[flagged]
replies(14):
In many cases, even investigative journalists cannot obtain details about governance processes and decisions made behind closed doors. The government often cites strict data protection rules and uses them as a shield against disclosure.
Another example: In Germany, you are generally not allowed to film law enforcement. If someone feels they have been treated "unfairly", good luck to prove that in court when two officers present a completely different version of events, especially since body cameras are very rare in germany.
At first sight, I don't see how the FOIA is much different to the Informationsfreiheitsgesetz (freedom of information law). https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informationsfreiheitsgesetz
Isn't the FOIA also applied on the federal level?
> In Germany, you are generally not allowed to film law enforcement
I think this is misleading. It's not especially prohibited. Generally, law enforcement enjoys the same rights as everyone else, that is having a right to privacy and the confidentiality of the spoken, non-public word. You can't film law enforcement folks preemptively, or without cause, if they have the reasonable expectation of confidentiality of the spoken word. If law enforcement is breaking the law, you are allowed to collect video evidence. In any case, you are not allowed to publish non-public video recordings or pictures of anyone, taken without explicit, or implicit consent. Public or non-public here means the implied confidentiality of communication, not necessarily where it happened. Eg. talking on a public street doesn't make every conversation public.
Mind you, in Germany, illegally obtained evidence isn't as easily dismissed as it is in the US. If you record the police without cause (illegally) and they happen to commit a crime, your recording isn't tainted evidence as far as I know, but rather you may (if indicted) face legal consequences yourself, independently. Again, publication is a completely different matter.
Legality of video recordings is pretty much irrelevant, regarding the legal power dynamics you described, as the police could just confiscate your phone and find some excuse for destroying the evidence. Independent oversight seems more important to address this.
On the other hand, I do think law enforcement should enjoy privacy, generally, as everyone else. I don't think, having a camera in your face with every interaction is helpful for anyone, all things considered, but would rather aid escalation and discourage leniency. Constant video surveillance just sucks, no matter who is doing the recording.
Also you say that my information about filming law enforcement is misleading, but then you make a legal analysis and conclude that even when you consider all these facts, you can still be charged for illegally obtained evidence. For me, what you describe is very much the same as it is not allowed to film law enforcement by de facto.
Yes, law enforcement officers should be allowed to have e.g. confidential conversations with each other. Just like you do (or should have) chatting with your work colleagues.
> so I guess you are against body cameras then.
I am conflicted, because I don't want to be filmed during police interactions, either. It really depends on the legal setup. If they are mandatory, encrypted, only readable with a court orders, always on, not fed into the general surveillance stream (AI shit, face recognition), reliable and tamper proof, I am in favor of them, I guess. That is, if they are useful to hold officers accountable, as well. Pretty utopic, tho.
However, regarding the officers privacy they are fundamentally different than a right to film law enforcement without cause, in any "public" situation.
> For me, what you describe is very much the same as it is not allowed to film law enforcement by de facto.
Yes, but not because they are law enforcement. You can also be charged for illegally filming anyone else.
Eg. dash cams as used around the world are also not legal in Germany. They have to be constructed to loop a short time interval and only retain the recording in case of an accident. You can't continuously record traffic or public life in Germany.
Personally, I think it's quite awesome you got legal leverage against someone filming, or surveilling you against your will.
I also agree that law enforcement should be able to hold confidential conversations. That is why body cameras come with an option to be switched off, giving officers discretion over when to record and when not to.
The real problem, however, is that in Germany there is no legal foundation for filming in the other direction. If you believe an officer is misbehaving, you are generally not allowed to record the misconduct. Even if the device operates on a short loop and automatically deletes older footage, an officer can still legally instruct you to turn it off. That creates a significant issue.
In the United States, it would be unthinkable for law enforcement to approach a journalist or cameraman in a public space and demand they stop filming.
See that's the problem. I don't want convenient malfunctions and "Uppsie, forgot to switch it on". If it doesn't cut both ways, then there is very little benefit IMO.
> If you believe an officer is misbehaving, you are generally not allowed to record the misconduct.
I think, you are allowed to record illegal acts by the police, or anyone (to collect evidence, not publish/share). It's a bit like a citizen arrest... you are liable for misjudgment of the situation. And plenty of people started filming before anything illegal happened. But in any case, I don't think legal consequences are too severe, so when in doubt deactivate biometric unlocking, press record and keep your distance.
The real problem is... the police got the power. If they are dicks, there is little you can do about it. Legal or not, if they get you, you lose. Legal or not, if you get away, there is a chance for justice.
Far, far more important than recording, would be truly independent investigations into police misconduct and violence, better witness protection for inside sources and harsher punishment for covering/lying for your colleagues.
> In the United States, it would be unthinkable for law enforcement to approach a journalist or cameraman in a public space and demand they stop filming.
Does this happen in Germany? Never heard of it and I doubt it's legal, if it happens. AFAIK in the US anyone can record anyone in public, no?
Finally, I think it's important to acknowledge the vast, vast difference in police violence between the US and Germany. Cops tend to be dicks everywhere, but it's not even the same sport in comparison. So does the recording help? I've seen plenty nasty shit bodycam footage and consequences are rare, aren't they? At this point, I don't see much pressure for recording reforms in Germany, tbh. Independent investigations is far more important.
Yes, it does happen, mostly to YouTubers who are filming in public, which is perfectly legal in the U.S. These YouTubers are legally speaking independent journalist, they do not work for a big news organization, but work for themselves and investigative with their own cameras in public, again perfectly legal in the U.S.
In Germany the police has stopped famous YouTubers in the past for doing so. There is plenty of discussion on that on social media.
One quote from the community: "Yes, German regulations are the strictest in the free world."
https://www.reddit.com/r/berlin/comments/8eslik/comment/dxxp...
Related Topic from news media coverage: "The US [human rights] report claimed there were serious restrictions on freedom of expression in Germany"
https://www.dw.com/en/germany-rejects-us-censorship-claims-i...
So it is indeed an issue and the public is already aware of it.
If "YouTubers" are journalists, then everyone is a journalist. The point about proper press is, they know what's allowed and what isn't, when you need to ask for permission, when to blur a face.
> So it is indeed an issue and the public is already aware of it.
Am I the public? Cause, I am super happy people can't just film and publish me walking in public. I have to get out, to get food, to work and stuff, doesn't mean my life is a public affair. Considering AI and big data, I am extra happy about "these strictest regulations in the free world". Speaking of, there is no freedom under surveillance and Germany is kinda an authority on that matter...
Or is JD Vance the public? Lol. Got a problem people can't express themselves here, like they did in 1933, but sure on US' doubleplusfree turf, trans people got outlawed, "DEI" folks erased from history and people expressing tattoos, or melanin are getting kidnapped by blessed masked men in unmarked vehicles. You can fly the NSDAP flag in the US, but can't disrespect the American one, cause that's inciting violence. Classroom bible, but empty shelves in the library, under his eye. US human rights report calling out people protesting the genocide as credible reports of antisemitic violence – well, let's call some reporters in Gaza to confirm these allegations... weird, no one is picking up. Funkloch or F-35? Did the US also object when the communist party got banned here? Verfassungsfeind-schmeind, says Werner von Braun. Bit one sided and oddly programmatic this report, don't you think?
And reporting live from Minneapolis, just because something is perfectly legal in the US, doesn't mean it's best practice. Tomorrow, crisis actors caught in 4k by an independent journalist...
It ain't all bueno in Germany, not at all, but the US most certainly isn't the gauge for anything.
In a way, yes. That is what freedom of the press means, and it is a core principle of the Western world. Anyone can start a blog, write articles, take photos, make videos, and share them publicly. That is, and should remain, legal. No authority can decide who qualifies as a journalist.
There are no official press credentials in law either. The passes that some news agencies issue are simply pieces of paper with no legal weight, because press freedom is a fundamental right for every citizen.
The idea that someone cannot be a journalist simply because they are not part of a large agency is mistaken. It is just as mistaken to assume that independent journalists will automatically act irresponsibly.
> Am I the public? Cause, I am super happy people can't just film and publish me walking in public.
There is no expectation of privacy in public. Of course no one can come to you and hold their camera in your face. That's not allowed. But if you happen to be walking around and there's some news agency or journalist that has a camera on to something else (again in public) like a tourist attraction, then of course you will be on their film and they do not have to ask you before putting it on YouTube.
Taking a photo, or making a video doesn't make me a journalist. Adhering to "journalistische Sorgfaltspflicht" is a legal requirement.
> Eine zentrale Anforderung an die Presse ist die Einhaltung der publizistischen oder journalistischen Sorgfaltspflicht bei der Berichterstattung. Es handelt sich um einen allgemeinen medienrechtlichen Grundsatz, der für verkörperte Presseerzeugnisse in den Pressegesetzen der Länder gesetzlich verankert ist.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presserecht
> Persönlichkeitsrechte > Die Presse achtet das Privatleben des Menschen und seine informationelle Selbstbestimmung. Ist aber sein Verhalten von öffentlichem Interesse, so kann es in der Presse erörtert werden. Bei einer identifizierenden Berichterstattung muss das Informationsinteresse der Öffentlichkeit die schutzwürdigen Interessen von Betroffenen überwiegen; bloße Sensationsinteressen rechtfertigen keine identifizierende Berichterstattung. Soweit eine Anonymisierung geboten ist, muss sie wirksam sein.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressekodex
> There is no expectation of privacy in public.
The expectation of privacy and being in "public" are somewhat independent things, as explained earlier. The threshold isn't just "in your face", but if someone is identifiable or not.
> Taking a photo, or making a video doesn't make me a journalist. Adhering to "journalistische Sorgfaltspflicht" is a legal requirement.
Again, I am telling you that YouTubers have been ordered by the police to stop filming in public.
The same assumption was made about them as you are making now ("Oh, boy..."), namely that they would not adhere to journalistic due diligence. But assuming that someone might not behave lawfully is not a crime. I cannot simply call the police on someone and say, "I think this person is suspicious and will commit a crime by filming in pubic" and then expect the police to issue unlawful orders based on that assumption. That is not how the law works.
It is actually the other way around: you must assume that an independent journalist (including YouTubers) follows journalistic due diligence. Only if he or she publishes a video without proper blurring or in violation of due diligence can you engage a lawyer to take action. Otherwise, the presumption of innocence applies.
> Otherwise, the presumption of innocence applies
No, the police is allowed act on experience and context. Eg. "racial profiling" is legal in certain areas.
> The same assumption was made about them as you are making now ("Oh, boy...")
The Oh boy was due to the US human rights report reference, implying people in Germany care no less. Doubtfully in good faith, otherwise such a wild thing to bring up/fall for in 2025. I mean, praising the US as a bastion of democratic virtue is frankly insane. "Two" party system, gerrymandering, banned books, religious/political indoctrination of children, limited bodily self-determination and -expression, secret courts, total surveillance, no rule of law, press banned, killing of journalists, blatant misinformation and erasure/rewriting unpleasant history, .... But yeah, great you can legally buy everything you need to shoot up a school and legally mock the victims afterwards. The hustle more sacred than voting.
Honestly, their take on "press freedom" you praised, what does it amount to in your opinion? Because to me, sure enough, "truth" means nothing to freedom, if you neglect the bigger picture, which makes information actionable. Germany does far, far better with the bigger picture. It's straight dishonest to get hung up on some single incidences, which may, or may not have happened.
And looking forward, the laws around freedom of press didn't think of YouTube, Twitch and TikTok, when written. Information traveled slower, lies could be exposed and corrected. In today's world, we need to figure out a way to deal with Russian troll farms, Heritage Foundation campaigns, billionaire hubris, and algorithms enslaving people's minds. Exposure isn't any longer the corrective factor, but outreach and attention is. A large chunk of the population is already caught in some kind of alternative reality, completely immune to facts and reason.
I am off, good luck.
I think we now agree that if such incidents did occur, you acknowledge that charges could be pressed. However, I may not have made my point clearly enough. My intention was not to highlight random YouTuber incidents, but to draw attention to misconduct by officials in the course of their duties and our restrictions/regulations.
For example, just four days ago the headline read: "97 Bundeswehr soldiers dismissed for right-wing extremism." [1]
We could argue that the Bundeswehr is not law enforcement, but there have been similar right-wing issues within police departments, where officers have shared extremist content. What I want to emphasize is that this is not about single incidents, but about a growing systemic issue of misconduct in law enforcement. And those who could provide the strongest proof of such misconduct - through video evidence - (journalists) are often prohibited from doing so.
> Did those YouTubers press charges?
Imagine your word against two or more officers. Who will the judges believe? Most likely the officers, unless you have very strong proof, such as video evidence. I hope my point is clearer now: this is not about isolated incidents, but about a broader systemic problem, fueled by the growing popularity of right-wing views within law enforcement and our harsh restrictions and regulations, which are strictest in the free world. It is the combination of both which is dangerous.
[1]: https://www.tagesschau.de/investigativ/wdr/bundeswehr-rechts...
Why worry about hypotheticals? Lol.
I mean yeah, all very concerning, but you are shifting the narrative, moving the goalpost a lot, now. It's frustrating and doesn't paint you as someone interested in honest exploration of a topic. Quite frankly, that's the only point made clear.
But if you scroll all the way up to my first comment I said:
> In Germany, you are generally not allowed to film law enforcement. If someone feels they have been treated "unfairly", good luck to prove that in court when two officers present a completely different version of event ...
And in my last comment about the matter I said:
> Imagine your word against two or more officers. Who will the judges believe? Most likely the officers, unless you have very strong proof, such as video evidence. I hope my point is clearer now ...
I would say this pretty much matches very well, YMMV