For context, in Germany judges have been often found to sign authorizations for warrants for flats even for flimsical issues. A group of ad-busters homes were raided in Berlin a few years back. So because they made posters and glued them over original ads. Another incident is often referred to as “Pimmelgate”. A guy had used the term “Pimmel” (in english about the same as dick or cock to refer to a Penis) on Twitter for a minister in Hamburg. He admitted to the Police that he did the tweet. So there was a confession already. A month later police raided his former adress claiming to want to seize “data storage devices” from which the Tweet might have been made.
And these are for raiding peoples houses. For more abstract online measures the oversight would be even more lackluster and there is plenty of cases where police didnt even bother to ask a judge for technical surveillance measures that require authorization. Still they didnt face consequences.
Where tough limits?
For context, in Germany judges have been often found to sign authorizations for warrants for flats even for flimsical issues. A group of ad-busters homes were raided in Berlin a few years back. So because they made posters and glued them over original ads. Another incident is often referred to as “Pimmelgate”. A guy had used the term “Pimmel” (in english about the same as dick or cock to refer to a Penis) on Twitter for a minister in Hamburg. He admitted to the Police that he did the tweet. So there was a confession already. A month later police raided his former adress claiming to want to seize “data storage devices” from which the Tweet might have been made.
And these are for raiding peoples houses. For more abstract online measures the oversight would be even more lackluster and there is plenty of cases where police didnt even bother to ask a judge for technical surveillance measures that require authorization. Still they didnt face consequences.
Also:
So pretty much always?