"Digital compulsion is not progress, but short-sighted"

Digitization must not become a dogma. We need choices and responsibility—technically, socially, and legally. Because only those who have alternatives can act truly sovereignly.

Examples such as the exclusively digital energy price flat rate in 2023, which could only be applied for via the BundID, the BahnCard, which has been digital-only since June 2024, or the increasing refusal of paper transfers by banks show how quickly participation can be lost when analog alternatives disappear. These cases illustrate that digitization is only progress if it excludes no one.

heise online spoke with computer scientist Karin Schuler and lawyer Thilo Weichert about the developments on the topic of digital compulsion.

Ms. Schuler, you have repeatedly spoken critically about digital compulsion. Why do you consider this trend problematic?

Karin Schuler: For many, digitization without alternatives is considered progressive—but it is not. This tendency is advancing, and you notice it in very practical everyday things: for example, when you can no longer get appointments with your family doctor by phone and have to register with Doctolib. Then it becomes clear that you are being forced to use digital channels, which usually involve processing far more data than analog variants—and that is simply counterproductive. As a computer scientist, I really don't understand this.

Where else do you experience this?

At the train company, ticket machines have been dismantled in many places, making spontaneous travel almost impossible without an app. Many train stations no longer have a ticket counter, and you often cannot buy a ticket on the bus either. Many things in doctor's offices are now only handled digitally, even if patients do not want this. With the Packstation, I have to install an app to get my package. These are not isolated cases. It runs through many areas of life. And it hits hardest precisely those who are already disadvantaged.

For decades, we in the security sector have known that you cannot rely on just one horse. If the horse stumbles, you have no alternative. Abolishing alternatives is shortsighted, wrong from a security perspective, and socially dangerous. Of course, we want to digitize—that is sensible. We need to digitize more for those who want and can use it. But we must not lose sight of analog methods.

Thilo Weichert: This development also has a social dimension. I receive many inquiries from people with disabilities, from older or socially disadvantaged people, who say, “I can't cope with this.” People with disabilities or visual impairments, in particular, cannot use many digital services because their circumstances are different. From my perspective, this is existentially disastrous because it systematically excludes people.

And this does not only affect the elderly or people with disabilities. Even those who refuse to use certain services for data protection reasons are met with closed doors. The problem has become structural—it's about social participation, not just convenience.

Aren't there already legal steps against Deutsche Bahn?

Weichert: Digitalcourage is currently suing Deutsche Bahn because its app not only forces users to buy tickets digitally but also due to excessive data processing. This shows how real the issue of digital compulsion has become.

For many, digitization is the epitome of efficiency—less paper, shorter distances, automated processes. Isn't that positive in itself?

Schuler: Yes, of course, digitization can make things more efficient. Less paper, shorter distances, automated processes—that's all good and right. But it's not just about efficiency. We need alternatives because they contribute to the functionality of our system. If you work in risk management, you know: You must have alternatives ready for all processes—especially for disaster scenarios or in case of widespread failures, such as power outages. If politicians and administrators say this is too expensive or too much effort, it reveals alarming ignorance.

Weichert: At the same time, this is often justified by cost reasons—analog structures are too expensive. But that is a pretense. Security, participation, and human dignity cannot be calculated on a business economics basis. This is a fundamental rights issue, not a matter of convenience.

Nevertheless, you also hear politicians say, “We can't take everyone with us.”

Schuler: Yes, that's true—and that's something that really annoys me. When politicians say, “We can't take everyone with us,” it actually means, “We don't want to take everyone with us.” It's made to seem like something natural, but it's not. The state in particular cannot afford this. In my view, it must take everyone with it, not just some. This argument is not only outrageous; it is also shortsighted. We are not talking about luxury here, but about social participation.

Weichert: Exactly. It is even constitutionally problematic. The state may not exclude anyone from accessing its services simply because they are not digitally active. Participation is a fundamental right, and this applies particularly to state services.

Schuler: Digitization should enable more options, not exclude them.

You criticize the developments in Schleswig-Holstein. What exactly is happening there?

Weichert: Schleswig-Holstein is indeed the first federal state to have the right to communicate with the administration in writing or in person in its constitution and is now seeking to remove it. This could make digital communication mandatory instead of an additional option. It would be a step backward—and what's more: the legal justification does not mention why.

It is particularly contradictory that Schleswig-Holstein is simultaneously the first federal state to officially set itself the goal of becoming digitally sovereign. On the one hand, they are promoting independence from large corporations, and on the other hand, they are taking away the freedom from citizens that is necessary for true sovereignty.

Schuler: And that shows that digitization is often thought of in a technocratic way—the main thing is to digitize, regardless of whether it is sensible or socially compatible. Instead, it should be about acting digitally sovereignly.

What do you mean by “digital sovereignty”?

Schuler: If I want to be digitally sovereign, it's not enough to just know what happens to my data. I also need to be able to decide *whether* it should be generated at all. This ability to control the generation of data yourself is, for me, the core of digital sovereignty. And that only works if I have alternatives. If there are no more analog ways, data compulsion and digital compulsion become one. Then I am no longer sovereign but dependent. This is a decision that deprives me of my control.

Digital sovereignty also means that I am not forced to follow every technological path. It's about consciously and self-determinedly deciding how and when to use technology. For example, I can say I don't do my banking on my smartphone because I don't trust this system. Or I consciously decide against an app because I don't want to share data. This is not technophobia; it is reflected self-determination. The state should promote exactly this—that citizens can make their own decisions through knowledge and transparency. That would be lived digital maturity. But as long as the state forces people to act digitally, it deprives them of this freedom.

Weichert: And we must not forget that digital sovereignty also has a state dimension. At the state level, it means independence from non-European providers—for example, from Microsoft, Apple, or Google. These companies are subject to different legal systems and political influences. At the individual level, digital sovereignty means that people have freedom of choice. If I have no choice, my freedom is lost. Only when alternatives exist can individual and state sovereignty prevail.

Schuler: If we rely entirely on Android, iOS, and American cloud systems, we make ourselves dependent. If political frameworks change there—for example, under a Trump administration—no one knows what will happen to the data. What is convenient today can be dangerous tomorrow. And even if we try to host everything in Europe, if political majorities shift here at some point, for example, in favor of the AfD, I don't want to imagine what could happen to this data. Security is not a static quantity.

Many people have no awareness of data protection and say that data protection is not that important, as long as it works.

Weichert: There is a lack of understanding. Data protection is the basis of our fundamental rights. However, many only realize this when they are affected—when health data or private messages fall into the wrong hands. Then the shock is great.

Schuler: I see it the same way. Data protection is not an end in itself or bureaucracy, but a responsibility. It's about enabling people to make informed decisions. And this responsibility must be demonstrated by the state. The protection of data is part of the protection of democracy.

Ms. Schuler, you mentioned consciously not using apps. How do you implement this?

Schuler: Very simple: I don't install a postal app, and I don't do my banking via smartphone. That is my decision, and I want it to be respected. It's not about refusing everything digital, but about making a conscious choice. And more people should exercise this. No one has to change everything overnight. But you can start by making decisions in small areas: Which apps do I install? Which data do I provide? What alternatives are there? When you start at these points, you strengthen your own digital sovereignty.

We must not fall into the same either/or logic as those who only want digital processes. It's not about “everything digital” or “nothing digital,” but about preserving freedom. Small steps are enough to initiate change. Deciding to use Signal or Threema instead of WhatsApp once is not a big effort—but it changes something. This is how sovereignty is created from below.

Weichert: Yes, absolutely. Digitization and analog participation go hand in hand. Those who abolish analog methods endanger democracy, freedom, and security. Smart digitization requires diversity, respect for decisions, and freedom of choice. Then it can truly be progressive.

(mack)