Erosion of Freedom: Data Protectionists Raise Alarm Over Intelligence Reform

Parliament is currently debating a profound restructuring of the German security architecture. While the first reading of the legislative package on the Intelligence Service Reform in the Bundestag spoke of a “Zeitenwende” (turning point), resistance is forming among data protection authorities at federal and state levels. In a resolution from Wednesday, the Data Protection Conference (DSK) draws a very concerned assessment of the planned reform: it sees the relationship between state security and individual freedom as significantly endangered.

At the center of the objections is the outlined fundamental revision of intelligence service law. The government draft aims to equip the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) and the Federal Intelligence Service (BND) with powers that go far beyond classic information gathering. According to the DSK, the historically established separation between police and intelligence services is thus threatened with being blurred. The services are to receive operational and executive capabilities, shifting the boundary to police work.

In parallel, surveillance capabilities in public spaces would be significantly expanded, the conference complains. Through security packages for law enforcement agencies and initiatives in the states, automated data analysis and AI functions are being introduced. Police, customs, and intelligence services would then be able to use biometric facial and voice recognition to compare live signals or data sets with the internet. In addition, BfV and BND would be authorized to access video surveillance from other public authorities or private operators.

False Positives and Ineffective Control

Data protectionists warn that such instruments, due to their broad scope, would inevitably capture innocent individuals as well. Even with low error rates in automated systems, comparisons of millions of data sets would lead to numerous false alarms. There is a risk that authorities would treat automated hits as reliable facts and initiate further measures. This threatens to blur the red line to prohibited machine decisions. At the same time, the purpose limitations of collected data would be weakened, reducing the transparency of state actions.

The DSK views the announced restructuring of control very critically. While the government intends to expand the responsibilities of the Independent Control Council. However, legal provisions could simultaneously significantly curtail its function. For example, the executive reserves the right to prohibit activity reports of the council in whole or in part. Furthermore, the body would not receive an enforceable legal position to enforce its control rights in court. Instead of an effective additional safeguard, this threatens to result in weakened oversight.

The DSK sees the core problem in the cumulative effect of the initiatives. It is not enough to consider individual measures in isolation: covert investigations, biometric comparisons, and data exchange between authorities add up to a significant intrusion. The conference refers here to the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court. Karlsruhe has repeatedly clarified that the overall extent of state surveillance must remain limited and that serious intrusions are subject to strict conditions.

The DSK therefore calls on the legislator to revise the project and to make the overall surveillance calculation the benchmark for state action. It is not only crucial whether individual powers are constitutional in themselves, but what burden arises for citizens from their interplay.

(mki)