In the face of terrorist attacks, wars of aggression in Europe and “disinformation campaigns and cyber attacks from Russia and China”, the SPD parliamentary group is calling for a change in internal security. Part of this should be “effective, timely and at the same time proportionate tools” for security authorities. The Social Democrats are skeptically pushing forward a new version of independent data retention, although the first two attempts involving the SPD in recent years failed at the Supreme Court.
Advertisement
“We cannot and should not rely on the voluntary storage behaviour of private telecommunications companies when it comes to tackling the most serious crimes such as terrorism or sexual violence against children, as well as criminal hatred and hate speech,” the parliamentary group wrote in a statement. Position Paper on Strengthening SecurityThey decided on Thursday at their closed meeting in Groß Bahnitz in Brandenburg. “We must therefore examine with an open mind how it is possible to store IP addresses in a proportionate way that meets the requirements of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and is therefore legally safe.”
Digital Markets Act: Meta provides insight into WhatsApp and Messenger connectionIn principle, the ECJ has repeatedly rejected data retention without justification. However, according to recent rulings by Luxembourg judges, general and indiscriminate storage of IP addresses may be permitted “limited to the period absolutely necessary to protect national security, combat serious crime and prevent serious threats to public safety.”
The coalition agreement says otherwise
Federal Interior Minister Nancy Fesser (SPD) has long been fighting for IP addresses and port numbers to be stored in reserve. She has so far received both support and rejection for her initiative from the ranks of the Social Democrats. However, Federal Justice Minister Marco Buschmann (FDP) introduced a proposal to freeze traffic data in suspicious cases. According to other liberals, this quick freeze is “legal, accurate and protects fundamental rights”. The traffic light has agreed in its coalition agreement: Given the current legal uncertainty and security policy challenges, “we will design the rules for data retention in such a way that data related to an incident can be stored in a legally secure manner on a legal basis and by judicial order.” Logging user traces regardless of suspicion would not be compatible with this.
“To identify suspected criminals, we need video surveillance in crime hotspots and large gatherings of people such as folk festivals or concerts,” the SPD paper continues. Support through biometrics, for example for facial recognition, must also be “technically and legally scrutinized”. With its “security package” the federal government wants to introduce “the right for investigative authorities to generally compare publicly accessible internet data (‘facial recognition’) biometrically”. Critics complain: This is in clear contradiction to the coalition agreement and contradicts the EU regulation on artificial intelligence (AI).
FDP prepares it more carefully
Around the same time, the FDP parliamentary group also had its autumn meeting in Hamburg Agenda for “more safety in public places” Liberals insist, “It would be wrong to rely on a massive expansion of video surveillance.” “Cameras may not prevent crime, but they do restrict personal freedom to a great extent.” The state should not give people the feeling that it is “watching their every move.” Installing cameras only in crime hotspots may be justified.
The FDP considers a “stronger police presence of foot patrols in city centers” to be more important. Further reform of federalism is necessary, as is the exchange of data between security authorities. The structure of “several constitutional protection offices” should also be revised.
(MKI)
No EU country requests as much user data as Germany
