategy than a legitimate investigation.
Is there a legal obligation for warzone journalists to disclose such information if they have it? That would seem like a very dangerous provision - for one, it would provide a strong incentive for the opposite party in an armed conflict to actively target them/prevent them from doing their job.
Even if there is, I don't see how the circumstance that no charges were filed and apparently the authorities instead chose to take the route of (retaliatory?) extralegal harassment is compatible with the rule of law.
I'm not sure on the legality since it happened in a war zone. Over here in a non-war zone, I certainly can be held liable for criminal negligence if I've received credible evidence that someone is going to attacked and I do nothing to report it to the authorities. She was hanging around some questionably dangerous folks, so I'm sure if she did know she could have made an argument that the circumstances prevented her from notifying the troops without putting her own life at risk. And, of course, she might not have known about it to begin with and was just randomly filming.
On the other hand, telling the investigators that she wasn't the person filming at the scene of the attack and then later recanting it is certainly enough to raise some eyebrows. Certainly not enough to convict someone of a crime, though, which is likely the reason why she was repeatedly searched and questioned but never arrested or indicted. She might call it harassment, but the authorities call it investigation.
So why search her only at the border then, rather than obtain a warrant to search her domicile? (Please correct me if this in fact did occur as well.)
If this was indeed an investigation passing usual legal requirements with the intent to build a case against her, I'd imagine that any responsible investigator would at the very least choose to do that as well. If they repeatedly searched her at the border (thus essentially abusing an avenue which had its legal hurdles significantly reduced for the ostensible sake of national security and being able to deal with external threats that the internal legal system had no time and opportunity to handle through regular channels) but did not choose to obtain a warrant or otherwise start a legal process that comes with the normal set of safeguards, I'd say that strongly seems to indicate they did not have enough of a case against her - or, in other words, that an investigation was perpetuated which according to traditional legal standards should have been discontinued.
Now, of course you may argue for the traditional standards/safeguards themselves to be weakened (e.g. by saying that while searches of one's home should remain subject to the same legal restrictions, certain parts of the government now also shall have the privilege to conduct some sort of "preliminary searches" which do not come with the usual safeguards to arbitary ends which might include a more formal investigation being started, at their full discretion), but this is not how I usually see this debate being framed.
The most plausible reason to me would just be the fact that it's DHS doing the searching, not FBI. Border control has very broad authority to search and question anyone coming into the US, and some office at DHS may be very interested in her but the equivalent office at FBI might not have the time or inclination to pursue it further, especially if the searches and questioning keep turning up nothing. I worked in the military in the past and have seen plenty of examples of government organizations with different but slightly overlapping missions. They tend to step on each others' toes just as often if not more often than they work together effectively.
I also have no idea if the FBI pursued it further and got a warrant. They're under no obligation to inform someone that they're under investigation. They may very well have started up a case against her that's still open, or may have investigated her and eventually dropped the case, or may not have done anything at all. In any case, they've never charged her with a crime and she's never been arrested.
I see how this being a DHS endeavour would give rise to the observations, but why would the offense in question, assuming it is one, be a homeland security rather than FBI or military police matter?
Only because border control falls under the purview of DHS. If they did find something illegal, as far as I know all they could do is either deny her entry or hand her and the evidence they collected over to the FBI and see if the DOJ wants to bring charges.
It definitely wouldn't be a matter for the military police - since she isn't a member of the military she isn't subject to the UCMJ. The only reason they would have done anything in Iraq would be because Poitras was in a war zone outside US territory. They, again, would have had to hand her over to the DOJ for prosecution.
The role of the media in democracy is crucial to the way of life of citizens that make up its political constituency. Because of this, war correspondents must stick to ideas of “responsibility”, “objectivity”, and “truth” in order to ensure that the public and democratic institutions remain aware of the wider issues involved.
She initially denied that she was the woman the troops saw filming from the rooftop during the initial military investigation, then later admitted to it in an e-mail to John Bruning, author of The Devil's Sandbox.
According to the article you cite, she didn't admit to being the person the soldiers saw "filming from the rooftop" during the attack. But rather, to quote the article verbatim, "that she had in fact been on the roof that day."
Presumably you understand that these are different things.
Furthermore Poitras believes in a type of journalism that does not interfere with events. She believes in documenting what happens without trying to influence them. But I suppose that there is probably some law, some where that states that in war zones not disclosing information is a crime.
Finally if this were true at all we can ask why she hasn't been arrested. Why should she be stopped and harassed but not arrested if the government has evidence that this is true?
"Poitras wasn't being stopped at airports because she was an activist - she was stopped because she was under suspicion for allegedly having foreknowledge of a planned insurgent attack against US troops in Iraq and filming it from the rooftops instead of warning them."
Sure, Poitras detention had nothing to do with Snowden, Obama is a pacifist, Ukraine is in Africa, Putin is a democrat and I am Marry Poppins!!!
Snowden applied for political asylum in Germany. However, the law says you must be within Germany to do that and Snowden considered that too dangerous. The government can make exceptions to that rule but apparently they considered it too dangerous with respect to the USA relations.
Last time I looked there are few places in Germany that are further away than 300km or so from a place that is controlled by the USA or UK.
That's a good three hours to essentially get anyone outside Germany's jurisdiction if the USA really wants to force the issue "extraordinary rendition" style.
Given how much Germany (both government and populace) cared when it was about a German citizen, I doubt there would be notable outrage when it's about an American.
That's because the Snowden leaks are not a real threat. None of the documents contained anything about the "real" classified technologies; they only confirmed what everyone knew anyway.
If Snowden had leaked usable information about microwave weapons and quantum computers the Russians would not have merely accepted him... they'd be willing to go to war for him.
Makes you wonder if the Snowden leaks weren't just a big PsyOp on the BRICS. ;)
> That's because the Snowden leaks are not a real threat. None of the documents contained anything about the "real" classified technologies; they only confirmed what everyone knew anyway.
This opinion is understated.
While I wouldn't go as far as to make guesses as to what the real classified data is now-a-days, I would like to point out that nearly all of the reveals thus far from the recent round of whistleblowers read basically like the transcripts to the cypherpunks mailing list over the past twenty years.
My fear is that everyone will gloss over that, and then continue discrediting such lists and their users far into the future as 'tinfoil hattery' and the like.
