It cannot be said that Ulrich Kelber was a vigorous Federal Data Protection Commissioner (BFDI). However, it would also not be true that it was convenient for those who were being controlled. And so it is remarkable how clearly Kelber has taken up the post again at the end of his term, which has been extended by six months.
Advertisement
Kelber warns against a “blind digitisation” in which functionality implementation is put above all else. And rejects a frequently made claim: “Contrary to what is often assumed, we at the data protection supervisory authorities are by no means opponents, but rather fans of digitisation.” It’s about finding well-made solutions – which will also improve data security. “We data protection officers hate fax machines,” he says, because media disruptions are likely to lead to errors.
He describes what excited him the most Articles published on BFDI website Like this: Andreas Scheuer 2021 claimed via the tabloid “Bild” that warnings via cell phones had failed in the Ahr Valley floods due to data protection. In truth, Germany preferred to use warning apps instead of the cell broadcast method, which is internationally common and does not affect data protection – and this is at the explicit request of various CSU ministers. During the Ahr floods, this probably happened at the cost of human lives: Shortly before the floods, however, according to the Minister of the Interior, the NINA app only reached 11 percent of the population. For Kelber, this is a symptom of politicians who want to blame data protection for failures elsewhere.
Kelber also does not want to acknowledge the frequently heard objection that data protection stands in the way of increasing data use. With privacy-enhancing technologies (PET), which rely on encryption, signatures, pseudonymization, anonymization as well as good rights and role concepts, the necessary tools have long been available. Instead of meaningful digitization, Germany waits too long and then “digitizes too quickly”.
Dangerously low digitisation
Kelber says the country is dangerously under-digitized, as digitalization is underfunded and characterized by a lack of will for standardization and high security standards. Kelber criticizes the fact that ministries do not rely on the confidential advice of the BfDI and BSI for projects. According to Kelber, this means that some crazy ideas can be hushed up at an early stage without any harm. Kelber also has clear words to say about the state of the digital economy: it collects extensive and detailed data from all possible sources. “That is why approaches such as ‘data sovereignty’, ‘data literacy’ or a ‘risk-based approach’ are not suitable to replace the basic principles of data protection such as purpose setting and data minimization,” writes the outgoing BfDI. They complement them at most. The EU rules are good, but they must be applied uniformly.
What Kelber just said: The data protection supervisory authorities themselves do not always take prompt action – not even the comparatively well-equipped German authorities. This applies to case processing and coordination between authorities. And Kelber poses the question too broadly as to whether, given the amount of data processing, official supervision is really the most effective approach against private entities, even if Kelber confirms this in the “Teeth” article. But this will probably also be a question for her already elected but not yet appointed successor Louisa Specht-Riemenschneider.
Last week, Ulrich Kelber said goodbye to the employees of the Bonn authority, who gave him a Star Wars lightsaber as a farewell to the “good side of the force” – as Kelber liked to describe the data protection supervisory authority. However, Kelber has not yet revealed on what occasion the former Bonn member of the Bundestag would like to use it in the future or what his relationship to the power will be in the future.
(Application)
