In Germany, furore over the NSA revelations is much bigger than in the US. Why do Germans fear Big Brother so much?
Germans like posting baby pictures, party snapshots and witty comments on Facebook just like anyone else. They just do not want to get caught doing it. Many of us use fake names for their profiles – silly puns, movie characters or anagrams and “remixes” of their real names. (Yes, I have one. No I’m not telling you the name.)
We like our privacy (even if fake names might not be the most professional form of encryption). Which is why the revelations about NSA spying have led to a bigger debate in Germany than in the US. It has become the hottest issue during what was poised to become a dull election campaign.
Now there is a James-Bond vibe to pre-election season: Newspapers publish extensive guides on how to encrypt emails. People question whether they should still use U.S.-based social networks. The German government seems to be under more pressure over the revelations than the American one.
What makes Germans so sensitive about their data? Many have pointed to Germany’s history: Both the Nazi secret police Gestapo and the East German Stasi spied extensively on citizens, encouraging snitching among neighbors and acquiring private communication.
But that’s not the whole story. Politics and the media in Germany today are dominated by (male) citizens raised in the democratic West who have no personal recollection of either of the Stasi or Gestapo.
Germany lacks the long tradition of strong individual freedoms the state has guaranteed in the U.S. for more than 200 years. Precisely because of that, these values, imported from the Western allies after 1945, are not taken for granted.
Indeed, there have been battles about privacy – and against a perceived “surveillance state” – in Germany for decades.
While the student rebellion of the late Sixties was partly driven by anger over the Vietnam war, it was also fueled by the parliament considering emergency laws that would have limited personal freedoms. And in the seventies, as left-wing terrorist groups were attacking the state ruthlessly, government answered with then-new “dragnet tracing”, identifying suspects by matching personal traits through extensive computer-based searches in databases.
Many considered this to be unfair profiling. In 1987, authorities wanted to ask Germans about their life – but the census faced protests and a widespread boycott because people saw the collection of data as an infringement of their rights. Citizens transformed into transparent “glass humans” (“glaserner Mensch”) were a horror scenario in the late and nineties in Germany summoned up on magazine covers and in T.V. shows.
Then, there is also the disappointment of the buddy who realizes he is not, as he thought, one of the strongest guys’ best friend.
The oft-celebrated partnership with the U.S. served as a pillar of Germanys’ comeback in international politics after the war and the Holocaust. Now it turns out Germany is not only ally, but also target. According to documents Edward Snowden disclosed, 500 million pieces of phone and email metadata from Germany are collected each month by the NSA – more than in any other EU country.
The outrage at the U.S.’s snooping has continued despite a follow-on revelation that it was actually the German secret service, the BND, that handed over the data to the NSA. (The BND said that no communication by German citizens was collected.)
The German debate also has to be understood as being fueled by a widespread but low-level Anti-Americanism, an ugly staple of the German left as well as the right. The short-lived love for Obama (200,000 people celebrated him during his Berlin speech in 2008) was an exception to the widespread perception of American hubris and imperialism. Germans have managed to live with the cognitive dissonance of protesting U.S. interventions while embracing Californian culture, rap music and even Tom Cruise.
Jakob Augstein, columnist for the countries’ biggest news site Spiegel Online, considers Prism an addition to the body of evidence that already includes Abu Ghraib and the drone war: The U.S., Augstein writes, is becoming a country of “soft totalitarianism”. The only thing not to be disputable about this statement is the Germans’ expertise when it comes to totalitarianism.
While the U.S. has few laws concerning data privacy, Germany has something unknown to Americans: 17 state data protection supervisors (one national and one for each state), who watch over the compliance of authorities and companies with data privacy laws. Since the German state Hesse introduced the first of these laws in 1970, strict oversight like this has become common in Europe.
Some of the German data supervisors have been regular talking heads in the media for years, bashing U.S. companies like Facebook for their alleged violations of privacy of their customers. When Google photographed German streets for its Street View service, they were pushing the company to give citizens the possibility of opting out. That is why today, tens of thousands of buildings in Germany are blurred on Street View.
Now the data protection supervisors have an even bigger target: the National Security Agency. After the Snowden revelations, they have discontinued giving out new licenses to companies under the so-called Safe Harbor principles, which are meant to guarantee that personal data is only transferred to countries with sufficient data protection, for example when Germans use American companies’ cloud storage space. After the revelations about the Prism program, the supervisors consider user data in the hands of U.S. companies not safe anymore.
Opposition parties have picked the “NSA scandal” – as German media call it – as the big (and, since Chancellor Angela Merkel is leading all polls, only) chance for the opposition to turn around the election. Merkel has been accused of having known more about the extent of the spying before the story broke than she admitted. Since German services are coordinated from the Chancellery, her opponents don’t believe her that she did not know about the American spy efforts.
Yet it is unlikely that the revelations will seriously influence the outcome of the election. This is not only because Merkel has an economy surprisingly immune to the European crisis. It is also because the biggest opposition party, the Social Democrats, has been tainted by its proximity to power. While smaller left-wing parties such as the former communists or the Greens make bold statements, including offering Snowden asylum, Social Democrats have a hard time doing so. One of their heads, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, used to be coordinator for Merkels predecessor Gerhard Schröder. In that position, Steinmeier was responsible for the services and intensified U.S.-German intelligence cooperation in the years after 9/11. He later became Secretary of State under Merkel. Even though that was before Prism started, socialists and conservatives bash him in rare unanimity “as if he’d personally founded the NSA and tapped transatlantic internet cables”, as my colleague Michael König put it for Sueddeutsche.de.
The government’s response to concerns about the spying reads like it was written in the Pentagon: The U.S. said it was only spying on individuals suspected of organized crime or terrorism. And the NSA said it was acting according to U.S. and German law. There is no blanket surveillance of European citizens.
But Germans don’t trust Merkel. A poll found two-thirds of questioned people voicing discontent with her dealing with the affair. Germans hoped for a more forceful reaction, like that from Brazil, another democratic country targeted by the NSA: Brazilian foreign minister Antonio Patriota publicly found strong words standing next to Secretary of State John Kerry last week: "In case these challenges are not solved in a satisfactory way, we run the risk of casting a shadow of distrust on our work.”
In Germany, the government sounds more apologetic than angry.
The U.S. is at least throwing Germany a bone. According to the government in Berlin, the NSA has offered a treaty: No more spying on each other. Georg Mascolo, former editor-in-chief of news Magazine Der Spiegel and now writing for Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, considers this an “historical chance for Angela Merkel”: A treaty, if formulated without loopholes for American spying, would give new value to the German-American alliance.
In any case, we’ll keep on making up fake names on Facebook. Just in case spies are going to keep on doing what spies are supposed to do.
Jannis Brühl is an Arthur F. Burns Fellow at ProPublica. In Germany, he works mostly for Süddeutsche.de in Munich, the online edition of the national daily Süddeutsche Zeitung.
Each piece of the world’s economy, a part of the main and combination of cheap money, a false assumption and poor information will create disaster for all. If an economy is washed away, the world is poorer. Therefore, send not to know whose currency is collapsing, it is yours
Once upon a time many years ago, well actually three years ago, a terrible economic plague descended upon the old financial empires of the north. With their banks under siege by falling markets and defaulting collateralised debt obligation (CDOs), the wise asset managers, analysts, economists and pundits began to tell a story of sunny lands most in the south and east. These lands were known by many names, sometimes emerging markets, sometimes BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). According to the story, in these lands the cold winds of recession never blew. The banks and currencies were always strong. The investment returns always increased at a phenomenal rate. These lands were also young and vibrant. They were free from the problems of the old, cold north. They were so strong that they could not be touched by the epidemic credit crises or the foul breath of sovereign debt ratings at junk levels. These emerging markets had decoupled from the crippled developed world. Their economies were on a sustainable, self-reinforcing growth path that would insulate them from any economic problems.
Nice story, but sadly wrong. As the cheap money from central banks begins to wane, currencies in India, Indonesia, Turkey, Thailand and Brazil have crashed. Despite the assurances of finance ministers and local central bankers, there are questions now about the strength of these economies. However, this has given rise to a new story. The developed world now seems to be strengthening. In the US, the economy has healed to the point where it no longer needs the monetary stimulus known as quantitative easing (QE) which will now be tapered off. Europe has just begun to grow after 18 months of recession. The problems in emerging markets will have absolutely no impact on the continued growth in developed countries. The developed countries have (wait for it) decoupled from the problems in emerging markets.
The reality is that both the decoupling and now the reverse decoupling theories are simply absurd. The problems in developed markets and emerging markets are just the same. They are all part of a global economic system where issues in one country are not hermetically sealed anymore. Contagion in one form or another will occur despite the assurances. However, to better understand the issues we have to look at both the decoupling story and the reverse decoupling.
The first decoupling story was intensely attractive. All countries did suffer some economic damage in 2008 and 2009. But in the developed world growth remained anaemic. The US technically recovered from the recession in 2009, its growth rate has rarely exceeded 2%, not the 3% or more required to reduce its unemployment rate to more ‘normal’ levels of about 5%. Europe is worse. It also recovered in 2009, but was back in recession by 2012.
Meanwhile, by 2010 emerging markets were enjoying spectacular growth rates. India was growing at 9.4%; China at an amazing 11.9%; Thailand at 12%; Brazil at 9.3% and South Korea at 8.7%. It was not only the growth that was impressive. It was where the growth was coming from. In times past emerging markets were dependent on trade with the developed countries. In the past few years, there has been an explosion of trade between emerging markets. Countries like Brazil and South Korea’s main trading partner for many years had been the US. Now it was China. In addition to inter regional trade, the growth was no longer just dependent on export of commodities or manufactured goods. A new emerging market middle class had been created and they were hungry for all sorts of goods like refrigerators, cars, television sets and smart phones that people in developed countries took for granted. For example, about two-thirds of Indonesia’s $600 billion economy is dependent on domestic demand.
The western economies did try to get their economies to grow through various experiments in stimulus, but nothing on the scale of emerging markets. As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP) the biggest stimulus packages were in Asia by far. Many of these packages were funnelled through state-owned banks, so they could be more quickly deployed.
The result of all this success was predictable, but so was the eventual outcome. Investors wanted higher yields and so they transferred money into emerging markets to take advantage of the attractive growth. This would have caused a problem, but it was exacerbated by the experimental programs especially of the US Federal Reserve, which suppressed interest rates for much of the world. Investors poured massive amounts of money into anything and everything in emerging markets that promised a decent yield, regardless of the risk. What would have been a flood of cheap money became a tsunami.
The same thing happened before the recession. Cheap money from Germany poured into the Eurozone’s peripheral countries. Cheap money from the US Federal Reserve poured into subprime housing. Eventually both collapsed. The tipping point comes when the source of cheap money dries up and investors suddenly realize that the tide is going out and some debtors are financially naked. Current account deficits (CADs) become unsustainable. Investment returns are far below the level of risk. Both corporations and consumers are up to their eyes in debt and bank balance sheets are awash in red ink. The difference between the present issue and what happened before 2008 is a matter of size.
The regulatory framework in the US was not up to the job prior to the recession. The regulatory framework in emerging markets is far below that standard. So exactly, where all the cheap money went is going to take a long time to figure out. Getting it back is not in the cards. Even in Europe, multiple stress tests have not precisely determined the nature and extent of the problem. The size of the asymmetries of information in emerging markets is exponentially larger as will the eventual market instability.
The story is as old as capitalism and is bound to be repeated. But markets in developed countries have an interesting response. So what? Markets in the US and Europe are a few percentage points off their all-time highs. The troubles of emerging markets seem far away. For example, only 0.09% of sales in the US and 0.07% of sales in the UK are generated by sales to China. China does not buy anything but commodities, so if it crashes, it will not affect anyone but the Chinese, right?
Wrong. Twenty years ago, developed countries’ share of the world’s GDP was 70%. Now it is only 50% or less. While the US’s exports as a percentage of GDP are only 12%, in Germany it is 47%. US might not have problems if China has a recession, but Europe is one of its largest trading partners. Europe’s economy is heavily based on exports. It emerged from recession not so much because of the growth in domestic demand, but because of the growth of exports, much of that to emerging markets. Emerging markets are a huge part of every aspect of the world economy. Even a slowdown not an outright crash will have a significant impact everywhere.
The US and European pension funds have made substantial investments in emerging market bonds and equities. A substantial percentage of every portfolio is recommended to contain emerging market investments. I cannot think of a presentation by a chief executive of an American or European company over the past few years that did not contain a statement about how they were going to exploit the spectacular growth opportunities in emerging markets. The stratospheric valuations of every social media company are in part based on advertising to the growing emerging market middle class. Now their record profits are dependent upon it.
Before the 2008 crash, it was assumed in the US market that a crash could never occur because real estate prices would always grow. Even today, I have read recent articles assuring investors that the same is true of emerging markets. The combination of cheap money, a false assumption and poor information will create a disaster for all. To paraphrase John Donne, each piece of the world’s economy, a part of the main. If an economy is washed away, the world is poorer. Therefore send not to know whose currency is collapsing, it is yours.
(William Gamble is president of Emerging Market Strategies. An international lawyer and economist, he developed his theories beginning with his first-hand experience and business dealings in the Russia starting in 1993. Mr Gamble holds two graduate law degrees. He was educated at Institute D'Etudes Politique, Trinity College, University of Miami School of Law, and University of Virginia Darden Graduate School of Business Administration. He was a member of the bar in three states, over four different federal courts and has spoken four languages.)
Bit by bit, through individual telephone calls, petitions, letters, ballots and multifarious ways citizens have pressurised the government to follow correct democratic procedures. However, this is not the time to rest, feels the former Central Information Commissioner
Right to Information (RTI) users have been allergic to any amendment in the Act because they know they have an Act, which is one of the best transparency acts in the World. Despite poor respect for laws and uneven implementation, citizens have found it acting as a great instrument for change. Most users have begun to feel empowered in negotiating with those in power using this instrument. Hence, they have been resisting any change in the Act. They rightly realize that those in power are uncomfortable with the Act and will weaken it if they have an opportunity. The Cabinet first decided to amend the RTI Act in 2006 and nationwide opposition to this move forced them to stall the move. In 2009, another move was made to get the Information Commissioners to support amendments to the Act, which was skilfully deflected. In 2012, ultimately the Cabinet decided not to pursue the agenda of amending the RTI Act and buried its decision of 2006 by giving a public assurance and burial to amendments.
The Central Information Commission’s decision on 3 June 2013, holding six major political parties as public authorities subject to the RTI Act, upset them. This meant being accountable to citizens at not only the time of elections, but all the time in terms of providing information. This irritated them and was a challenge to their arrogance. The government used this to get collusive agreement to issue an ordinance to amend the RTI Act. Public outrage at the thought of misusing a Constitutional provision brazenly managed to stall this. The government then decided to bring an amendment bill in the Parliament, realizing the unconstitutionality of its earlier move. Across the country, there were demonstrations and petitions opposing this. Over one lakh signatures were collected by a petition of National Campaign for People's Right to Information (NCPRI). In Gujarat, ballots were collected against the amendments and Mumbai held demonstrations outside railway stations. From many places there were reports of protests in a variety of ways.
Suresh Ediga staying in the US decided to call up members of Parliament (MPs) over telephone to persuade them to oppose the amendments. Many others took to this method and either met MPs or telephoned them. The grotesqueness of the political system ganging up to hurriedly pass an amendment to constrict the citizen’s fundamental right has now begun to dawn on our politicians. Citizens pointed out to the MPs that they did not appreciate their idea of changing the law without consultations with them. They pointed out that transparency in the political parties would improve faith and trust in them and lead to a better India. The Government appears to have realized the self-goal it was scoring and hence has decided to refer the bill to the Standing Committee. Citizens have cause to celebrate and congratulate themselves.
As individual citizens without any central organizing body, they are exercising their sovereignty. They did not get together in a mass, which would threaten authority. But bit by bit, through individual telephone calls, petitions, letters, ballots and multifarious ways they put pressure on those in power to adopt the correct constitutional device first and then to adopt a proper consultative and deliberative process. Citizens have done this exercise in a very mature fashion, demonstrating how to make democracy function and have held a candle to their MPs. This is how democracy must work through peaceful, persuasive engagement; not using whips and unruly methods.
They will continue this process of engagement with the political class and the Parliament, until it is accepted that no RTI amendments will be made until 2025. That will be a solution, which will allow them to focus on spreading the law to all and making transparency and accountability non-negotiable in our governance. This is not the time to rest. Yes, we, the people, will make it happen.
(Shailesh Gandhi served as Central Information Commissioner under the RTI Act, 2005, during 18 September 2008 to 6 July 2012. He is a graduate in Civil Engineering from IIT-Bombay. Before becoming a full time RTI activist in 2003, he sold his packaging business. In 2008, he was conferred the Nani Palkhivala Memorial Award for civil liberties.)