share Recommend this site to a friend
deutsch deutsch
bombLetter to the IMF relation to the
Headbombno-value-ECM - 05/12/16
bombLetter to the CDU Youth Union - 14/11/16 bombLetter to the IDW regarding
Headbombthe EFSF’s Financial
HeadbombStatements – 19/10/16
Headbomb+ Correspondence IDW -> MFD 15/11/16
Headbomband MFD -> IDW 16/11/16
bombLetter to the european Financial
HeadbombSupervision relation to the
Headbombno-value-ECM - 03/10/16
bomb14th Letter to the Parliament for Judicial
HeadbombReview of the Free-Trade
HeadbombAgreements - 27/05/2016
bombApplication to the Constitutional
HeadbombCourt for Judicial Review of the
HeadbombFree-Trade Agreements - 27/05/2016
bombBILD - Pillory of Shame - 21/12/15 bombCriminal charge of making a false
Headbomballegation against - 17/09/2015
Headbomb+ response of Public Prosecutor in
HeadbombBerlin - 20/05/2016
bombLetter to the Ifo President - 05/11/14 bombComplaint to the German
HeadbombPress Council - 21/11/13
bombLetter to the IMF - 17/10/13
Headbomb+ Supplementary letter 22/11/13
bombLetter to the EU Commission - 17/10/13 bombLetter to the Presidium of the ECB - 17/10/13 bombAgainst the dismissal of
HeadbombFederal President Wulff - 13/06/13
Headbomb+ Response from the Hannover
HeadbombPublic Prosecutor's Office 25/07/13
Headbomb+ Opinion of the Alliance for
HeadbombDemocracy 21/08/13
Headbomb+ Letter to Celle General State Prosecutor’s
HeadbombOffice 10/10/13
bombPetition for the independence of the
HeadbombJudiciary and State Prosecutor - 06/05/13
Headbomb+ response by the Petitions Committee of
Headbombthe German Bundestag - 08/06/16
bombPetition for the introduction of genuine, direct
Headbombdemocracy - 25/04/13
Headbomb+ reply of the Bundestag - 14/11/16
bombPetition against corruption - 25/03/2013 bombCriminal complaint re. Target 2 10/11/2012 bomb1st Constitutional Complaint - against the
HeadbombFederal Government - 21/03/12
bomb2nd Constitutional Complaint - ESM incl.
Headbombsupplement - 12/06/12
bomb3rd Constitutional Complaint - ESM incl.
Headbombsupplement - 18/09/12
bomb4th Constitutional Complaint - Federal
HeadbombGouvernment against the ECB (by CJEU)
Headbomb+ response of Federal
HeadbombConstitutional Court - 06/06/16
bombPress reports 27/6/12 + 24/10/12 bombSpringer complaint 28/09/11 bombDelayed insolvency bombPetition to the German Parliament 31/05/11 bombPetition to the European Parliament 21/06/11 bomb1st Letter to Members of Parliament 23/06/11 bomb2nd Letter to Members of Parliament
bomb3rd Letter to Members of Parliament 19/05/12 bomb4th Letter to Members of Parliament 23/05/12 bomb5th Letter to Members of Parliament 20/06/12 bomb6th Letter to Members of Parliament 27/06/12 bomb7th Letter to the Parliament 27/9/12 bomb8th Letter to the Parliament 15/10/12 -
Headbombagainst Corruption 15/10/12 in addition to
HeadbombPetition 25/03/13
bomb9th Letter to the Parliament 24/10/12 bomb10th Letter to the Parliament 05/12/12 bomb11th Letter to the Parliament - 20/05/13 bomb12th Letter to the Parliament - 16/10/13 bomb13th Letter to the Parliament - 10/12/15 bombQuestions to the Bundestag 27/28/06/12 bombTo the members of the Bundesrat 14/06/12 bombTo the minister of finance 12/06/12 bombSecond Letter to the Finance
HeadbombMinister - 27/02/15
bombObjection to Hartz IV - Judicial Review
HeadbombComplaint BVerfG
bomb1st Lawsuit against Federal government
bomb2nd Lawsuit against Federal government
bombOpen letter 16/18/02/11

Data thieves at work – politically correct, of course

SWIFT is based on bank transfers, which can be found with every bank. The sequence of letters, which recalls the name of the author Jonathan Swift (1667-1745), who caused a great furore with his socially critical book “Gulliver’s Travels” published in 1726, also gives cause for annoyance today.
The abbreviation SWIFT stands for “Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication” and is an association of around 10,000 banks from 212 countries which have used the internal SWIFT network since 1973. Its headquarters are located in La Hulpe in Belgium.
The data that are transmitted over the SWIFT network are messages, such as names of clients and recipients of transfers, bank account numbers, addresses and national identification numbers. This also applies to the securities trade. SWIFT maintains no accounts of the partners and is also not a means of payment, such as TARGET II. SWIFT advertises with the claim that the communication does not apply to the new SEPA credit transfers; and that accounts of citizens therefore cannot be spied on.

It is clear is that all data can be evaluated, whatever format they come in; it must also be clear that there are bodies interested in this data. States want very much to know where their citizens are sending their earnings, and what companies are doing with their profits. The whole thing takes place, for example, under the general suspicion of combating terrorism, such as in the mid-2000’s, when it was discovered that SWIFT had passed on confidential data on account movements to US authorities, and data protection commissions of various countries were arguing about what legal consequences should be applied to this violation of banking secrecy. The dispute of the experts did not result in any legal consequences; nor any moral ones. The USA did not need to excuse itself, did not have to assume any official legal position - it was stated officially that: “This access took place in agreement with the company, but without any legal basis between Europe and the USA.”. Nevertheless SWIFT still relocated servers which had been installed up to the end of 2009 in the USA, to Europe, making it more difficult for the US authorities to access the data. This manoeuvre was aimed rather at the competition over the data, because Europe has no own system of its own for data acquisition and is forced to request this data back from the USA.

The fact that SWIFT did not make public this passing on of data, but rather concealed it from citizens, shows how sensitive the use of this data is, and that the USA, particularly since 11th September 2001, under the guise of combating terrorism, is living out a paranoia which rides rough-shod over the rights of countries and individuals.
It is perhaps understandable that the USA wants to hear every blade of grass in the world growing, at least, when 11th September 2001 is considered; regardless of this however, it must not be allowed to happen that the loudest advocate of basic, liberal democratic rules of co-existence reserves for itself such privileges. It is just this outrageous behaviour of the country that hardly contributes to acknowledging and understanding how important it is to control such data. Instead, it gave rise to the opinion that the USA and its uncontrolled thirst for data should itself be controlled; that it is essential to set a watch on these self-appointed watchers. In the clamour of moral indignation, it was overlooked that the EU is also very interested in this data, and that it was not only the USA which had behaved immorally, but that the EU also uses such data completely without control and at its own discretion. Yet the EU feared resistance from its citizens, and the EU Council therefore presented in November 2009 an agreement which was supposed to regulate the future data exchange, the so-called SWIFT Treaty.
It was not intended that transfers within the EU should be monitored; nor that the USA should be informed about any transaction, or that the USA should be given access to the data.
The German coalition government of the CDU/CSU and FDP, which was elected in 2009, supported the SWIFT Treaty, and promised in the corresponding Coalition Contract, to work for “a high level of data protection (strict purpose limitation, deletion of the data, clear rules regarding disclosure to third countries) and effective legal protection.” It further states on page 105 of the Treaty: “Automated access to SWIFT from the outside will be excluded. The transmission of data is linked to requirements of circumstances and restricted on the basis of a threat and risk analysis. The volume of data transmitted is to be kept as low as possible.” They also made the Treaty subject to the reservation of ratification. The Union and the FDP agreed that the SWIFT Treaty would be a wonderful thing, and came to the conclusion that the requirements of data protection would be satisfied.

On 30th November 2009, the Federal Republic of Germany, represented by Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière, abstained from the vote on the SWIFT Treaty in the EU Council of Ministers. Germany did not vote in favour; but nor did it vote against the Treaty. Since no other country voted “No”, the Treaty came into effect, although without the restrictions specified in the Coalition Agreement (an infringement against democracy).
The German Government thereby gave the Merkel the chance to organise reasonable data protection. German offices, such as the Tax Office, Employment Department, police or Interior Ministry would be provided with information on request, although this would have to be legally justified. Now anyone who has access to this data can use it for their own purposes. The current Merkel Government took over the position regarding the SWIFT Treaty without restriction, and also printed it with the same wording in the current coalition agreement - this time on page 107.
When a report by Europol (European Police Office), unfortunately secret and therefore not available as a link, proved that the USA, which should only have been provided with data in the event of justified suspicion, had nevertheless been spying on transfers within the EU, because every request received a reply, it became clear: The data protection regulations of the SWIFT Treaty were just so much waste paper.
All decision-making bodies that had created the agreement had to recognize that the agreements of the SWIFT Treaty were not specific. The EU bathed in this non-specific state of affairs and kept out of trouble by remaining silent. The USA was the “bad guy”, and Europol as the controller was left in the lurch with this task by the regents in this mire of uncertainty. The failure of the Review Committee was unavoidable.
The legal principles of the SWIFT Treaty regarding data protection are aimed at different areas and are listed here. They require more detailed specification and control, by a Commission formed specially for this purpose, which would also have recourse to legal consequences. It would have to work throughout Europe and also together with the countries which want to use the data. The usage rights must be defined and there must be reasonable grounds for suspicion.

The dispute over the SWIFT Treaty has still not been resolved to this day. The present Merkel government is evading all responsibility by doing nothing; MEPs protest sometimes louder, sometimes more quietly. The European Parliament is powerless, because the USA, due to the vague statements of the paper, has all possibilities and none at all; and Europe has no system that could analyse such data. The EU is therefore in the same boat as the USA, and must be grateful that the whole farce has been brought to an end for the moment, since EU Commissioner for Internal Affairs Cecilia Malmström, who was initially amongst the opponents of the USA machinations, recently decided that the USA was adhering to the stipulations of data protection, and that everything, including the EU, was in order, all this without control, without accountability and without any legal basis, let alone allowing citizens to be provided with any information. On the contrary, the whole farce brought to light that the protesting MEPs apparently had no idea that the EU was also making use of this data. The hanky-panky went on without their knowledge, so that their protest made them look like asses.
This gives rise to the question of why it was necessary to draw up a paper, and to define legal regulations that are immediately overridden. It also appears to make little sense if the EU aims to create by 2015 a system for collecting data (on what legal basis?), so that the USA and the EU can analyse data which is actually assigned to the user, and as such should remain secret. The argument of the EU and the USA, that the exchange of data should be restricted by this means, then sounds illogical, because if two systems are carrying out the analysis, there will perhaps be no further data exchange, while the citizen however will be spied on twice, and forced to reveal private matters, which should not be able to be addresses either by the EU or the USA. The crowning glory of this plan is: If no EU system comes into being, the situation will remain as at the present. The EU will then also not have to lay down any legal principles, but can still continue to remain silent due to the vague wording of the Treaty, and the fact that the USA is clearly not making illegal use of the data, and on this basis lay its hands on any data as it pleases. An EU system is nevertheless being aimed for, because those responsible will hardly forego taking advantage of this opportunity to emancipate itself from its over-mighty partner, the USA, in order to stand on its own two feet as an association of states. It remains to be seen on what legal basis this system would then be installed; it can be expected that the EU will refer to the SWIFT Treaty without adapting or detailing it any further. The search for a suitable system will also not cost any taxpayers’ money, so it must be irrelevant to him for whom this striptease is being performed. He has no means of protesting against the publication of the data.
It still remains unclear to the citizen, who always suffers the results of the confusion in international politics over the SWIFT Treaty when he fills out a SEPA transfer (SEPA=Single European Payment Area) at the bank counter, to what extent the bank uses, analyses or passes on information (USA, EU), and all despite the general data protection regulations of the banks and savings banks. It must be assumed that this concerns information such as the client, recipient, address and account number, but also ethnicity, political conviction, religion or belief, membership of trade unions and associations, and data on purchases.
This certainly cannot be a case of individual accounts (protected data format), but must refer to the transfers of a bank within a certain period. The SWIFT Treaty unfortunately also fails to say what will happen with the data. It may not be linked to other databases, it may not be processed, and no copies of the data should be made - except for security backups (i.e. still copies). Otherwise it states: The US Treasury should “ensure appropriate data protection”. The procedure regarding the disclosure of the data to third parties is formulated just as vaguely, and that means: it could happen.
The data is stored and retained for five years. According to the SWIFT Treaty, everyone has the right to find out what data has been recorded. If a citizen requests disclosure, he should not be surprised if the bank saves itself through the following back-door of fickle report: the citizen makes the request to the bank. The bank then directs the enquiry to the Federal Commissioner for Data Protection, who sends it on to his colleagues in the US Treasury, who investigate the question. Such a question must be answered and justified in writing because if the answer is negative. So much for the planned procedure.
Because it can be assumed that the Federal Commissioner for Data Protection does not have the capacity to act with such proximity to the people (extra personnel for this purpose would not be allocated because of the parlous state of the Federal budget), it must also be assumed that even the American apparatus of bureaucracy would not need to be increased. Where there are no questions, there are no auditors; the banks will therefore be instructed by the management to reject requests immediately. Another conceivable procedure would be: to leave the requests to wait forever for an answer, until even the most stubborn and perseverant bank customer has forgotten the question, and the procedure becomes not only complicated, but also expensive, so expensive that no bank customer makes an enquiry, because he cannot or does not want to pay the relevant charges.
Data collectors meanwhile ply their trade without interference from citizens, and make it possible to monitor financial transactions throughout Europe and internationally, as a precursor to the abolition of cash, which serves a particular purpose: total monitoring for the purpose of expropriation, in order to rescue a currency which has long been past redemption, and to preserve the existence of the many good-for-nothings in the capitals of government.
The Financial Dictatorship’s Democratic Façade is Crumbling
On the 2017 Federal Elections
No Restraint
Trump’s Election is a Warning for Germany’s Political Parties
Year-End Selection of Texts
CDU Party Congress 2016
IMF Crisis Management a Failure
Deployment of the Bundeswehr in Germany
Crucial Test with International Implications
Ever Closer?
On the 2016 German State Elections
Revealed: Colossal Public Fraud in Germany and Europe
Nettlesome Politics
The Press
As We Begin 2016
Legal Action
Clever Shifting Tactics
New Charges in an Ongoing Saga
Evil under the Sun – The G20
Political Paradox
Game over for Merkel
The Greeks are making history
Clash of the Titans
FIFA Roulette
The Beast Roars
The Silver Lining
Pulling in Opposite Directions
The Deafening Silence
Texts on the liquidation of the euro
Wasting Time
New Rules, Same Impetus
Call in the Army
Politicians Run from Themselves
Tax Policy Loopholes
Europa without the Euro
Alternative to the Euro
Easter 2015
Tidying Up
Insolvency Statute
Heiner Geißler
Germany Corrupt No More
India’s GDP growth
Rescue Fever
Unbridled Power
Heaven on Earth
Getting down to the Nitty Gritty
1-0 in Favour of the Opposition
The Junk Currency
Oil War 2014
Golden Goodbye
The Ukraine Aid Debacle
World Tax Authority
Demonstrations in front of the ECB
Promises and Trust
Democratic Deficits
Nothing is safe
Fit for a Museum
At Christmas 2014
Family Voting Rights
Clueless Advisors
Pension Debacle
The Balanced Budget Lie
The Wimpy Currency
Acid Test
Two Very Different Issues
Who is Ruling the World?
More Clandestine Employees
The Recession Principle
Is This Really Better?
Kohl and Merkel
Debt Brake Debate
Merkel and the democracy
Tax Losses
Totalitarian Collectivism
Regrettable Incident
Wulff’s Attorney Brings New Legal Action
The ECB in the Crossfire
Former Constitutional Judge Sceptical
A Lovely Gathering of VIPs?
German Banks Need Money
Stumbling Match
Deutsche Bank under Pressure
The Crow …
Papier‘s Morality
Shot in the Arm for the Economy
Political Crime Novel
ECB Soon to be the Eurozone‘s only Bad Bank
Demonstration for Democracy
Award for responsible action
Recommendations in case of a crash
Final move
European rating agency
The last elections
Hartz-IV is enough
Mr. Putin, please cry!
No longer worth anything
Free trade agreement
1st September 2014
The election in Saxony
Special European Summit
Bankers are counting on it
Debt cut á la state
Immigrants criticised
Unbelievable assets
Bundesbank closes Money Museum
Lawsuit against bank union
Only the penitent …
ECB stability report
Cowardly warriors
The financial industry has learnt nothing
Bribery of MP’s
They are also blind on 2.
The Stability Pact
Avoid Obama
Thoughts on Merkel's birthday
Megalomania’s children
Niebel’s Low Points
On László Andor’s speech
Snowden should say nothing
Reduction of interest rates
OECD report
A great blunder
Germany as a driver of growth?
Farewell, housing allowance
Sick health service
The EU Commission knows about popular deception
Draghi gives a warning
Self-praise stinks
A forced affair of the heart
Drawn from left to right
The aftermath of an election
65 years of the Basic Law
Who will save the life-insured?
Minimum wage
Minimum Wage I
Minimum Wage II
Minimum wage III
Minimum wages IV
The minimum wage V
Arise for revolution
The European elections are an act of dictatorship
Switzerland and Europe
Protection of the Constitution and services
The impossible triangle
The standard pension
Schäuble tricks again
The old “Welt”
The Union wears the trousers
Zeroes – commas – nothing!
Book publication
Court Condemns Politicians
The highest German court
Parties for the European election
Freedom of the press
Dispensation from obligations
European Elections
European election
The resurrection of "doctor" Schavan
Per capita assets
Federal Constitutional Court – Accrued gain and provision
ESM - ECB - the flood of debt
The hysterical Republic
Review proceedings against Wulff
The own goal of the High Court
Judges helpless
Schavan and zu Guttenberg
Human rights
Counterfeit money and false fifties
Fight against tax fraud?
New fellow citizens
So many ministers
Democracy the Turkish way
But will every European pay?
Data protection
Tax havens
Free Trade Agreement
Data thieves at work
Expropriation of the citizen
Soon without cash
NSA Investigation Committee
Dutch rating agencies
Officials in the German Bundestag
Snub for banks
Repeated deception of the people
GroKo = Große Kosten (great costs)
The sluts of the SPD
What the grand coalition will present to us
Federal Public Prosecutor versus the NSA
The new “tithe”
The people’s sense of justice
Trauma of coalition negotiations
When will it finally come, the Constitution for the united Germany?
Investors and savers
Finally, Mr. Ströbele
Church and State
Left party politics
Is the Constitution democratically legitimised?
Needs must when the devil drives
Wiki-Leaks +
The CDU and its donors
State of emergency
High finance and party-politics
People and stock market
The person and their office
With full intent
Private retirement provision
It’s all about the quota
Deception over the Fiscal Pact
The failure of the government
Not really more money for the unemployed
Surpluses in health
Euro rescue by means of inflation
Asylum for the Chancellor
Discussion over democracy
Complaint against ...
The apparent vote ...
Courage, Mrs. Merkel!
Paid E-mailing
Only one month to go
Siegfried the Brave
Draghi wants more...
Fraud by forecast
Germany illegitimate
Election gifts
Left out
Youth unemployment
Public relations...
Leaders in politics
The rubble women
Every effort ...
Berlin Joint Welfare...
The casino of Cyprus
Ratings and bank union
A Conservative party...
Employees of public...
Bank union
lose links and ...
Democracy in Germany
Our money is not safe
Out of order
More spirit of ...
TV duel
France in need
Finances in the ...
False average
The fight against corruption
Parliamentary absentees
Bravo, Mr. Weidmann!
At the end, Mrs. Lagarde?
On the subject of Cyprus
The wool has been ... I
The wool has been ... II
The problem of inertial ...
Schroeder’s homage
Gay marriage: only policy
The budget in NRW was ...
Penalties for bankers
Bank bailout fund
The female quota
News about the Euro rescue
The war of the currencies
Stalemate in Italy
Merkel’s interests
NPD ban
Rating agencies
War-games again
S&P’s in the stocks
Political control
Mrs. Schavan, how...
Begging at a high level
Spain in the trend
Treaties between friends
Joint determination...
The most blatant lie...
Lower Saxony has...
Elections in Lower Saxony
Why have we called...
Something is rotten...
Secret agreements
Wulff has done...
Outcray against the ...
Politics is breaking ...
In the trap
The Target-2 system
The Devil returns home
Members’ salaries
The last
Bankruptcy regulations...
The energy revolution
Bank rescue
Inactivity of the ...
So much eeriness at ...
Bad management is ...
Goodbye, Greece
General strike
Media in a fog
Euro Finance Week
The Berlin Bazaar
Careless love
The suffering basis...
Rescue packages ...
Election of the ...
Steinbrück’s earnings
EU Summit in October
Aurea mediocritas
The veneering process
They have lied to us
All scapegoats together
Double accounting
Tour de force
Testament of poverty
€ 8 more
In honour of Helmut Kohl
People have no respect
Nonsense and insanity
Pensions are not safe
Serial Merkel
Bad, bad, bad
People are not ...
Kohl’s merits
Deliberate false statements
Outwardly fine, inwardly...
Gabriel goes underground?
Kohl’s Ghost
Hopeless bankruptcy delay
Open for business
Outcry against the ESM
2nd Outcry against the ESM
Fiscal Pact
Government bonds
Germany is bankrupt
Loss of democracy
Deception of investors
Merkel Referendum
The election in NRW
Ongoing election campaign
The aberrations of E. Pols
Speaking ban
Criminal complaints
Fear of publicity
Top experts
Real, direct democracy
Get rid of German President
Back-door politics
Competition for the office
Angela's wrinkles
Vultures gather
2011- System correction
Rating Agency Foundation
Contact men
Leading politicians
Transfer union
Membership fees
Referendum S21
Misplaced doctors
State Trojan horses
Petitions ignored
The lever effect
Bonds by the ECB
Member states
No access
Political lobbyism
Conditions like in the East
Sponsorship funds
Development aid
The transfer procedure
GER is doing itself away
Rescue packages
Supercrash in USA and EU
The 'Soli'-Lie
Vladimir Putin
A plea for direct democracy
Distrust of the Chancellor
More control
Flight of capital
Euro summit
It's war
The C in CDU and CSU
Deceit and lies
Germany getting screwed
Investments in countries
The illusion of a ...
General statements
GER-insurance society
Debt brake
Costs of members
Deceit and lies
Retirement provision
Medal of Freedom
Euro-thugs / Polit-thugs
We are the people
Security authorities
National debt and ...
Apology from the bankers
The Merkel Adventure
Party Competences
The East-Mark, ... ,Euro
Sister Merkel
Ruck-Rede & Oath of Office
The casino operation
Rescue Reactor
Euro rescue