Experts recommend better alternatives to data retention
For digital experts, data retention is a dead horse. They recommend more effective investigative approaches. But time is pressing.
Big Brother is watching you.
(Image: Gerhard Gellinger, gemeinfrei)
Is data retention a dead horse that should really no longer be ridden? Are there other, perhaps even better options for the work of law enforcement agencies? Or is Federal Minister of the Interior Nancy Faeser, who favors VDS, right?
The panel discussion on fighting digital crime without mass surveillance: it's possible! with moderator Henning Tillmann was unanimous: no VDS, instead Quick Freeze, the law against digital violence and the login trap. The VDS has been discussed for 20 years. It has failed several times before the highest courts such as the European Court of Justice (ECJ), even though the ECJ recently seemed to open the door for data retention.
Quick Freeze
The hacker Constanze Kurz presented the Quick Freeze procedure. She referred to the then Federal Minister of Justice, Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger (FDP), who presented Quick Freeze in a draft law back in 2011 as an alternative to traditional data retention. Now, the traffic light coalition wants to introduce the option of issuing a warrant for traffic data ("quick freeze procedure"). "The current draft bill is somewhat more extensive," said Kurz.
Metadata and location data, which can be used to create profiles, are always at the heart of the debate. Quick-Freeze attempts to limit this approach - even more important today than back then due to technological developments. The number of smartphones has almost doubled and the number of telecommunications data has increased significantly.
Admittedly, there is also some criticism of the quick freeze procedure, for example, certain persons subject to professional secrecy are not exempt. But it is more protective of fundamental rights than the VDS. Kurz hopes that this will bury a dead horse.
Law against digital violence
Political scientist Sina Laubenstein, who coordinates the Digital Violence Protection Project at the Society for Civil Liberties, spoke about the law against digital violence, i.e. against insults, defamation and threats online. This law is intended to strengthen private information procedures, introduce the right to have accounts blocked by a court order and enable documents to be served.
Laubenstein pleaded for measures that work quickly, empower those affected and strengthen the courts. Civil society should also be involved: For example, those affected should not have to go to the police or a lawyer themselves, because there could be "weird networks" at the police, but advice organizations should also be allowed to do so; there should also be the option of withdrawing an account from circulation.
Login trap
Erik Tuchtfeld from the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (MPIL) spoke about the login trap. This was developed in 2020/21 by D64 (Zentrum für Digitalen Fortschritt e.V.), of which he is co-chair. This proposal was well received by the Conference of Interior Ministers, but they still want the VDS.
The trap works in six steps: an offender insults a user. The latter reports this directly to the law enforcement authorities via a judicial interface on the platform; the police and public prosecutor's office check whether there is an initial suspicion of a criminal offense; if necessary, a judge orders a login trap on the platform. And then the IP address of the potential offender is automatically transmitted to the authorities the next time they log in, whereupon their master data (name, address) can be determined. This enables investigations.
Time is of the essence
The speakers also agreed that something had to happen quickly: The VDS has been discussed for two decades, and there are enough other tools for criminal prosecution. However, according to Kurz, these are gradually running out of time in the current legislative period and experts need to be consulted. "It irritates me how long this is being set out and how little attention is being paid to the fact that there are more sensitive procedures!" And this despite the many rulings against warrantless VDS.
Laubenstein would like to see awareness training for the police - and also digitalization: anyone who receives a tail photo still has to print it out and take it to the police.
Tuchtfeld said that surveillance policy had made security policy in Germany less secure over the past 15 to 20 years because it was always just about the VDS. He pleaded for the use of the many small existing tools that would make life safer for those affected: smarter tools, more effective administrative digitization. Specifically, the login trap offers standardization, machine readability and interfaces: "This is common everywhere, just not in the fight against crime."
(ds)
