The first bill, the “Law on the Strengthening of the Federal Criminal Investigation Authority,” aims to expand the BKA’s investigative powers. It grants the agency the authority to conduct searches and seizures without a warrant in certain circumstances, including when dealing with suspected terrorists. This power, while seemingly aimed at combating terrorism, could be used to target political opponents and dissenters.
The three most important innovations are, first, the BKA’s authorisation to break into private homes and plant state-operated Trojan software in computer equipment; second, permission to compare biometric photos of persons available to the police authority with photos or video snippets from the internet and social media such as Facebook, X, Instagram, Tik-Tok; third, the power to analyse the data collected in this way or already available in the authorities’ huge databases using AI-based tools. As a detailed examination will show, this law provides the BKA with extremely wide-ranging powers and continues the large complex of police and secret service laws that the grand coalition of Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU) and Social Democrats (SPD) passed in the summer of 2021, shortly before being voted out of office.
**Cybersecurity Threats:
2. The use of Trojan horses to infiltrate systems and steal data. 3. The use of artificial intelligence to identify and target specific individuals. 4. The expansion of the BKA’s powers to include the use of facial recognition technology. 5.
This is why the concept of “right to privacy” has been developed. The right to privacy is a fundamental right that protects individuals from unwarranted intrusions into their personal lives, including their homes, communications, and other private spaces. It is a cornerstone of many democratic societies and is considered essential for individual autonomy and freedom. The right to privacy is not absolute, however.
The investigating judge will then decide whether to grant the search warrant. This process is crucial for ensuring that the investigation is conducted fairly and legally. It involves several key steps, each with its own significance. First, the public prosecutor must demonstrate a strong legal basis for the search. This means presenting evidence that the person being searched is suspected of committing a crime.
For example, the Interior Ministry and the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Verfassungsschutz), as Germany’s domestic secret service is called, under its then right-wing extremist president Hans-Georg Maassen, declared the Sozialistische Gleichheitspartei (Socialist Equality Party, SGP) to be “left-wing extremist.” The BMI rejected a legal complaint by the SGP on the grounds that “the struggle for a democratic, egalitarian, socialist society” stood in contradiction “to the central values of the constitution.” The Verfassungsschutz is authorised to carry out any kind of secret service surveillance, including covert surveillance, such as home invasions and cyberattacks, against the SGP and any other organisation classified as “left-wing extremist.”
The German government has announced that it will be phasing out the Verfassungsschutz and other secret services in a phased manner. This is a significant development that has far-reaching implications for the German political landscape. The government’s plan is to gradually reduce the powers of these agencies, starting with the reduction of their surveillance powers.
What is hidden behind these empty phrases is the fact that the Supreme Court has already overturned several previously planned police laws, for example with its ruling of May 2020 on a police law by Horst Seehofer (CSU, Christian Social Union), then interior minister in the grand coalition of CDU/CSU and Social Democratic Party (SPD) led by Angela Merkel. This law already provided for the mass storage of telecommunications data through online searches, in which state Trojans were to be deployed on the victims’ computer systems via the internet with the support of telecommunications companies such as Telekom, O2, etc.
A. The Supreme Court Strikes Down Mass Surveillance
B.
This is a significant development in the fight against terrorism, as it sets a precedent for future legal battles. This precedent is particularly significant because it acknowledges the need for a balance between security and privacy. It also highlights the importance of judicial oversight in the mass surveillance programs. The Supreme Court’s decision, therefore, marks a crucial turning point in the ongoing debate about the limits of government power and the right to privacy. The Supreme Court’s decision is not without its critics.
2. Matching biometric police data with data from the internet The second significant and far-reaching extension of the BKA’s powers is that in future, the police authorities will be able to compare the biometric photos of ID cards, passports, driver’s licences and police-wanted photos stored by them, with photos and video clips that have been downloaded from the internet and stored in huge databases, which are also biometrically categorised for this purpose. This will enable the BKA to deduce the whereabouts, movements and behaviour of individuals. This procedure has not been permitted under data protection laws to date because those affected have not given their consent for their photos to be used, not to say misused, from the internet. This obstacle is now to be removed.
The draft law also prohibits the use of facial recognition technology for surveillance purposes. This means that facial recognition technology cannot be used to identify individuals in public spaces, track their movements, or monitor their activities. The draft law emphasizes the importance of data protection and privacy. It outlines specific rules and regulations for the use of biometric data, including data minimization, purpose limitation, and security measures.
3. AI-supported analysis of biometric data The full impact of the biometric comparison of photos held by the authorities with data from the internet will only be realised through the use of instruments that are defined as “permitted” in the third core area of the planned BKA law: Tools based on artificial intelligence can and may enable BKA officers to recognise the whereabouts and movements of individuals, even complex patterns and connections between the movements of several people that are not obvious to humans. Mental states and characteristic behaviour, such as the way people walk, can also be recognised with such AI tools and used to filter out these people from a sea of data.
AI analyses of connections can be used to predict actions, encounters with other people, and public protest demonstrations. **Detailed Text:**
The ability of AI to analyze connections has opened up a new frontier in predicting human behavior. By examining the intricate web of relationships between individuals, AI algorithms can identify patterns and trends that might otherwise remain hidden.
The court has classified automated data analysis as particularly intrusive. The broader and deeper the insights into individuals, the higher the intensity of the intervention. Proportionality is a key principle that must be applied to all stages of data analysis, from the initial data collection to the final interpretation.
These are all good sounding provisions. The only snag is that the Supreme Court has not prescribed a neutral and competent authority to monitor compliance with these provisions, as is the case, for example, with the data protection officer in relation to compliance with data protection regulations. And where there is no control, there are no restrictions on the police in the “conscientious exercise of their duties.” It should be emphasised that some of the above-mentioned constitutional requirements do not apply to the biometric recording and AI-based analysis of personal data of refugees from the outset, and this is for “security reasons,” as stated in the draft law.
This summary presents a serious concern about the treatment of refugees in Germany. It highlights the potential for abuse and the lack of legal safeguards. Let’s delve deeper into these issues and explore the implications of this situation.
The imagination of the Interior Ministry bureaucrats when it comes to inventing euphemistic names for legal amendments of serious substantive importance is boundless. **Detailed Text:**
The Interior Ministry, a cornerstone of any government, is often tasked with enacting and implementing laws that shape the nation. However, when it comes to seemingly innocuous legal amendments, the bureaucracy within the Interior Ministry often chooses to utilize euphemism.
This is to ensure that criminals can be apprehended and that the new law is effective in preventing crime. This new law, which is being implemented in Germany, is designed to combat cybercrime and protect citizens from online threats. It is a significant step forward in the access to information and the ability to monitor online activities. It is also a controversial topic, with some arguing that it infringes on privacy and civil liberties.
Let’s take a look at the details of these new powers. **Reporting Requirements**
Reporting requirements are a type of control that requires individuals to disclose information to authorities. These requirements can take various forms, including:
The deputy parliamentary party leader of the Greens in the Bundestag, Konstantin von Notz, has already justified the new laws, including the abolition of the separation between the police and the secret services, to the RedaktionsNetzwerk Deutschland (RND). For many years, von Notz has acted as a democratic fig leaf for the stepping up of state powers and the surveillance carried out by the secret services in Germany, posing “critical” questions as a member, and since 2021 as chairman, of the Parliamentary Control Committee (PKGr) supposed to “monitor” the intelligence and secret services, asking “critical” questions about the activities of the Verfassungsschutz, the Federal Intelligence Service (BND, responsible for foreign intelligence operations) and the Military Counter-Intelligence Service (MAD).
This is a classic example of a “black box” system. A black box system is a system where the internal workings are unknown or inaccessible. The PKGr, in this case, is the black box, and its internal workings are hidden from the public. This lack of transparency is a major concern, as it raises questions about accountability, control, and the potential for abuse.
The methods are based on the “infiltration” and “covert operations” – techniques that have been used for centuries, not just in the recent past. The methods are often used to gather intelligence, but they can also be used to suppress dissent and silence opposition. The “infiltration” tactic involves placing agents within a target group, organization, or community.
The Games were also the first to be held in a country that had not previously hosted the Olympics. The Games were a huge success, with the UK achieving its highest ever medal count in the Olympics. The Games were also a significant economic boost for the UK, generating billions of pounds in revenue.
In both cases, it is clear that these were large-scale manoeuvres to train the police and military apparatus for use against large crowds of people protesting against the massive social cuts and the pro-war policies of their governments and taking class-struggle measures. As in these two large neighbouring countries of Germany, the two planned laws on massively stepping up police state powers are also justified here by Faeser with the “fight against international terrorism.” But like all laws that are passed and have been passed under the pretext of the “fight against right-wing extremism” or the “fight against terrorism,” these laws are ultimately also directed against the working class, which will unite internationally in its struggle against mass redundancies, factory closures, social cuts and war.
The governments of all the countries concerned, inside and outside the EU, will have no difficulty in declaring this international unity and the joint struggle of the workers as “international terrorism.” But it is precisely the struggles of the working class that will be able to thwart the plans of the ruling capitalist class and its police state manoeuvres in every country. To do this, they must be coordinated internationally and armed with a socialist programme.