home

A major victory for privacy

Yesterday, there was a major victory for privacy.  Unfortunately, it was not in the US.  The German Constitutional Court threw out as unconstitutional a law which required storage of all flavors of electronic data on everyone.  Further, they required that the databases which had been built to comply with that law be erased.  Immediately.

The decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court has huge implications.  In it, the Court decided that privacy of users and their communications was more important than the speculation of the government which supported a law requiring retention of all electronic communications for some time (6 months, IIRC) in a form easily accessible to law enforcement and intelligence agencies.  Moreover, the decision was predicated on the German Constitution, and threw out the law requiring data retention as unconstitutional.  Finally, the Court required that the databases heretofore created under that law, be erased "immediately".

From the German radio report:  

Karlsruhe [Federal Constitutional Court] tosses database storage
The Constitutiuonal Court in Karlsruhe has decided the years-long dispute over database storage.  The law is unconstitutional in its current form.  Now, the federal government must improve it.  The data stored to date must be erased immediately.

The Federal Constititutional Court has tossed out the statute requiring massive storage of telephone and internet data.  (NB:  the information which the law required to be stored was all telephone connection data, all internet searches and internet activity, all emails, all SMS and texts, and all commercial/banking transactions.  In essence, they were vacuuming everything and storing it in a place where law enforcement could get at it easily.)  In the view of the constitutional judges the statute in its current form violated the constitution.  The so-called data storage was unconstitutional because it violated the privacy (secrecy/confidentiality) of telecommunications.  The Karlsruhe judges further explained that the (benefit from the) statute was disproprotionate to the violation of the consitution.  Additionally, there was a deficiency of security for the data, and there were no concrete examples of why the data was needed.

Among other things, the judges did not totally foreclose storage of data.  The court did however demand massive reductions in it.  Until this is accomplished the affected sections of the statute are no longer valid.  This is also the ground why the ISPs must "immediately" erase their until-now existing data storage.

Roth:  "Applause for the judges"

Those opposing the required sotrage of databases celebrate the judgment as a great success.  The Greens, Left Party, and FDP have highly praised the clear decision of the constitutional judges.  The federal leader of the Greens, Claudia Roth, spoke of  "applause for the judges".  The Left Party named the judgment as "a knockout for the boundless surveillance dreams of the Big-Brother-Parties."

In the federal government itself there were mixed reactions.  Federal Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger spoke of a good day for the basic law and for privacy.  "It is really a ground for joy, that the court tossed the law."  The FDP politician herself had, while in opposition in 2008, signed up as a party to the suit in Karlsruhe.

The CDU interior affairs expert Wolfgang Bosbach worried about internal security.  He speculated in future, many crimes will no longer be capable of being uncovered.  Bosbach therefore proposed a successor law be rapidly - rasch - passed.  ("rasch" sounds like "rash" and has much the same meaning)  

Police charge it's a "slatternly-slutty-sloppy reading of the statutory text"

The Police Union expressed itself as irritated.  Police Union head Konrad Freiberg said, yet again has a slatternly-slutty-sloppy stautory formulation led to an important investigative tool being slapped out of the hands of the police.  Freiberg speculated this will make it decidedly more difficult in the future to uncover serious crimes.

Biggest class action suit in German legal history

The judgment from Karlsruhe concludes (places the period to) the biggest class action suit in the history to date of the Federal Constitutional Court.  Almost 35,000 citizens participated in the complaint against the statute for counterterorism and crime tracking.  Set forth two years ago, together with the statute, was an EU directive under which elephone companies are required to retain and store the connection records of their customers for six months.

Among the plaintiffs, besides Leuthnisser-Schnarrenberger, were further prominent politicos, among them FDP politician Burkhard Hirsch, who was simultaneously a plaintiff and attorney for the group.  The Green politician Volker Beck had, together with more than 40 delegates of their party, joined the complaint.

The last judgment of Hans-Juergen Papier

This judgment of the "First Senate" is the last time the departing President Judge Hans Jurgen Papier will participate.  After twelve years in Karlsruhe he is departing his office and going into retirement.  The government-affairs lawyer from Munich and his Senate (colleagues on the bench) have repeatedly cabined the policies of the federal government's political branches with their judgments.  Whether the permission to shoot down airplanes suspected of having been hijacked, online searches (remotely, by police) of computers or mass scanning of license plates, in the last few years he has repeatedly corrected (limited) the so-called security laws in favor of civil liberties.

So, to translate this to US sensibilities, imagine the NSA program and all the other wiretapping and storage the government does, together with every phone record, tracking cookie and database built by the phone companies and every ISP.  The Supreme Court has now ordered that they be stopped and that the records they created be wiped out - erased - because they violate the users' privacy, and that any future programs have to conform to its decision on privacy.

This is a huge victory, and you won't hear about it here.

For those who want the original German:

Karlsruhe kippt Vorratsdatenspeicherung

Das Verfassungsgericht in Karlsruhe hat den jahrelangen Streit um die Vorratsdatenspeicherung entschieden. Das Gesetz ist in seiner jetzigen Form verfassungswidrig. Jetzt muss die Bundesregierung nachbessern. Die bislang gespeicherten Daten müssen umgehend gelöscht werden.

Das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat das Gesetz zur massenhaften Speicherung von Telefon- und Internetdaten gekippt. Nach Ansicht der Verfassungsrichter verstößt es in seiner jetzigen Form gegen das Grundgesetz. Die sogenannte Vorratsdatenspeicherung sei verfassungswidrig, weil damit das Telekommunikationsgeheimnis verletzt werde. Die Karlsruher Richter erklärten außerdem, dass das Gesetz gegen den Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit verstoße. Außerdem mangele es an einer Sicherheit für die Daten, und es gebe keine konkreten Angaben, wofür die Daten gebraucht würden.  

Richter schließen Datenspeicherung nicht generell aus

Ganz abschaffen muss der Gesetzgeber die Vorratsdatenspeicherung allerdings nicht. Das Gericht hat aber massive Einschränkungen angemahnt. Bis die umgesetzt werden, sind die entsprechenden Gesetzespassagen nicht mehr gültig. Das ist auch der Grund, warum die Internet-Provider ihre bislang vorhandenen Speicherbestände "unverzüglich" löschen müssen.

Judges do not foreclose database storage generally.

Roth: "Klatsche für die Regierung"

Die Gegner der Vorratsdatenspeicherung feiern das Urteil als großen Erfolg. Grüne, Linke und FDP haben die klare Entscheidung der Verfassungsrichter gelobt. Die Bundesvorsitzende der Grünen, Claudia Roth, sprach von einer "Klatsche für den Gesetzgeber". Die Linke nannte das Urteil einen "Knockout für die uferlosen Überwachungsträume der Big-Brother-Parteien".

Bei der Bundesregierung selbst gab es gemischte Reaktionen. Bundesjustizministerin Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger sprach von einem guten Tag für die Grundrechte und den Datenschutz. Es sei ein wirklicher Grund zur Freude, dass das Gericht das Gesetz gekippt habe. Die FDP-Politikerin selbst hatte 2008 noch in der Opposition die Klage gegen die Vorratsdatenspeicherung in Karlsruhe angeschoben.

Der CDU-Innenexperte Wolfgang Bosbach sorgt sich indes um die innere Sicherheit. Viele Straftaten würden künftig nicht mehr aufklärt werden können. Bosbach forderte deshalb, rasch ein Nachfolgegesetz zu beschließen.

Polizei beklagt "schlampigen Gesetzestext"

Verärgert äußerte sich die Gewerkschaft der Polizei. GdP-Vorsitzender Konrad Freiberg sagte, erneut habe eine schlampige Gesetzesformulierung dazu geführt, dass der Polizei ein notwendiges Ermittlungsinstrument aus der Hand geschlagen worden sei. Freiberg befürchtet, dass die Aufklärung schwerer Straftaten künftig deutlich schwerer werde.

Justizministerin will Prüfung der EU-Richtlinie abwarten

Größte Massenklage in deutscher Rechtsgeschichte

Das Karlsruher Urteil setzt den Schlusspunkt unter das bislang größte Massenklageverfahren in der Geschichte des Bundesverfassungsgerichts. Fast 35.000 Bürger hatten Beschwerde gegen das Gesetz zur Terrorabwehr und Strafverfolgung eingelegt. Mit dem Gesetz war vor zwei Jahren eine EU-Richtlinie umgesetzt worden, wonach Telefongesellschaften Verbindungsdaten ihrer Kunden sechs Monate lang speichern müssen.

Unter den Klägern war neben Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger weitere Politprominenz, darunter der FDP-Politiker Burkhard Hirsch, der Kläger und zugleich Anwalt der Gruppe war. Der Grünen-Politiker Volker Beck hatte gemeinsam mit mehr als 40 Abgeordneten seiner Partei Beschwerde eingelegt.

Das letzte Urteil von Hans-Jürgen Papier

Das Urteil des Ersten Senats wurde letztmals vom scheidenden Gerichtspräsidenten Hans-Jürgen Papier verkündet. Nach zwölf Jahren in Karlsruhe scheidet er aus dem Amt aus und geht in den Ruhestand. Der Münchner Staatsrechtler und sein Senat hatten immer wieder mit Urteilen die Politik der Bundesregierung in die Schranken verwiesen. Ob Abschusslizenz für möglicherweise entführte Flugzeuge, Onlinedurchsuchungen von Computern oder Massenkontrollen von Autokennzeichen - in den vergangenen Jahren korrigierte er immer wieder die sogenannte Sicherheitsgesetze zugunsten der bürgerlichen Freiheiten.

< Hypocritical Prosecution for War-Crimes in Miami | Jackson/Rivers v. Obama/McCain >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Interesting (none / 0) (#1)
    by lilburro on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 11:08:17 AM EST
    I had no idea Germany had such a comprehensive program though - I mean, everything was saved?

    Yup. For six months (At least) (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by scribe on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 11:47:29 AM EST
    You've got to remember, their broadband and mobile penetration is much more pervasive than ours, as is their e-banking and e-commerce.  So, all the bank transactions, all the e-shopping, all the internet searches, and all the phone calls and emails (as to the last, it would seem, it was just trap-and-trace, not content) were being retained.

    The decision doesn't end wiretapping and databasing people's information - but now they have to get a warrant for identifiable people and not just dragnet everyone like they were.

    Parent

    Good stuff squeaky... (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 11:21:00 AM EST
    any thoughts as to what the EU thinks about it?

    Site Violator! AndrewDurr (none / 0) (#5)
    by Zorba on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 04:49:24 PM EST