2024-08-26 03:24:27
Interior Minister Faeser wants to expand the powers of the BKA. At the same time, the German army is being attacked, but there are no clues as to who the perpetrators are. Do the authorities have too many or too few powers?
A federal authority should be allowed to secretly enter homes to search them and even install spy software: What sounds like methods from a surveillance state will soon become reality in Germany – at least according to the plans of Interior Minister Nancy Faeser. The Redaktionsnetzwerk Deutschland (RND) has reported on such a draft law.
On the same day, the Bundeswehr had to temporarily close four locations. At the Geilenkirchen air base, a man tried to gain access to the site, but was discovered. The situation was more serious at the Cologne-Wahn base. There, the Bundeswehr only discovered a hole in the fence. Later, a hole was also found in the fence in Metternich, through which someone had apparently gained access to the site. Meanwhile, damage to a gate was discovered at the barracks in Garching near Munich.
The perpetrators have not yet been found. In any case, information about impending dangers often comes from foreign secret services – because German services have fewer powers. t-online explains to what extent Faeser’s initiative could lead to more control and why it has also been criticized by politicians in the traffic light coalition.
According to Faeser’s draft bill, the secret searches of homes are intended to render potential means of committing crimes, such as weapons or ammunition, unusable. However, the secret visits can also be used as an “accompanying measure for online searches and source telecommunications surveillance”. This means that the BKA can install state Trojans on the technical devices of the suspects and thus essentially hack them.
Konstantin von Notz, deputy chairman of the Green parliamentary group, spoke to RND of “serious times” and defended Faeser’s plans. The BKA needs “modern investigative powers and resources”. At the same time, he said, “it is completely clear that these powers can only exist within the framework of the constitutional order”.
This has provoked a lot of criticism, for example from Constanze Kurz, a former expert on the Bundestag’s “Internet and Digital Society” commission of inquiry and spokeswoman for the Chaos Computer Club e. V. The measures “bring back memories of past dictatorships, whose methods were rightly criticized after the end of the Second World War and the end of the GDR,” she explains to “Netzpolitik.org”. Kurz fears that all standards will be lost when it comes to state hacking.
The reaction of Justice Minister Marco Buschmann also shows how sensitive Faeser’s proposal is. “There will be no authority to secretly snoop in people’s homes,” the FDP politician told the “Bild” newspaper. “We don’t do anything like that in the state of the Basic Law. That would be an absolute breach of taboo.” As Minister of the Constitution, he rejects such ideas and promised that such a draft would never be passed.
Wilhelm Achelpöhler also does not believe that the proposal can be implemented. The lawyer is a member of the Committee on Danger Prevention Law of the German Bar Association (DAV) and explains to t-online: “I cannot imagine that this will become reality given our security architecture in the Basic Law.“
There is a clear separation between police authorities, which may intervene in the basic rights of citizens but must always act openly, and secret services, which may work in secret but may not restrict the rights of citizens. The new powers would undermine this separation. The separation has historical reasons: no more secret state police are wanted, which combines domestic secret service and police intervention. “If you were really mean, you could say that Faeser’s plans would be a drastic step backwards,” warns Achelpöhler.
According to Faeser’s draft, the additional powers would be granted to the officers as part of an amendment to the BKA law. The law has been repeatedly criticized even without the new proposals. The state authorities’ ability to control citizens is already too great.