From the Constitution of the German Democratic Republic, Article 31:

> "Postal and telecommunications secrecy are inviolable."

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Constitution_of_t...

epolanski 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Same for Italian constitution.

But you know how it goes with law: all you need is a supreme-court equivalent to judge what are the boundaries and exact definition of those articles..

▲

sterlind 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

the GDR phrasing is much stronger and less ambiguous than the ECHR one. however, given what we know of the Stazi I'm skeptical they honored it.

▲

hopelite 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Germany does not have what could be considered a constitution, or a Verfassung in German.

The article 31 is not even protected by the “Eternity Clause” that, ironically can simply be removed by the legislature.

But it seems relatively irrelevant anyways, as all western governments seem to just ignore all fundamental laws if it suits them, let alone regular laws, regardless of constitution or not. And that does not even go into the fact that the illegitimate EU just de facto supersedes all legitimate national laws.

▲

em-bee a day ago | parent | next [-]

Germany does not have what could be considered a constitution, or a Verfassung in German

that is not correct. Grundgesetz = Verfassung: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verfassung

changes require a 2/3rds majority, just like changes to the US constitution. the unamendable parts in both are very few.

▲

a day ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

hopelite a day ago | parent | prev [-]

That is clearly not correct, hence why it is not called a Verfassung, but rather a Grundgesetz. You can rationalize it all you want, but not, it is not the same as in the USA, where not only do you need a constitutional amendment proposed and agreed on by not only the House but also 2/3 of the Senate. Then it still does not pass until 3/4ths of all the states also ratify the amendment all across the USA.

Did you catch how that might be different than when the last German government quickly removed the debt brake from this fake constitution with a single vote and after new elections had already been had and lost by the current government.

	▲	em-bee a day ago \| parent [-]
		you are right about the additional layer of needing ratification by US states, but other than that, i see no difference. in the end it's just a name for a specific concept, and the concepts of Grundgesetz and Verfassung are not different enough to argue over which name is correct. i disagree that the difference is the reason why germany named it Grundgesetz. they could have decided to name it Verfassung instead, and nothing would have changed. we would still have the same rules to change it. there is nothing in the name that forces a different approach. more interesting is the actual contents and the principles that are being covered. debt brake for example in my opinion has no business being part of a constitution or Grundgesetz. it should never have been added there in the first place. that's not what a constitution is for. putting stuff like that in there weakens the Grundgesetz and makes a mockery of it. it reeks of planned economy. that doesn't mean that the debt brake is bad, or that it should not be protected by requiring a 2/3rd vote to change it. there just should be a different place for that, in order to keep the Grundgesetz focused on issues that you really don't want to change. in other words, even if only a single 2/3rd vote is necessary to approve a change, a change to the Grundgesetz should be a rare exception.

▲

throw-the-towel 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You've not reading GP carefully, they're quoting the East German constitution.

	▲	hopelite a day ago \| parent [-]
		I didn't catch that, but my point not only still stands as it applies to both Germanies, and really only makes my point even more salient. Fact of the matter is that Germany simply does not have anything that can be considered a Constitution/Verfassung no matter how much Germans are bamboozled to believe they have something like a Constitution; a core set of laws that cannot simply be removed by a captured body of government. If it is a Constitution/Verfassung, what is the obtuse nonsense that "the human dignity is inviolable" in the German basic law, when the German government has done nothing but violate the dignity, not even to mention the rights of the German people? They don't even abide by their own basic law. What else can you call it when like happened in Germany a few months ago, a government that had already failed, held elections which it lost in the form of clear rebuttal of its policies, and then before ending and then further engaging in undemocratic practices, quickly voted to majority change this fake "Constitution". Imagine if the US House controlled by Republicans could, after the midterm elections where Democrats take a major number of seats, simply just voted to change the constitution so that Democrats could not take control in a single vote. Would you consider that as having a Constitution?... a fundamental, difficult to move foundation of law that even the legislature had to abide by as it is only very difficult to change? That is the fundamental difference between a constitution and just a facade of "fundamental law" that acts as if it is a Constitution in Germany. Again, it also seems to be ignored that this fake Constitution in not even only Germany, but effectively all European countries is being totally subverted and undermined by the illegitimate suppression of EU fake law crated by an entity that was simply imposed on Europe without any objective legitimacy democratic legitimacy. It sometimes disappoints me just how ignorant Europeans are of not only their own government situation, but even across Europe and America. These are not difficult concepts and not a matter of "I'm better than you", it's simply a matter of objective analysis and people don't like their ugly baby being called ugly.

▲

ExoticPearTree a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> > "Postal and telecommunications secrecy are inviolable."

So phone taps are illegal in Germany? Police can't record what you're talking on the phone?

	▲	Pesthuf a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		If the police has a warrant, they can present it to your phone provider who are then required to send the data they have about you and your phone calls. This data may include the actual recorded conversations if allowed by the warrant. This is regulated in the Telekommunikations-Überwachungsverordnung (TKÜV). Edit: nvm, I didn't see this was about the GDR.
	▲	JumpCrisscross a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> phone taps are illegal in Germany? They’re quoting the East German constitution. I think there is a /s missing at the end.