Dangerous Ruling In Germany Makes Domain Registrar Liable For Copyright Infringement On Website It Registered

from the any-means-necessary dept

We already find the concept of "secondary liability" when it comes to copyright troubling enough. It's worrisome when a third party who had no direct involvement in the actual infringement can be blamed for it. Yet, in the legacy entertainment industry's insane infatuation with stopping all infringement, they keep going further up the chain, past secondary liability into tertiary or possibly even quaternary liability -- blaming those further and further removed from the actual infringement. That includes going after companies like ad providers and search engines -- but also, apparently, it includes going after registrars. We've seen some of this recently in various attempts to target registrars, but a ruling in Germany is hugely troubling, finding a registrar guilty because a site registered through that registrar was apparently used by someone to infringe.

Let's be clear just how far this is removed from the actual infringement. The infringement, if it actually existed, was between two or more individuals, who shared a torrent of Robin Thicke's album Blurred Lines. Once removed from that was the torrent site H33T, which did not actually engage in any infringement, but hosted the torrent (which, again, is not the actually infringing file). Another layer removed from that would be H33T's web host. And then we go one more layer up, and we finally get to Key-Systems, the registrar, which was ordered by a court to stop the infringement all those many layers down. And, of course, as the registrar, its only option was to yank the DNS entry, which it did, shutting down the entire site, even if everything else on the site was legal.

It's no secret that Germany seems to be much more open to ridiculous secondary liability claims, leading to some bizarre and dangerous rulings that will stifle innovation. And this seems to fit right in with those in the past. Key-Systems' lawyer agreed, telling TorrentFreak that the ruling "made no legal sense" and had "dire consequences for the kind of services German registrars can provide."

Universal Music, which brought the lawsuit, defended the outcome with some bizarre logic in a comment to TorrentFreak as well. First, a lawyer for Universal claimed that since H33T was a domain reseller, that tied the two companies together, but that makes no sense, especially since the issue of the torrent is totally unrelated to reselling domain names. Just because the companies have a relationship, doesn't make one liable for the others' totally unrelated actions. But then there's this absolutely insane logic:

Bruess says at this point it became “quite clear” that as “the only party involved who could stop the infringement”, Key-Systems needed to take action. That involved Key-Systems effectively disabling the whole domain, but Bruess says that was not his company’s request. They had only one requirement – to disable access to a single URL.

“In essence, Rasch Legal had not asked Key-Systems to close down h33t.com, but to stop one single torrent from being communicated to the public through h33t and h33t’s tracker,” he explains.

But, let's take that ridiculous logic one step further. Say, for example, that the registrar was unable to stop this particular torrent from being shared? Do we move one step up the ladder? They could, say, go to VeriSign, and demand they take down the entire .com database, right? Because that would be "the only party who could stop the infringement" at that point, right? And, even though they just wanted that single torrent taken down, if the only way VeriSign can do it is to nuke most of the internet, well, that's perfectly reasonable, right?

Filed Under: blurred lines, copyright, germany, secondary liability, torrent

German Government Tries To Neuter FOI Requests By Refusing To Allow Responses To Be Published

from the cease-and-desist dept

Freedom of information laws are one of the most powerful tools for holding governments to account. No wonder that every now and then, attempts are made to limit their effectiveness. Here's an example from Germany, where the freedom of information (FOI) portal FragDenStaat.de asked for and received a five-page study written by government staff analyzing a ruling by the German constitutional court:

When the study in question was received from the Ministry of the Interior through an FOI request on FragDenStaat.de, the ministry prohibited publication of the document by claiming copyright. FragDenStaat.de has decided to publish the document anyway to take a stand against this blatant misuse of copyright. The government sent a cease and desist letter shortly after. The Open Knowledge Foundation Germany as the legal entity behind FragDenStaat.de is refusing to comply with the cease and desist order, and is looking forward to a court decision that will strengthen freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of information rights in Germany.

Of course, if it were not possible to publish information received through FOI requests, the latter would become almost useless, as the German government doubtless well knows. So it's great to see the Open Knowledge Foundation Germany fighting this attempt to undermine the entire FOI system there (donations gratefully received.) It's also interesting to note how, once again, copyright is being deployed not as a means for promoting creativity, but as a weapon against openness and transparency.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: foia, freedom of information, germany

Chaos Computer Club Files Criminal Complaint Against German Government Over Mass Spying Revealed By Snowden

from the power-to-the-people dept

As governments around the world refuse to act in the wake of revelations about global spying, more and more people are launching legal actions to force them to address the problem. Back in December we wrote about several that had been filed in the UK, and now the well-known Chaos Computer Club (CCC) in Germany is launching its own legal challenge, in conjunction with the International League for Human Rights:

After months of press releases about mass surveillance by secret services and offensive attacks on information technology systems, we now have certainty that German and other countries' secret services have violated the German criminal law. With this criminal complaint, we hope to finally initiate investigations by the Federal Prosecutor General against the German government. The CCC has learned with certainty that the leaders of the secret services and the federal government have aided and abetted the commission of these crimes.

It is the understanding of the CCC that these crimes are felonies pursuant to German federal laws, specifically 99 StGB (illegal activity as a foreign spy), §§ 201 ff. StGB (violation of privacy) and § 258 StGB (obstruction of justice).

That's a very specific claim about which German laws have been broken; less clear is what CCC means by "learned with certainty": does that simply refer to the information that Snowden's leaks have provided, or has CCC obtained something more -- quite likely given its contacts and past achievements? The complaint also has an important request:

In the criminal complaint, we ask to hear technical expert and whistleblower Edward Snowden as a witness, and that he be provided safe passage and protection against extradition to the US.

As a parting shot, CCC also wants to encourage others to file similar criminal complaints in order to lend weight to their demands:

We do not only want to call the Federal Prosecutor General's office to investigations but also ask you to get involved and also file a criminal complaint.

Looks like pressure is beginning to build on governments, and it will be interesting to see what other legal actions are filed in Germany and elsewhere.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: chaos computer club, germany, spying, surveillance

Berlin Law Firm Files Criminal Complaint Against Copyright Troll U+C Alleging Its Demand Letters Are Fraudulent

from the but-no-one-would-fight-being-accused-of-stealing-porn,-would-they? dept

German copyright troll Urmann + Colleagues' (U+C) pain is only just beginning. U+C misrepresented a streaming service as a file-sharing site to a German court in order to obtain subscriber info on thousands of German RedTube users. U+C then used this fraudulently-obtained data to send out collection letters to over 10,000 users, demanding a payment of $345 for copyright infringement.

Red flags were raised by a handful of German lawyers who noted that almost everything about U+C's actions bordered on illegal. At the very least, U+C couldn't demand payment for activity not considered to be infringement by the German courts. The backlash began there.

First, the court that had issued the 50 orders (covering thousands of IP addresses) revoked them after it became apparent that U+C had misrepresented RedTube's service. Then RedTube itself was granted an injunction forbidding U+C (and The Archive AG -- which apparently "owns" the copyright to the porn titles at the center of all this activity) from sending out further demand letters to its German users.

Now a Berlin law firm (MMR Müller Müller Rößner) has filed a criminal complaint against U+C, alleging fraud and blackmail. According to the firm, U+C payment demands were predicated on a false claim (that German RedTube users were liable for copyright infringement for viewing a streamed video). Under German law, nothing illegal had occurred, but U+C was obviously hoping ignorance of the law would net it some income from RedTube users. Roughly paraphrased (and even more roughly translated), the law firm accuses U+C of deploying a "grandson trick" -- a scam -- that preys on the gullible and ignorant, and leverages the underlying threat that their targets' porn-watching habits could be exposed if payment isn't prompt.

Additionally, the method that U+C used to obtain IP addresses still hasn't been adequately explained. Even if it did use a completely above-board method to harvest viewers' IP addresses, the way RedTube serves its streams makes proving who watched what video almost impossible.

Even more incredibly, U+C lawyer Thomas Urmann claimed earlier this month that it makes no difference if shady methods were used to obtain the IP addresses. According to him, it's "too late" to raise that objection seeing as the court had already ruled in U+C's favor by issuing the orders to release user data. Urmann is likely not feeling quite as confident now that the court has repealed its support and revoked the earlier orders, but it's still a bit discomfiting to hear a lawyer boldly claim that the ends justify the possibly illegal means.

Another law firm (Diehl & Partner) weighing in on U+C's misconduct wonders exactly what it plans to use as evidence should any of these cases go to court, considering the works under discussion were only streamed and not downloaded. Obviously, this question is almost entirely rhetorical. Demand letters sent on a massive scale are the business model, not the first step in a complex legal strategy. Here in the US, courts have become less and less willing to entertain copyright trolls' low-level extortion schemes. U+C's audacious (and possibly fraudulent) letter writing campaign will only hasten the development of an identical legal climate in Germany.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright trolls, extortion, fraud, germany
Companies: the archive ag, u+c, urmann + colleagues

German Court Pulls Orders Granted To Copyright Troll U+C; Grants Injunction Against Future Demand Letters

from the undoing-the-damage dept

Urmann+Colleagues (U+C) is having a hell of a month. It looked to be briefly on the path to the sort of financial success copyright trolls like Prenda and Mailbu Media can only dream about. U+C sent out at least 10,000 settlement letters earlier this month asking for €250 ($344) from viewers who had streamed certain pornographic titles on RedTube.

The problems inherent in U+C's "business model" swiftly became apparent. First off, it appeared the agency had misled a German court by presenting RedTube as a file-sharing site, rather than a streaming site. In addition, U+C had somehow acquired subscriber info and IP addresses, data not easily obtained from the streaming sites. (RedTube has denied multiple times that it provided this info to U+C). German lawyers stepped up and informed the public that the demand letters were problematic to say the least and that there was little chance the demands were enforceable under German law (thanks to streaming of infringing content not being illegal).

Now it's not just lawyers standing in the way of U+C's easy money. The court has stepped in, admitting its mistake in approving U+C's requests and revoking court orders compelling Deutsche Telekom to hand over subscriber info on nearly 50,000 IP addresses.

The question still remains as to how U+C acquired these IP addresses. Ars Technica reports that some German internet users who received demand letters found the following redirect in their internet history.

http://hit.trafficholder.com/transfer.php?http://49655.movfile.net

http://49655.movfile.net/

http://49655.retdube.net/

Which then finally resolves to Redtube.com.

According to German tech site heise.de, these harvested IP addresses can be acquired for a certain amount of cash. Ars Technica was unable to secure a comment from TrafficHolder, despite its website's promise of "round the clock customer service." TrafficHolder also failed to respond to emailed queries.

This development gives U+C's efforts the appearance of a small-time honeypot, something that could generate further legal problems for the company. But as German lawyer Christian Solmecke points out, attempting to recover fines or costs from U+C (and its benefactor, The Archive AG) would be a long, drawn-out process that could last as long as 18 months. For most of those targeted by U+C's shady tactics, simply not paying a $344 fine will be victory enough.

The Archive AG (supposedly the rights holder for the porn titles in question) hasn't completely dodged the fallout from this ham-fisted collection attempt. RedTube has been granted an injunction against the company that prevents it from hassling its viewers about alleged copyright infringement. From the press release:

The District Court of Hamburg has granted an injunction in reaction to Cease and Desist letters sent to RedTube users by law firm Urmann Collegen on behalf of the Archive AG. RedTube, the leading provider of adult content filed an injunction earlier this week to prevent further harassing RedTube users with threatening Cease and Desist letters and alleging copyright infringement.

As ruled by the court, The Archive AG is no longer allowed to send out warning letters to Redtube users claiming that the users violated the copyright of The Archive AG -- not only with regard to the videos mentioned by Urmann Collegen in the warning letters, but in regards to any specific videos. The claims by the Archive AG have been deemed unfounded and users of streaming websites, including RedTube, are once again free to access and enjoy videos with peace of mind.

RedTube again reiterated its claim that it never exposed any user data, nor did it turn over any info to U+C or The Archive AG, either of its own free will or via a court order.

U+C isn't shy about using shady tactics to boost collections. As has been covered here in the past, U+C has attempted to shame file sharers into paying fees by threatening to expose their porn habits to the public. This latest attempt is just as legally questionable. Of course, nothing happening now will mean a thing if, in the future, U+C is able to deploy nefarious tactics with the blessing of the confused German court.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright trolling, germany
Companies: redtube, the archive ag, u+c, urmann + colleagues

RedTube Smacks Down German Copyright Troll For Attempting To 'Blackmail' Its Viewers

from the barely-legal-trolls-stripped-bare-and-humiliated! dept

German copyright troll U+C (Urmann and Colleagues) recently upped its trolling game by sending out settlement letters to German Redtube viewers who had the misfortune of watching some rather generically-titled porn under its nominal control. U+C's previous trolling efforts had concentrated on P2P file sharing, so this new move, targeted at viewers of supposedly infringing streams raised several questions.

First and foremost: how did U+C acquire the names and addresses of those who had viewed the streams? Streaming viewers don't leave IP addresses exposed like P2P sharers do. Redtube denied turning over any user data. The theory arose that U+C had misled the courts by presenting Youtube as a "swap meet," i.e., a file sharing site. Obviously, Redtube is not in the business of file sharing and under German law, those viewing streams -- even if the streams themselves are infringing -- cannot be held liable for infringement. The other theory mooted was that U+C was utilizing some sort of malware to trap IP addresses, but no evidence has surfaced that this is the case. (Although, it should be pointed out that Google indicates Redtube "might be hacked.")

A few German lawyers stepped into the fray, offering their assistance and telling those served with letters to ignore them until further notice. Now, Redtube itself has weighed in on the matter via a press release, and it sounds thoroughly irritated by U+C's shady activities.

RedTube, the leading provider of adult content with 25 million daily users, refutes the matter in which thousands of RedTube users have received so-called "cease and desist letters". RedTube stands by its firm opinion that these letters are completely unfounded and that they violate the rights of those who received it in a very serious manner.

RedTube reaffirms its position that the Company takes all its customers personal data very seriously and applies the highest privacy standards for its visitors on an on-going basis.

The Company goes on to emphasize that RedTube certainly did not submit any personal data to any law firm or any authority or entity, and that it seems very likely that the data was obtained by using dishonest measures.

"Serious allegations have surfaced in the media recently," stated Vice President Alex Taylor, "rest assured that our counsel received an immediate mandate to pursue all necessary actions to make all related entities accountable for the damage that has been caused." Taylor continued, "In 2013, blackmailing and violating the privacy of German citizens' private domain should not and will not be tolerated."

Redtube would like to reach out to its viewers who have received one of the spamming letters, and ask they get in touch with Redtube immediately. If you have received one of these letters, please let us know by contacting us at media@redtube.com.

So, Redtube's got your back, Einhänders. It remains to be seen what the court U+C misled will do once this information makes its way back to it. It may have very little effect on what's already been done, but it will (hopefully) guide its interactions with U+C in the future. In the meantime, those who have been sent letters asking them to pay up are probably safe just running them through the shredder. There doesn't seem to be any German law under which U+C can hold viewers accountable for streaming allegedly infringing material.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright troll, germany, trolling
Companies: redtube

German Copyright Troll Sends Thousands Of Shady Demand Letters To Users Of Streaming Porn Site, Redtube

from the this-again? dept

Online porn is big business, perhaps not so much for pornographers as it is for copyright trolls and anxious government entities. Urmann and Colleagues (U+C), a German copyright troll, is continuing the settlement letter tactics it began last year. The difference this time is that rather than pursuing downloaders via torrent tracking and threatening to out them as porn watchers if they don't pay up, U+C is now targeting viewers who have streamed allegedly infringing content from porn aggregator Redtube.

Tens of thousands of German internet users have been sent threatening letters by a law firm apparently acting on behalf of a rights-holder, on the basis that they watched copyrighted material on the pornographic video-streaming site Redtube.

The letters, issued by law firm U + C on behalf of Swiss firm The Archive AG, demand €250 ($344) per watched clip. The films in question include titles such as “Hot Stories” and “Amanda’s Secrets.”

According to the source article, a Cologne-based lawyer estimates that, based on the number of calls he alone has received, U+C has targeted 20,000-30,000 viewers.

There are multiple problems with what's going on here. First of all, The Archive AG is itself a "copyright protection" company, meaning it's acting on behalf of the porn producers through U+C, rather than producing the porn. Beyond that, the titles listed in the letters (Miriam's Adventures, Amanda's Secret, Dream Trip, Hot Stories) show up in searches only a) as part of articles detailing U+C's actions or b) as the unrelated names of websites and blogs. If this porn exists other than on Redtube, it's not easily located on the web.

Furthermore, U+C offers no proof that these titles were uploaded to Redtube without permission. On top of that, there's plenty of legal questions surrounding the supposed illegality of viewing infringing streams, especially since users are never fully in possession of the infringing content. Even if they were in possession of the video (however temporarily), German law allows for "private copying" without legal penalty.

Then there's the question of how U+C obtained IP addresses. Data on streaming viewers isn't as easy to obtain as it is with torrent services.

As for how the viewers’ IP addresses were identified, that also remains a mystery for now. The itGuards “Gladii” software mentioned in court records is reportedly only designed for monitoring file-sharing networks. File-sharing is easier to monitor in this sense, as IP addresses are there for the harvesting unless the user deploys a VPN or proxy.

Some have suggested that users were targeted with malware that harvested their IP addresses. If so, this would be a new low for a particularly obnoxious facet of the copyright industry.

According to the source article, U+C apparently misrepresented Redtube as a file sharing site ("swap meet" in the original article) in order to obtain court orders demanding the release of subscriber IP addresses.

What this looks like is Prenda-type tactics. Misrepresentation to the court. Possible honeypot deployment (the porn titles seem to be nonexistent). Shakedown letters sent en masse. And, going one step further than the most infamous of porn copyright trolls, the possible deployment of malware to track IP addresses. (Google currently indicates that Redtube "might be hacked.")

With the ownership of the disputed clips almost impossible to verify and U+C's tactics crossing the line from "shady" to "possibly illegal," lawyers in Germany are advising recipients of the demand letters to ignore them for the time being and by no means encourage U+C by paying the legally dubious fee. Of course, it will probably take more than this to discourage U+C. Settlement letters are generally issued on the same principle as mass mailing: a 1% response rate is more than enough to cover the expenses incurred.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright troll, germany, streaming
Companies: porn, the archive ag, u+c, urmann and colleagues

German Court Says CEO Of Open Source Company Liable For 'Illegal' Functions Submitted By Community

from the unclear-on-the-concept dept

We just had an article mentioning that Germany has a ridiculous (and dangerously anti-innovation) view towards secondary liability, in which the country's courts often default to making third parties liable for actions they did not do. We noted that a court in Stuttgart had decided that the Wikimedia Foundation could be held liable for content submitted by a community member on the site, though only after the organization was alerted to the content (which still has significant problems for what are hopefully obvious reasons).

And now it appears that a court in Hamburg has gone even further, saying that the CEO of Appwork, a company that offers the open source JDownloader software can be held personally liable for "illegal" code that was submitted by an anonymous programmer, and which automatically showed up in the nightly build of the JDownloader 2 beta (not the officially released product). The code in question allowed JDownloader to record certain copy-protect streams, violating an anti-circumvention law. Appwork made it clear that it had no idea the functionality had been added, that anyone can contribute to the source and that it goes out automatically in the nightly build of the beta. Furthermore, the company carefully reviews the code and features of any official releases, and would have blocked such functionality from appearing in that code. All of this would lead most people to realize that it's crazy to blame Appwork (and even crazier to blame the CEO).

But not the court, apparently. The court relied on the bizarre argument that since Appwork offers the product commercially, that makes it automatically liable for anything that appears in the open source beta. Basically, such a ruling will make it exceptionally difficult to have a commercial open source product in Germany, since you could face liability if someone contributes code that somehow is considered illegal. If these kinds of secondary liability rulings keep cropping up in Germany, the hot startup scene in Berlin may realize that the country's outdated laws make it quite difficult to do anything all that innovative, especially if it involves any contributions from outside the company. Given how important community contributions are these days, that cuts off a huge amount of internet innovation from the German market.

Filed Under: germany, hamburg, jdownloader, jdownloader2, open source software, secondary liability
Companies: appwork

German Court Tells Wikimedia Foundation That It's Liable For Things Users Write

from the that's-a-problem dept

I've spent a bit of time in Germany over the past few years, and the entrepreneurial community there is really interesting. It's become a hot place for emerging startups and there's a lot of excitement, especially in Berlin. Similarly, it appears that a number of internet activists have been flocking to Berlin. So it's become a really vibrant community of folks trying to make the internet better.

But the one thing that worries me quite a bit about the German internet scene is its very dangerous view of secondary liability -- in that German law and courts tend to lean towards blaming the intermediary for the actions of their users. I learned this the frightening way on stage at conference in Germany, under some very hot lights (in a decommissioned airport) where a somewhat angry questioner in the audience insisted that some comments written on Techdirt by some of our users were "illegal in Germany" and that, under German law, I was liable for them. He stood at the microphone with a laptop reading the comments and demanding I answer for them, despite never having even read those comments, let alone created them. I suddenly started mentally counting down the time until my flight home. I defended secondary liability (and basic free speech concepts) and was able to leave the country without problem (and have been back a couple times since then). However, as a few people explained to me on that trip, a real hindrance to innovation in Germany is this antiquated view of secondary liability whereby sites can almost always be declared liable for actions of their users.

It appears that this tragic view has struck again -- this time against the Wikimedia Foundation, the organization behind Wikipedia. The Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart, has found that the Foundation can be held liable for content on Wikipedia. In this specific case, someone argued that some Wikipedia content was libelous. While the court says that the organization doesn't need to proactively police its content, it does say that if anything has received any sort of complaint, suddenly the Foundation can be held liable.

Of course, this is a recipe for easy censorship. If you don't like something in Wikipedia, just file a complaint, and to avoid liability, the Wikimedia Foundation will have strong incentive to delete the contested language. Of course, this goes against nearly everything that Wikipedia stands for in terms of how content gets edited on the site. Even if legally required to, it's ridiculous for a German court to basically tell the Foundation that it needs to effectively delete passages of Wikipedia editors and then block that content from being put back. Rulings like this make true user-supported media operations legally difficult to maintain, and will increasingly scare top internet companies out of Germany.

If someone posted libelous information, go after them. Putting the blame on an intermediary isn't just misguided, but it also creates a strong chilling effect on innovation.

Filed Under: germany, secondary liability, wikipedia
Companies: wikimedia foundation, wikipedia

US Working Overtime Behind The Scenes To Kill UN Plan To Protect Online Privacy From Snooping

from the of-course-they-are dept

The UN has apparently been considering a proposal pushed by Brazil and Germany, to clarify that basic offline rights to privacy should apply to online information and activities as well. The proposal is targeted at attempts by governments -- mainly the US -- to ignore privacy issues in spying on people around the globe. Not surprisingly, the US is (quietly) working hard to stop this plan. Colum Lynch at Foreign Policy has the scoop, noting that publicly, the US is pretending to support this in some form:

But privately, American diplomats are pushing hard to kill a provision of the Brazilian and German draft which states that "extraterritorial surveillance" and mass interception of communications, personal information, and metadata may constitute a violation of human rights. The United States and its allies, according to diplomats, outside observers, and documents, contend that the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights does not apply to foreign espionage.

In recent days, the United States circulated to its allies a confidential paper highlighting American objectives in the negotiations, "Right to Privacy in the Digital Age -- U.S. Redlines." It calls for changing the Brazilian and German text so "that references to privacy rights are referring explicitly to States' obligations under ICCPR and remove suggestion that such obligations apply extraterritorially." In other words: America wants to make sure it preserves the right to spy overseas.

The U.S. paper also calls on governments to promote amendments that would weaken Brazil's and Germany's contention that some "highly intrusive" acts of online espionage may constitute a violation of freedom of expression. Instead, the United States wants to limit the focus to illegal surveillance -- which the American government claims it never, ever does. Collecting information on tens of millions of people around the world is perfectly acceptable, the Obama administration has repeatedly said. It's authorized by U.S. statute, overseen by Congress, and approved by American courts.

While none of this creates any binding requirements, it does put tremendous pressure on countries to comply -- and could lead to more specific language in various treaties and other agreements as well. It also allows other countries to stand firmly on the moral high ground that the US pretends to stand on, in order to scold the US for its activities.

The US, of course, likes to pretend that it needs to violate everyone's privacy to catch a few bad guys. There is little reason to suggest this is true. Nothing in the proposal appears to stop legitimate law enforcement, espionage and surveillance efforts, targeted at actual people involved in criminal or terrorist activity. The issue is scooping up everyone's data "just because." That's not what US negotiators are saying, obviously. Instead, they argue they need to scoop up everyone's data to make the world safer by going after "international terrorists."

The US's stance here is fairly obvious. It wants to pretend to retain the moral high ground on this issue, and the way to do that is to try to stop the rest of the world from pointing out that it's been on the low road for quite some time. But trying to redraw the map doesn't change the reality.

Filed Under: brazil, germany, privacy, surveillance, un, us