Why Germany Must Not Adopt US Paranoia
Published in Berliner Zeitung
(Germany) on 18 January 2015
by Daniel Haufler (link to original)
(Germany) on 18 January 2015
by Daniel Haufler (link to original)
Translated from
by Jess Gibbs.
Edited by Stephen Proctor.
The German union parties* are seizing on citizens' fears and want to collect more data. Instead of restricting people's freedom with these measures, which are known to be ineffective, the conservative parties should be protecting it. Otherwise they are not conservatives.
In fact, the U.S. is the land of paranoia. And not just since the terror attacks on September 11, 2001. Long before this, the Americans granted their secret services far more freedom than the Germans did, for example. But the more terrorism concerns people, the more willing they are to forego freedom for the sake of security. According to a recent survey, 54 percent of Germans want "stronger intelligence services," and 41 percent are in favor of data retention. The attacks in Paris have left their mark.
The union parties are only too willing to seize on citizens' fears and promise greater security. In particular, they want to better equip the security services and collect more data. It doesn't matter to them that in other countries, such measures have not prevented terrorist attacks, that they very rarely deter or catch the perpetrators,, but change society as a whole in a terrible way. This phenomenon has been investigated scientifically for a long time, for example, in the pioneering 1975 Stanford study "The Chilling Effects of Surveillance: De-individuation and Reactance."
At that time, scientists allegedly wanted to investigate the discourse of the student movement and, in this context, find out if students were in favor of legalizing the use of cannabis. First, the subjects were allowed to indicate their opinion anonymously in a questionnaire. They were then interviewed individually. Half of the group were told that the conversation would be recorded with a video camera and passed on to the FBI and the police. The other half was not threatened in such a way.
The result? According to the questionnaire, 50 percent of the students were against legalization and 50 percent were in favor. This proportion remained the same in the interviews of those subjects that didn't need to fear that their statement would land in the hands of the FBI. Among the others, the support for the use of cannabis decreased, and they certainly didn't concede to having smoked marijuana themselves. In their statements, words such as "illegal," "misdemeanor," "crime" and "dangerous" cropped up much more frequently. In addition, they often demonstrated a defensive attitude, in which they preferred to speak of "they" rather than "I," of "the people" and "them." Even their body position was frozen in a defensive posture.
Those who feel threatened by surveillance perceive the world in a different way, behave differently, speak differently and no longer do things that they would otherwise not think twice about. This empirical knowledge is of course known to us from dictatorships, but ever since studies such as the one mentioned above, we know that it can also occur in democracies under certain conditions.
No American Conditions
This concern is shared by the Federal Constitutional Court. In its judgment on computer searches in 1995, it wrote: "The fear of surveillance with the danger of subsequent evaluation, possible transmission and further use by other authorities can already lead to communication problems and behavior adaptation among the holders of fundamental rights." Quite rightly, this would not only compromise individuals' opportunities to develop, but also compromise public welfare.
Today, now that we know about the total surveillance by the National Security Agency and the CIA, and of the complicity of the German Foreign Intelligence Agency, the BND, now that it must be clear to everyone that the "Fundamental Right to Self-Determination over Personal Data" formulated by the Constitutional Court is essentially worthless, a storm of indignation should now break out in view of the unions’ proposals. Their ideas sound like an extension of those security laws with which the former Minister of the Interior, Otto Schily, curtailed civil rights and liberties after 9/11.
And promptly Schily makes his voice heard. To this day, he has still not understood that there is a tense and sensitive relationship between freedom and security. If better security can only be achieved by reducing freedom, as he sees it, then he would have to ask himself if such a liberal democracy would bring about its own demise. In a country that has experienced two dictatorships, it's amazing that the political fantasy of a well-educated man and his successors doesn't go further. Instead of restricting his citizens' freedom with measures that are known to be ineffective, the conservatives should be protecting it.
Otherwise, they are not conservatives. However, they must first recognize that terrorists in Europe are indeed a serious threat that needs to be countered by appropriate means. Nevertheless, the likelihood of dying in an attack is still low, so our security is well protected. There is no reason to replace the U.S. as the land of paranoia.
Translator’s note: *Unionsparteien: the German Christian Democratic parties — the CDU and CSU.
In fact, the U.S. is the land of paranoia. And not just since the terror attacks on September 11, 2001. Long before this, the Americans granted their secret services far more freedom than the Germans did, for example. But the more terrorism concerns people, the more willing they are to forego freedom for the sake of security. According to a recent survey, 54 percent of Germans want "stronger intelligence services," and 41 percent are in favor of data retention. The attacks in Paris have left their mark.
The union parties are only too willing to seize on citizens' fears and promise greater security. In particular, they want to better equip the security services and collect more data. It doesn't matter to them that in other countries, such measures have not prevented terrorist attacks, that they very rarely deter or catch the perpetrators,, but change society as a whole in a terrible way. This phenomenon has been investigated scientifically for a long time, for example, in the pioneering 1975 Stanford study "The Chilling Effects of Surveillance: De-individuation and Reactance."
At that time, scientists allegedly wanted to investigate the discourse of the student movement and, in this context, find out if students were in favor of legalizing the use of cannabis. First, the subjects were allowed to indicate their opinion anonymously in a questionnaire. They were then interviewed individually. Half of the group were told that the conversation would be recorded with a video camera and passed on to the FBI and the police. The other half was not threatened in such a way.
The result? According to the questionnaire, 50 percent of the students were against legalization and 50 percent were in favor. This proportion remained the same in the interviews of those subjects that didn't need to fear that their statement would land in the hands of the FBI. Among the others, the support for the use of cannabis decreased, and they certainly didn't concede to having smoked marijuana themselves. In their statements, words such as "illegal," "misdemeanor," "crime" and "dangerous" cropped up much more frequently. In addition, they often demonstrated a defensive attitude, in which they preferred to speak of "they" rather than "I," of "the people" and "them." Even their body position was frozen in a defensive posture.
Those who feel threatened by surveillance perceive the world in a different way, behave differently, speak differently and no longer do things that they would otherwise not think twice about. This empirical knowledge is of course known to us from dictatorships, but ever since studies such as the one mentioned above, we know that it can also occur in democracies under certain conditions.
No American Conditions
This concern is shared by the Federal Constitutional Court. In its judgment on computer searches in 1995, it wrote: "The fear of surveillance with the danger of subsequent evaluation, possible transmission and further use by other authorities can already lead to communication problems and behavior adaptation among the holders of fundamental rights." Quite rightly, this would not only compromise individuals' opportunities to develop, but also compromise public welfare.
Today, now that we know about the total surveillance by the National Security Agency and the CIA, and of the complicity of the German Foreign Intelligence Agency, the BND, now that it must be clear to everyone that the "Fundamental Right to Self-Determination over Personal Data" formulated by the Constitutional Court is essentially worthless, a storm of indignation should now break out in view of the unions’ proposals. Their ideas sound like an extension of those security laws with which the former Minister of the Interior, Otto Schily, curtailed civil rights and liberties after 9/11.
And promptly Schily makes his voice heard. To this day, he has still not understood that there is a tense and sensitive relationship between freedom and security. If better security can only be achieved by reducing freedom, as he sees it, then he would have to ask himself if such a liberal democracy would bring about its own demise. In a country that has experienced two dictatorships, it's amazing that the political fantasy of a well-educated man and his successors doesn't go further. Instead of restricting his citizens' freedom with measures that are known to be ineffective, the conservatives should be protecting it.
Otherwise, they are not conservatives. However, they must first recognize that terrorists in Europe are indeed a serious threat that needs to be countered by appropriate means. Nevertheless, the likelihood of dying in an attack is still low, so our security is well protected. There is no reason to replace the U.S. as the land of paranoia.
Translator’s note: *Unionsparteien: the German Christian Democratic parties — the CDU and CSU.