Übersetzung/English/Pros and cons

Aus Freiheit statt Angst!
Zur Navigation springen Zur Suche springen

Language{{#if:Argumente gegen die Vorratsdatenspeicherung|
Germany.gif Deutsch}}{{#if:Übersetzung/English/Pros and cons|
Flag-UK.gif English}}{{#ifeq:2|1||{{#ifeq:2|2||

nicht-synchron

}} }}

Bitte hilf mit, diese Seite zu übersetzen!

Arguments of Data Retention advocates critically discussed:

Telecommunications traffic data is indispensable in the fight against terrorism and organized crime

Wrong. Even without exhaustive logs on every use of phones, cell phones, e-mail, and the Internet, sufficient traffic data is available for fighting crime:

  • Certain traffic data is stored for billing purposes in any case - up to six months in Germany.
  • In addition, law enforcement agencies can obtain a court warrant to have a suspect's traffic data recorded.
  • The terrorist bombings of Madrid in 2004 were successfully investigated by using traffic data stored for business purposes. Data retention was not needed.
  • Until the decision to introduce data retention based on an EU directive adopted in 2006, only very few countries demanded the retention of telecommunications data. In none of those countries was the retention regime as comprehensive as stipulated by the directive. Law enforcement agencies all over the world have always been able to do their duty without needing exhaustive logs of telecommunications data.

In a study, the German Federal Criminal Police Office mentions 381 criminal cases in which law enforcement agencies were hampered by a lack of telecommunications connection data – compared to the more than 6 million criminal offences committed every year in Germany this represents a marginal share of 0.01 percent. Furthermore, these cases were concerned with the investigation of crimes committed in the past rather than the prevention of crime. Furthermore, only two of these 381 cases had a link to terrorism, despite repeated claims that terrorism is one reason for retaining telecommunications data. According to the German Federal Criminal Police Office, additional traffic data is mostly not needed for combating terrorism or organized crime but for tracking down the exchange of child pornography on the Internet or for investigating fraud. However, the rate of crimes solved is the highest for these offences even without data retention. Moreover, prevention is much more effective in the case of fraud than subsequent prosecution. For example, raising Internet users' awareness can prevent them from becoming credulous victims of identity theft (e.g. because of "phishing mails").

The retention of telecommunications data is ineffective against terrorism and organized crime:

  • Serious criminals shield themselves from detection by employing circumvention strategies (e.g. alternating use of unregistered prepaid SIM cards for mobile phones) or by switching to other communication channels (e.g. postal mail, personal meetings).
  • The president of the European Confederation of Police, Heinz Kiefer, warned in 2005 that "it remains easy for criminals to avoid detection through fairly simple means, for example mobile phone cards can be purchased from foreign providers and frequently switched. The result would be that a vast effort is made with little more effect on criminals and terrorists than to slightly irritate them."
  • Klaus Jansen, chairman of the confederation of German criminal police officers ("Bund Deutscher Kriminalbeamter") is complaining even today: "As word has spread that telephone conversations can be wiretapped relatively easy, suspects nowadays rarely talk openly on the phone." If telecommunications data retention is put into effect, criminals adapt to it fairly quickly.

Telecommunications data retention does not prevent other kinds of crime either. Ireland, which introduced data retention for a period of three years in 2002 could not report a reduction in crime.

Truly useful measures for supporting the work of security agencies would be other measures such as facilitated access to telecommunication connection data of other countries. Security agencies complain that requests for obtaining connection data from other EU member countries are complied with slowly while data from non-EU member countries cannot be obtained at all. This is a much greater obstacle to their work than a lack of domestic traffic data. About 80% of investigations in the areas of terrorism and organized crime involve international connections.

If but one serious crime can be prevented, data retention is justified

Wrong. Free and open communications is more important to our society than attempting to prevent every single crime.

First and foremost it is very unlikely that a crime can be prevented with the help of telecommunications connection data; at best crimes committed in the past can be resolved.

Even in the exceptional case that a crime could be prevented, the retention of telecommunications data for the entire population is not justified. If the prevention of one offence justified every means, we would have to give up our constitutional rights, including the ban on torture and the protection of human dignity. After all, any such basic and civil right could stand in the way of fighting crime. However, these basic rights serve the purpose of supporting a free society and a vibrant democracy, thus promoting the good of the entire population. These values are more important to us than an attempt to prevent every single crime.

Those who want to prevent all crime would, as a matter of consequence, also need to demand a ban on road traffic, smoking and liquor. All of these measures could help reduce the number of fatalities. Everybody who opposes patronizing citizens and therefore accepts traffic deaths and cancer-related deaths cannot credibly advocate the prevention of every single "crime".

Setting the wrong priorities

Constantly demanding more security distracts our attention from the failures and the wrong priorities of politicians. While politicians try to employ a total surveillance and control over their citizens in order to punish each and every criminal, they consciously accept that thousands of people die every year from the consequences of smoking, drinking and traffic accidents, for example. For the benefit of certain industries (tobacco industry, breweries, automobile industry), politicians remain inactive where they easily could and should prevent the illness and deaths of countless people. Even in fighting unemployment and poverty - the citizens' primary concerns over the last years - acting politicians have failed repeatedly, as statistics show.

In comparison to these problems, the effects of crime are disproportionately small:

  • According to Eurostat, less than 0.002% of all Europeans die as victims of crime, including terrorist attacks, per year.
  • According to the World Health Organisation, 92% of the premature loss of healthy lifetime in Western Europe is caused by illness, 2% by traffic accidents, 1% by falls, 1.7% by suicide and only 0.2% by violence and crime. The major health risks are different from crime: high blood pressure, tobacco, alcohol, cholesterol, obesity, malnutrition and lack of exercise are the main risks. In addition, being affected by risks such as poverty, unemployment or natural disasters is more likely than becoming a victim of crime.
  • If, for example, tobacco consumption were reduced by just 2%, the population would benefit more than from the prevention of all crime, including terrorism.

Those who keep demanding additional measures to fight crime therefore fail to address the actual problems citizens face every day. Crime rates have always remained roughly the same and have never fundamentally threatened our society.

Negative side effects

Those who focus on the gruesome crime at hand, ignore that the harmful effects of exhaustive record-keeping by far outweigh its benefit. Because of this, blanket record-keeping is unreasonable. Even the protection from crime does not warrant disproportional measures.

  • Retention of telecommunications data deters informants from passing important information on grievances to journalists by telephone, fax or the Internet. Informants are aware that their contact can be exposed using traffic data.
  • Those who seek counsel from a lawyer, a doctor or a help and information center (e.g. marriage counseling, counseling on addiction, crisis line) are aware that their contact points to their personal problems (e.g. under criminal investigation, suffering from illness, a marriage crisis or an addiction) which could lead to disadvantages when made public. For celebrities who are spied on by the sensational press, this is a particular danger.
  • Confidential negotiations over business contracts or mergers could be hampered because participants need to anticipate business crime. Competitors could access traffic data to "snatch away" orders or to block mergers.
  • Politicians could be blackmailed if their contacts to controversial people (e.g. lobbyists, industrialists, prostitutes) were traced.
  • The work of political activists (e.g. globalization critics, opponents of nuclear material transports) is hampered as they need to anticipate an - even retroactive - exposure of their activities by domestic intelligence agencies.

Overall uninhibited communications become largely impossible, particularly once the first case of data abuse is exposed. Eavesdropping scandals have already occurred in Greece and Italy. In the USA, connection data is commercially available for purchase. In Germany a significant abuse of telecommunications data occurred when Deutsche Telekom analyzed hundreds of thousands of records on the communications of its directors, its employees, and of journalists in an attempt to identify a leak within their company. It is but a matter of time before more cases of abuse of retained telecommunications data are exposed.

No communication content is being stored

In a strict sense, this is true by itself, however it is misleading as it is possible to reconstruct the communication content from traffic data in many cases.

Who someone is talking to often allows deducing what is being talked about. It is obvious why someone would call a marriage or drug counselor, a physician specialized in venereal diseases, an attorney specialized in law regarding tax offenses or a telephone sex number. In the case of politicians, contacts with lobbyists or prostitutes may be of interest.

When using the Internet, service providers often log requested content and search queries ("server logfiles") on a voluntary basis. Simply by combining these logs with traffic data (IP address) stored at an Internet service provider, the communications content can be meticulously reconstructed.

The danger exists that data retention will be extended to also cover communications content in the future. In Italy, for example, SMS text messages are already being stored. The argument that this information may be needed for law enforcement purposes could be used to justify its retention in the future.

Traffic data is already being retained today

This statement is false in such a generalized form.

Currently, German telephone service providers may only retain traffic data which determines their customers' bills (Section 97 Paragraph 3 German Telekommunikationsgesetz). Therefore cellphone location data (Who made calls where?) and e-mail traffic data (Who sent an e-mail to whom?) currently must not be stored. For flat-rate fees currently no traffic data must be retained at all as none of the data is relevant for billing.

Furthermore, a customer can demand monthly deletion of their traffic data stored for billing after the bill has been sent. To begin with, a customer may also request that called phone numbers are stored with the last three digits truncated. If a customer does not take advantage of his or her rights, this data is generally stored for 80 or 90 days and not for six months, as would be the case with mandatory data retention.

Therefore, by far not all available traffic data is retained and data is only stored for a shorter time period, compared to mandatory data retention.

Access to the stored data is subject to strict conditions (e.g. judicial order)

Wrong. Today connection data is already being retrieved several ten thousand times a year. The identities of telephone, mobile phone, email and internet users (stock data) are even retrieved several million times a year (3.4 million times in 2005 or 9.000 times per day). Data retention will cause another considerable leap in the number of retrievals. Given these facts, the argument that access to the stored data is only allowed under strict conditions cannot stand.

  • In Germany access to stored data is allowed in any case of a suspected "substantial" crime or a suspected crime that was "commited by means of telecommunications". In addition access is allowed to "avert considerable risks" and to "achieve the legal obligations" of intelligence services.
  • For this purpose access is granted for the public prosecutor's office, police and intelligence services, but also for foreign states like the USA in context of mutual legal assistance treaties. A judicial order is only necessary for the retrieval of data for criminal prosecution purposes, but even in this case the judge only verifies compliance with legal conditions. If the conditions are met he has to grant access.
  • For requests from foreign states no judicial order is required. What happens with the data abroad cannot be controlled.
  • Intelligence services are allowed to retrieve connection records without a judicial order.
  • Access to the identity (name, address, date of birth) of users of phone, mobile phone, e-mail and internet services will be given to all public authorities with an interest in such data (e.g. police, public prosecution, secret services, customs, agencies for the prevention of illicit employment). Even for petty offences (e.g. illegal parking) access will be justified in an automated retrieval process. In none of these cases a judicial order will be necessary.
  • Even the film and music industry and other "copyright owners" will be allowed to request information about the identity of phone, mobile phone, e-mail and internet users, for example to prosecute the use of internet file sharing services. In this case a judicial order is mandatory, but the judge only verifies compliance with legal prerequisites. If the regulations are met he has to grant access.

In addition an investigation of phone tapping practice revealed that the requirement of "judicial orders" does not warrant efficient control: In many cases blank permissions were granted without a detailed examination of the filed documents and without denying requests in case of absent legal prerequisites (report on Heise.de). The requirement of "judicial orders" couldn't prevent the number of phone tapping actions from increasing for years - this increase is not due to an increase in the number of crimes but caused by weakening the legal prerequisites for surveillance actions. Furthermore privacy advocates continue to criticize that only the setup of surveillance actions is subject to judicial control, not their continuous execution. (report on Heise.de)

Abgesehen davon zeigt die aktuelle Mautbrückendiskussion (Heise.de-Meldung), wie unsicher rechtlich geschützte Datensammlungen auf Dauer sind. Zugriffsbeschränkungen, die heute noch gesetzlich vorgesehen sind, können morgen schon durch Gesetzesänderungen verwässert oder aufgehoben werden. Dieser Mechanismus ist immer wieder zu beobachten. Beispielsweise war der Zugriff auf Bankkonten-Stammdaten ursprünglich nur zur Bekämpfung des Terrorismus eingeführt worden. Heute haben Finanzämter, Sozialämter und viele mehr Zugriff auf diese Daten.

All diese Aspekte sind Grund genug, an der dauerhaften Sicherheit der Daten vor Missbrauch sowie dem Zugriff nichtstaatlicher Stellen zu zweifeln. Das Aushebeln gesetzlicher Schutzmechanismen (z.B. Mautzweckbindung), Gummiparagraphen (sehr unscharfe Gesetze), menschliches Versagen (z.B. fehlerhafte richterliche Kontrolle) und die fortschreitende Auslagerung von Staatsaufgaben an die private Wirtschaft (Datenzugriff von "Rechteinhabern") lassen kaum erwarten, dass gerade bei vorratsgespeicherten Daten mit besonderer Gewissenhaftigkeit vorgegangen wird.

It's the duty of Germany to implement the EU Directive on Data Retention

Wrong. This EU Directive may not be implemented as a result of grievous and flagrant violations of the law and will be nullified in 2008 by the European Court of Justice.

Die EG-Richtlinie ist wegen fehlender Rechtsgrundlage und wegen der Verletzung zahlreicher Grundrechte rechtswidrig. Irland hat im Juni 2006 Klage gegen die Richtlinie erhoben. Zuvor hatte der Europäische Gerichtshof in einem anderen Fall entschieden, dass die EU keine Kompetenz für Maßnahmen zur Verbesserung der "öffentlichen Sicherheit oder Strafverfolgung" hat. Er hat deswegen die Fluggastdatenübermittlung in die USA für unzulässig erklärt. Rechtsexperten halten es für ausgeschlossen, dass der Gerichtshof im Fall der Vorratsdatenspeicherung zu einem anderen Ergebnis gelangen wird. Selbst die Bundesjustizministerin Zypries räumte nach dem Urteil des Europäischen Gerichtshofs zur Fluggastdatenübermittlung ein, dass die EU-Richtlinie zur Vorratsdatenspeicherung auf der Kippe steht.

Deutschland ist auch in der Zwischenzeit bis zur Entscheidung des Gerichtshofs nicht zur Umsetzung verpflichtet. Dem Europäischen Gerichtshof zufolge ist eine Richtlinie von vornherein "inexistent", wenn sie mit einem Fehler behaftet ist, dessen Schwere so offensichtlich ist, dass er von der Gemeinschaftsrechtsordnung nicht geduldet werden kann. Dem Bundesverfassungsgericht zufolge darf Deutschland keine Richtlinie umsetzen, bei deren Erlass die EU ihre Hoheitsbefugnisse überschritten hat.

Dass diese Voraussetzungen im Fall der Richtlinie zur Vorratsdatenspeicherung gegeben sind, wird zwar von Seiten der Bundesregierung bestritten. Wenn Deutschland die Umsetzung bis zur Entscheidung des Gerichtshofs aufschiebt, droht aber allenfalls die Einleitung eines Vertragsverletzungsverfahrens ohne finanzielle Nachteile für Deutschland. In anderen Fällen, z.B. bei der Richtlinie über Tabakwerbung, hat Deutschland von dieser Möglichkeit Gebrauch gemacht. Derzeit sind 17 EU-Vorgaben nicht umgesetzt. Ein Umsetzungsmoratorium bei der Vorratsdatenspeicherung ist folglich durchaus möglich, wenn die Politik nur will.

The Directive was a necessary compromise, designed to forestall more invasive plans for Data Retention

Wrong. Germany could have prevented the decision for the EU Directive being taken, had the chief negotiator of the Federal Government refused to envisage data retention from the very start, as several resolutions of the Bundestag had demanded. Instead of that, Federal Justice Minister Zypries quite needlessly declared herself in favour of a six-month retention system, describing it as useful, and, against Bundestag guidelines, actively worked for an obligation to retain data for such a period of time.

Germany enforces the EU Directive only with minimum requirements

Selbst wenn dies so wäre, würde das nichts daran ändern, dass eine systematische Protokollierung des Telekommunikationsverhaltens der gesamten Bevölkerung grob unverhältnismäßig und mit einer freien Gesellschaft nicht zu vereinbaren ist. Mit dem begrenzten Umfang der anlasslosen Kommunikationsprotokollierung zu argumentieren ist wie einem Menschen zu sagen: "Keine Sorge, wir schlagen dich nicht tot, sondern nur krankenhausreif."

Tatsächlich ist es auch falsch, dass nur die Mindestanforderungen der EU-Richtlinie umgesetzt würden. In Wahrheit soll das deutsche Recht in vielen Punkten über die Vorgaben der EU-Richtlinie hinaus gehen:

  • In Deutschland sollen Internet-Anonymisierungsdienste zur Vorratsdatenspeicherung verpflichtet werden, was sie praktisch wirkungslos machen würde. Die EU-Richtlinie sieht das nicht vor.
  • In Deutschland sollen Zugriffe auf vorratsgespeicherte Verbindungsdaten bei jedem Verdacht einer "erheblichen" oder einer "mittels Telekommunikation begangenen" Straftat zulässig sein, außerdem "zur Abwehr von erheblichen Gefahren" und zur Sammlung von Erkenntnissen durch die Geheimdienste. Die EU-Richtlinie sieht eine Datenspeicherung nur "zum Zwecke der Ermittlung, Feststellung und Verfolgung von schweren Straftaten" vor.
  • In Deutschland bekommt eine Telefonnummer nur, wer seinen Namen, seine Anschrift und sein Geburtsdatum angibt (Identifizierungszwang). Diese Daten sind für eine Vielzahl staatlicher Behörden abrufbar. Selbst Anbieter vorausbezahlter und kostenloser Dienste (z.B. Prepaid-Handykarten) müssen diese Daten abfragen. Die EU-Richtlinie sieht keinen solchen Identifizierungszwang vor.
  • Zugriff auf die Identität von Telefon-, Handy-, E-Mail- und Internetnutzern (Name, Anschrift, Geburtsdatum) sollen alle Behörden bekommen, die irgend ein Interesse daran haben können (z.B. Polizei, Staatsanwaltschaft, Geheimdienste, Zoll, Behörden zur Bekämpfung von Schwarzarbeit). Schon die Verfolgung von Ordnungswidrigkeiten (z.B. Falschparken) soll Zugriffe in einem automatisierten Abrufverfahren rechtfertigen. Auch die Film- und Musikindustrie und andere "Rechteinhaber" sollen Auskunft über die Identität der Kommunizierenden verlangen dürfen, etwa um die Benutzung von Tauschbörsen im Internet verfolgen zu können. Die EU-Richtlinie sieht Zugriffsrechte nur zur Verfolgung "schwerer Straftaten" vor.
  • Die Daten über die Identität von Telefon-, Handy-, E-Mail- und Internetnutzern (Name, Anschrift, Geburtsdatum) sollen nach Vertragsende bis zu zwei Jahre lang auf Vorrat gespeichert bleiben. Die EU-Richtlinie fordert nur eine sechsmonatige Speicherung.
  • In Deutschland soll bei jedem Versenden und Abrufen von E-Mail die Kennung (IP-Adresse) des Nutzers gespeichert werden, bei jedem Empfangen von E-Mail die IP-Adresse des Absenders. In der EU-Richtlinie ist davon keine Rede.
  • In Deutschland sollen Anbieter von Telefon-, Handy-, E-Mail- und Internetdiensten keine Entschädigung für die Vorratsspeicherung und die dafür anfallenden Kosten erhalten. Die Kosten müssen deswegen im Wege von Preiserhöhungen auf die Nutzer umgelegt werden. Bisher kostenlosen Diensten droht die Einstellung. Die EU-Richtlinie steht einer Entschädigung demgegenüber nicht entgegen.
  • In Deutschland sollen die Speicherpflichten für E-Mail- und Internetzugangsanbieter bereits ab dem 1. Januar 2008 gelten. Die EU-Richtlinie fordert eine Speicherung erst ab dem 15. März 2009.

Civil Liberties are not adversely affected by Data Retention

This statement made by Federal Minister Brigitte Zypries (SPD) in front of the Bundestag in 2006 is untrue. The weightiest accusation is that it violates the law protecting the intimacy of telephone communications. Without any suspicion of a crime having been committed, sensitive details pertaining to the private lives of 80 million citizens of the German Republic, about their social relationships (including business dealings), about where they go and the individual circumstances of their lives (e.g. contact with doctors, lawyers, psychiatrists and advice centres) are being amassed. In this way data retention undermines the intimate secrets of the legal, medical, psychiatric, advisory and other confidential professions and facilitates industrial espionage. It makes a mockery of the confidentiality of the journalist's sources and thus strikes at the very heart of the freedom of the press. Even the presumption of innocence is abolished, for a mountain of leads and evidence is now being stock-piled against every single citizen without there being the slightest whiff of suspicion that he or she has committed a crime. All that is in direct contradiction to the Founding Charter (Grundgesetz) of the German Federal Republic.


One can compare data retention with a postal system in which one need not even place the sender's name on the envelope. A "postal data-retention scheme" would mean that the State would arrange for the registration of details of all letters, that is, who sent whom a letter and when. A "data-retention scheme for conversations" would mean that state spies and informers would note down the name of anybody who spoke to anyone else and who that person was. Such illustrations make it clear that data retention schemes are worthy of the Stasi, but unworthy of a democracy based on the rule of law.

The data retention bill is in conformity with the constitution

Wrong. The introduction of data retention in Germany violates the fundamental constitutional rights of the citizens concerned as well as the associated decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court.

Dies gilt zum einen für das vom Bundesverfassungsgericht ausgesprochene "außerhalb statistischer Zwecke bestehende strikte Verbot der Sammlung personenbezogener Daten auf Vorrat".

Im dem Urteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichts vom 04.04.2006 heißt es weiter: "Selbst bei höchstem Gewicht der drohenden Rechtsgutbeeinträchtigung kann auf das Erfordernis einer hinreichenden Wahrscheinlichkeit nicht verzichtet werden." "Der Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit führt dazu, dass der Gesetzgeber intensive Grundrechtseingriffe erst von bestimmten Verdachts- oder Gefahrenstufen an vorsehen darf [...] Verzichtet der Gesetzgeber auf begrenzende Anforderungen an die Wahrscheinlichkeit des Gefahreneintritts sowie an die Nähe der Betroffenen zur abzuwehrenden Bedrohung und sieht er gleichwohl eine Befugnis zu Eingriffen von erheblichem Gewicht vor, genügt dies dem Verfassungsrecht nicht."

Eine Vorratsdatenspeicherung verzichtet auf jeden Verdachtsgrad und auf jede Nähe der Betroffenen zu den aufzuklärenden Straftaten, stellt gleichzeitig aber einen schwerwiegenden Grundrechtseingriff dar, weil sensible Daten über das Kommunikationsverhalten der gesamten Bevölkerung gesammelt werden. Dies ist mit dem Verfassungsrecht unvereinbar.

In einem Urteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichts vom 12.03.2003 heißt es: "Insofern genügt es verfassungsrechtlichen Anforderungen nicht, dass die Erfassung der Verbindungsdaten allgemein der Strafverfolgung dient. Vorausgesetzt sind vielmehr eine Straftat von erheblicher Bedeutung, ein konkreter Tatverdacht und eine hinreichend sichere Tatsachenbasis".

Mit diesen Vorgaben steht die beabsichtigte Vorratsdatenspeicherung im evidenten Widerspruch. Mit der Vorratsdatenspeicherung ordnet der Staat eine Erfassung und Vorhaltung von Verbindungsdaten an, die nur allgemein der Strafverfolgung dienen soll, aber keinen konkreten Tatverdacht und keinerlei Anhaltspunkte einer Straftat voraussetzt.

Schon 1967 hat das Bundesverwaltungsgericht entschieden: "Ausgangspunkt hat die Feststellung zu sein, daß nach dem Menschenbild des Grundgesetzes die Polizeibehörde nicht jedermann als potentiellen Rechtsbrecher betrachten und auch nicht jeden, der sich irgendwie verdächtig gemacht hat ('aufgefallen ist') oder bei der Polizei angezeigt worden ist, ohne weiteres 'erkennungsdienstlich behandeln' darf. Eine derart weitgehende Registrierung der Bürger aus dem Bestreben nach möglichst großer Effektivität der Polizeigewalt und Erleichterung der polizeilichen Überwachung der Bevölkerung widerspräche den Prinzipien des freiheitlichen Rechtsstaates."

Die Vorratsdatenspeicherung geht weit über die Aufnahme vom Lichtbildern und Fingerabdrücken im Rahmen einer erkennungsdienstlichen Behandlung hinaus. Sie betrifft sensible Daten über die Kommunikation der Menschen mit ihren nächsten Angehörigen sowie mit Beratungs- und Hilfsberufen, über die sozialen Beziehungen der Menschen zueinander, über ihre Internetnutzung und über ihr Bewegungsverhalten. Eine derart weitreichende Registrierung des Verhaltens aller 82 Mio. Menschen in Deutschland aus dem Bestreben nach möglichst großer Effektivität der Polizeigewalt und Erleichterung der Verfolgung von Straftaten widerspricht den Grundprinzipien des freiheitlichen Rechtsstaates.

Mit Beschluss vom 22.08.2006 hat das Bundesverfassungsgericht an den Gesetzgeber nochmals eine besondere Warnung gerichtet: "Das Bundesministerium der Justiz hat mitgeteilt, seit längerem an einer Gesamtregelung der strafprozessualen heimlichen Ermittlungsmaßnahmen zu arbeiten [...] Es stellt sich auch die Frage, ob und in welchem Umfang von einer neuerlichen Ausdehnung heimlicher Ermittlungsmethoden im Hinblick auf Grundrechtspositionen unbeteiligter Dritter Abstand zu nehmen ist." Die Vorratsdatenspeicherung stellt eine schwerwiegende Ausdehnung der heimlichen Telekommunikationsüberwachung dar und beschädigt Grundrechtspositionen unbeteiligter Dritter massiv.

Vor dem Hintergrund der klaren verfassungsgerichtlichen Rechtsprechung ist es ein vorsätzlicher Verfassungsbruch, eine Vorratsspeicherung von Telekommunikations-Verkehrsdaten gleichwohl zu beschließen.

"We need more surveillance to protect us from criminals/terrorists/sex offenders so we can live in safety."

Falsch. Mehr Überwachung bringt nicht mehr Sicherheit.

Wie sicher wir leben, lässt sich an der Kriminalitätsrate ablesen. Dass mehr Überwachung zu einer niedrigeren Kriminalitätsrate führt, ist weder erwiesen, noch wird dies von den Innenpolitikern auch nur behauptet. Tatsächlich lässt sich ein messbarer Einfluss von Überwachungsmaßnahmen auf die Kriminalitätsrate weder im zeitlichen, noch im internationalen Vergleich feststellen. Umgekehrt zeigt eine amerikanische Vergleichsstudie, dass kein Zusammenhang zwischen dem Ausmaß der Ermittlungsbefugnisse der Strafverfolgungsbehörden einerseits und der Kriminalitätsrate andererseits besteht.

Dass Überwachungsmaßnahmen den Behörden in einzelnen Fällen nützlich sein können, mag durchaus sein. Insgesamt gesehen ist der Nutzen aber vernachlässigbar gering. Es gibt eine Statistik der Weltgesundheitsorganisation, die den Verlust gesunder Lebenszeit durch vorzeitigen Tod, Krankheit oder Behinderung misst. Dieser Statistik zufolge beruht der Verlust gesunder Lebenszeit für Westeuropäer zu 92% auf Krankheiten, zu 2% auf Verkehrsunfällen, zu 1% auf Stürzen, zu 1,7% auf Suizid und gerade einmal zu 0,2% auf Gewalt. Straftaten sind der Statistik zufolge für die Gesundheit der Bevölkerung in etwa so schädlich wie versehentliche Vergiftungen, Karies, Rückenschmerzen oder Durchfall. Eurostat zufolge sterben weniger als 0,002% der Europäer jährlich als Opfer einer Straftat, terroristische Anschläge eingeschlossen. Ausweislich der Statistik ist es um ein Vielfaches wahrscheinlicher, wegen eines ungesunden Lebensstils (z.B. falsche Ernäherung, Bewegungsmangel, Alkohol, Nikotin), durch einen Sturz oder im Straßenverkehr zu sterben als infolge einer Straftat. Die großen Risiken für unsere Gesundheit sind andere als Kriminalität: Bluthochdruck, Tabak, Alkohol, Cholesterin, Übergewicht, Fehlernäherung und Bewegungsmangel sind die Hauptrisikofaktoren. Würde man z.B. den Tabakkonsum nur um 2% zurückfahren, dann würde man der Gesundheit der Bevölkerung einen größeren Dienst erweisen als durch die Verhinderung sämtlicher Gewalttaten. Auch dass uns Zivilisationsrisiken wie Krankheit, Armut, Arbeitslosigkeit oder Naturkatastrophen treffen, ist weitaus wahrscheinlicher als das Risiko, Opfer einer Straftat zu werden.

Die Lebenserwartung der Europäer steigt seit Jahrzehnten. Vor diesem Hintergrund stellt die Kriminalität zwar ein ernst zu nehmendes Problem dar, das der Staat mit angemessenen Maßnahmen einzudämmen versuchen sollte. Die Kriminalität ist aber nur ein Risiko unter vielen, mit denen das Leben notwendig verbunden ist, und ein vergleichsweise geringes Risiko. Außerdem hat die Kriminalität Ursachen in unserer Gesellschaft, welche die Polizei nicht beseitigen kann. Diese Kriminalitätsursachen müssen anders angegangen werden.

"We need to employ all available means to prevent such dreadful crimes/terror attacks/child abuse/... in future."

Falsch. Es dient unserer Sicherheit, dass der Staat nicht alle verfügbaren Mittel einsetzen darf.

Der Staat verfolgt nicht nur Straftäter, sondern er ermittelt gegen Verdächtige. Darunter befinden sich viele Menschen, deren Unschuld sich erst später herausstellt oder deren Schuld im weiteren Verlauf nicht festgestellt werden kann. Die Instrumente der Strafverfolgungsbehörden (z.B. Telefonüberwachung, Observation, Nachbarbefragung, Untersuchungshaft) treffen in vielen Fällen Unschuldige. Weil jeder Opfer eines Irrtums oder einer Falschverdächtigung werden kann, müssen wir zu unserer eigenen Sicherheit dafür sorgen, dass die staatliche Macht begrenzt bleibt.

Bestimmte Methoden (z.B. Folter) widersprechen außerdem der Würde jedes Menschen, auch der des Straftäters. In unserer Geschichte haben wir gelernt, dass die uneingeschränkte Förderung von „Gemeinwohl“ und „Volksgemeinschaft“ letztendlich nicht in unserem Interesse liegt. Andere Instrumente (z.B. verdachtslose Überwachung beliebiger Personen) sind unverhältnismäßig. Ihr Nutzen steht außer Verhältnis zu ihren negativen Auswirkungen auf eine demokratische Gesellschaft, die auf das unbefangene Mitwirken gerade kritischer Bürgerinnen und Bürger angewiesen ist.

Langfristig dienen rechtsstaatliche Beschränkungen und die Achtung der Menschenrechte der Sicherheit, denn exzessive Kontrolle und Repression erzeugt Unzufriedenheit und Widerstand. Die Achtung der Grundrechte macht uns sicherer, nicht verletzlicher. Der Oberste Gerichtshof des Staates Israel führte im Jahr 1999 zutreffend aus: „Dies ist das Schicksal der Demokratie, weil nicht alle Mittel mit ihr vereinbar und nicht alle Methoden ihrer Feinde für sie verfügbar sind. Obwohl eine Demokratie oft mit einer Hand auf ihren Rücken gebunden kämpfen muss, behält sie trotzdem die Oberhand. Die Erhaltung der Rechtsstaatlichkeit und die Anerkennung der Freiheit des Einzelnen bilden einen wichtigen Bestandteil ihres Verständnisses von Sicherheit. Letztlich erhöht dies ihre Stärke.”

"Data Protection means protecting criminals. It is an obstacle to protecting the innocent."

Wrong. When we protect data we are protecting the Constitution, the Founding Charter of our Republic. It does serve to protect the innocent.

When the State doesn't collect knowledge about us unrestrictedly and isn't allowed to sieve through data searching for particular profiles, that in fact serves to protect us. The more the state knows about us, the more starting-points for investigation will be at its disposal and so the greater will be the danger that the state will come to suspect us unjustly. Moreover comprehensive collections of data offer an open invitation to misuse. In the past there have repeatedly been cases in which police officers have passed on police data to others in return for bribes or for private reasons. The mere fear of misunderstandings or abuse can itself narrow our freedom of decision. When we can act anonymously or know that our data will immediately be destroyed or at least not used for other goals, then we do not shrink back from sensitive activities, such as participating in demonstrations, collaborating with opposition groupings, asking for psychiatric help or taking part in sexual activity. That is why protecting our data ultimately protects our freedoms.

"We've got to do something about crime. We can't just fold our arms and give up."

Wrong. Politicians acting merely for the sake of action is quite pointless.

Nobody wants people to stand with folded arms where crime is concerned. But it is the security forces' job to act, not that of MPs. When spectacular crimes come into the limelight, that is essentially a wake-up call to the relevant authorities to work more intensively to hinder such cases in future. Politicians tend to react with demands for "improved" laws. For politicians new laws are of course a cheap and easy way of displaying to the public that they are "decisive" and "on the ball". But this kind of action for action's sake often leads to the passing of laws that bring the citizenry no measurable benefit. Whoever continually promises new laws and - inevitably - proves incapable of preventing crime, will lose the trust of the citizenry after a while and thus encourage disgust with politics. In the end he or she endangers the ability of our democracy to function.

"The state has a duty to protect its citizens. The citizenry have a right to security."

Wrong. The citizens cannot demand more from the State than that it should take appropriate measures to combat crime.

No "right to security" as such can exist, as no state can guarantee complete security against crime. Even police states with unlimited power (the GDR for instance) have not proved capable of eradicating crime. On the contrary, such states have seen a lot of corruption, arbitrariness and crimes committed by the State itself. A democratic state based on the rule of law should take proper action against criminals. But it deliberately sets itself limits and lays down restrictions so as to protect the innocent and preserve a free society. Precisely that is what forms the strength of its free and democratic character, observing the rule of law.

"I have nothing to hide."

Wrong. Everybody has got his or her private life, and that's no business of the State!

Those of you who like to claim you have nothing to hide ought to face up to questions like "Why do you bother to get dressed before leaving home?" or "Why close the toilet door?" Everybody has experiences which are no business of strangers and shouldn't get revealed to the public. Nobody can claim that they have never done anything wrong. Never dodged a fare? Never lied about your car in order to sell it? Never omitted things on your tax declaration? Never broken the speed limit? If the State just waits and collects data, sooner or later it will sniff out petty offences. And even if you're completely innocent, you can reap disadvantages from mass-surveillance and data-mining.

If anybody wants to spent all his time in a Big Brother container, then he's free to do so. But he shouldn't find it objectionable when other people like to keep their secrets.

By the way, states have their own secrets, too. They are called "state secrets". Members of Parliament fight against too much transparency in their own lives, for example, not wanting to disclose their own finances. State surveillance is kept hidden, too, to prevent it being discovered by those spied upon.

"Those who have nothing to hide don't have anything at all to fear."

Wrong. Time and time again innocent people find themselves in the cross-sights of the authorities.

Even innocent people ought to ask themselves: "Even if you have nothing to hide, could you convince the police or immigration officials that is so?" Even the innocent have increasingly to face police measures. Often mistaken suspicions are aroused by supposed risk-factors, (such as having the "wrong" religion, "wrong" nationality, "wrong" place of birth, "wrong" name, reading the "wrong" books or voicing the "wrong" opinions) or just an unlucky combination of circumstances can lead to repressive measures. The consequences may be interrogation of neighbours and colleagues, shadowing, police-searches of their home or even arrest. And those very measures may cause prejudice against them in their social surroundings and even destroy their means of existence. Unwarranted refusals to allow one to enter or leave a country, confiscation of property, forced repatriation as a result of confusion over names, even kidnappings by secret services and erroneous killings by police or "sky marshals" occur repeatedly. Cases of such things happening occur in Germany, too.

Surveillance and data-collection provide a flood of information into which discrepancies can be read and so give rise to suspicion. Then it is of no help at all that someone has "nothing to hide".

In point of fact, those who have "nothing to hide" ought not to be surveilled in the first place.

"Surveillance only serves the purpose of fighting serious crime."

Wrong. Misuse for other purposes occurs over and over again.

Cases such as the spying on journalists by the BND (Germany's CIA) remind us time and again that security laws are indeed abused. Apart from journalists, those critical of the government, such as anti-globalization activists, must face similar misuse, too. As these people are acting for the benefit of us all, their freedom should matter to us.

The German Federal Constitutional Court has warned: "Fear of surveillance and the danger that what one says or writes is being recorded and later combed through before being transfered to be further exploited by other authorities can in itself lead to self-censorship and other forms of reticence to communicate with others and to the emergence of more conformist modes of behaviour." The former President of the Constitutional Court, Frau Prof. Dr Limbach, has put it even more starkly. "A democratic political culture has its life-spring in the joy of expressing one's opinion and in the citizenry's degree of commitment. And both require fearlessness. This fearless quality will generally be lost, if the State decides to classify the citizens biometrically, sieve through data on the look-out for particular profiles and snoop on their movements and activities electronically."

Furthermore experience shows that restrictions on data usage become increasingly toothless with the passage of time. In more and more authorities cases turn up in which surveillance techniques and the data collected are found to be "productive". And in the end surveillance and requests for data are allowed in every case in which they could conceivably be of use.

"Surveillance is only a minor, hardly perceptible intervention."

Wrong. Surveillance can have dramatic consequences for the people concerned, and, at worst, it can ruin their lives.

Even if surveillance by itself does not hurt, its consequences can. If surveillance data arouse the suspicion of public authorities, this can lead to measures such as interrogation of neighbours and colleagues, shadowing, execution of a search warrant or arrest. Unjustified denial of requests to enter or leave a country, confiscation of property, rejection at the border due to a mistake in name and even abduction through intelligence agencies and erroneous killings through police or sky marshalls are not fiction, but reality.

"Surveillance makes people feel safer."

Wrong. Symbolic actions do not build confidence.

Even if some surveillance measures are popular in the short term, they do not ultimately strenghten the overall feeling of security. After all, the media will never tire of presenting us with new spectacular crimes. Political actionism is also counterproductive, as fear of crime is usually fuelled in order to push through new laws. There are other, more effective means of increasing the overall sense of security: since the true extent of crime is usually overestimated, it would be reasonable to inform people about the real risk. Structural measures (such as better lighting) and improved contact to neighbours and police can also help to counteract fear of crime.

"Data protection advocates are paranoid, their horror scenarios are exaggerated."

Wrong. Errors and misuse are a daily occurrence. A few examples can be found here, however, the cases that have become public are probably only the tip of the iceberg.

"We are already being surveilled in everything we do anyway."

Wrong. If total surveillance were already reality, there would be no need for politicians to bring forth more and more new laws in order to expand it.

According to Privacy International, the international organisation for data protection, privacy in Germany is still the best protected in the world and (compared to other countries) has been restricted the least over the past few years. We must defend this protection and reconquer our already lost liberties.

"We can't change it anyway."

Wrong. There are many opportunities to oppose this security ideology. Some of which are found here.

Actions taken by a single person may not result in big changes. If, however, many people get involved, this cannot be ignored by politics in the long run. Politicians are very sensitive to the mood of their voters. A list of civil rights organisations, where you can commit yourself, is found here.


{{#ifeq: normal | wichtig | | {{#ifeq: normal | normal | | {{#ifeq: normal | langfristig | | {{#ifeq: normal | dauerhaft | | }} }} }} }}

Abgerufen von „http://wiki.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/index.php?title=Übersetzung/English/Pros_and_cons&oldid=90070“