The debate about the new edition of data retention in Germany is spreading further. In its statement on the Federal Government’s controversial legislative proposal, the Federal Council fundamentally welcomes the draft as a contribution to internal security. At the same time, the regional chamber criticizes the planned distribution of powers. The point of contention is less the storage of IP addresses themselves, independent of suspicion, and more the event-related backup of future traffic data from telecommunications providers.
Read more after the ad
According to the federal government’s plan, this instrument should primarily be available to federal authorities such as the BKA and the federal police. The federal states, on the other hand, are demanding equal access for their police authorities.
At the center of the criticism is the “double door” principle developed by the Federal Constitutional Court. After that, data storage by providers and subsequent retrieval by authorities must each be based on their own legal basis. The government’s draft designates this first door only for federal authorities and law enforcement. Even if the states created corresponding powers in their police laws, the providers would not be able to secure the data for state police. The Federal Council is therefore calling for an expansion of the circle of authorized bodies. In addition to the state police, the federal states’ constitutional protection offices and other security authorities such as the customs criminal investigation office should also have access.
The federal states are calling for corrections to the legal requirements for the new instrument of the security order. The wording used, such as the protection of legal interests “of at least considerable weight,” was too vague. Instead, the Federal Council is demanding a legal list of the protected assets affected. Among other things, life, limb, freedom and the existence of the federal government or a state are mentioned. A proposal from the Interior Committee, which pushed for longer storage periods of up to six months, did not find a majority in the plenary session.
Business warns of new surveillance architecture
Protest comes from the internet economy. The eco association warns of a change of course in domestic policy and sees the danger of an expansion of state surveillance powers. He is particularly critical of considerations of extending security orders not only to traffic data, but also to inventory, usage and even content data.
From the industry’s perspective, this would not only create a targeted investigative tool, but also establish a comprehensive infrastructure for government data access. This shifts the debate from selective data backup to a far-reaching intervention in private communication. There are also considerable costs: the planned three-month storage of IP addresses is likely to require investments running into millions. A further expansion of storage and access powers could therefore intensify the discussion about fundamental rights and proportionality.
Read more after the ad
(nen)
