German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/57,
pp. 6274-6275.
Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.
I think the course so far of the debate indicates that we
all might be very well agreed on at least one point: That the sexualized
violence against children is one of the most horrific of crimes. Actually, that
is fairly clear. And that the fight against it is a policy goal of the utmost
importance certainly is not in question. The data protection however is. And because
it is, once again in the last weeks two governments have suffered shipwreck
before the European High Court: The French and the German. Both governments
once again did not sufficiently take into view the freedoms [Freiheitsrechte] of citizens. We
therefore now require a careful assessment of legal interests – and no hasty
reaction of the adherents of a surveillance state.
Now already three of four cases of sexualized violence
against children can be cleared up. The American child protection organization
NCMEC watches over nearly all internet activity in this direction. From this
organization the BKA receives the necessary data, and indeed quite without
retained data storage [Vorratsdatenspeicherung]
in Germany. No one though can seriously reckon how high the clarification rate
would be if all IP addresses were stored. There is thus no cause for an
excessive hurry.
Perhaps at this point: Frau Lindholz, you have certainly
opened the debate with your proposal. You are an advocate for family law. I was
a judge in the family senate of a regional appellate court. You have of course
cited the passage accurately. Yet at the same time, you have not addressed the
conditions which are in the European High Court’s decision.
Günther Krings (CDU/CSU): Namely?
We have been referred to it by the colleague of the Linke,
and also Herr Jacobi has basically made reference to it: It is admissible,
although plainly just conditional.
Andrea Lindholz (CDU/CSU): Yes! Specifically in this case is it admissible! Exactly these cases have been explicitly singled out, Herr colleague!
What namely, Frau Lindholz, is in play? With your
permission, Frau President, I cite another point. So listen well! Accordingly,
the following is possible:
…traffic and venue data, which have been stored for ten or four weeks, can however be of very exact consequence to private lives of persons
Günther Krings (CDU/CSU): Yet it’s not about that!
Andrea Lindholz (CDU/CSU): It’s about IP addresses!
whose data was stored – perhaps on habits of daily life, permanent or predominant places of abode
Andrea Lindholz (CDU/CSU): It’s not about that!
Günther Krings (CDU/CSU): That is quite a different theme!
– it is nevertheless the consequence, Herr Dr. Krings – daily, or in other cycles, ensuing changes of place,
Andrea Lindholz (CDU/CSU): Yet that has nothing to do with our motion!
activities practiced, social relations of these persons, the social milieu in which they move – and especially, making possible the construction of profiles of these persons.
Günther Krings (CDU/CSU): We are already long since out! It is simply not the same!
Andrea Lindholz (CDU/CSU): Absence of theme!
Dear colleagues, it almost cannot be stressed abundantly
enough that this would affect almost exclusively persons who have nothing at
all to do with criminality. It further says in the decision that the fight
against serious criminality is indeed of great significance, yet per se could
not justify the necessity of a preventive measure of general and
undifferentiated retained data storage.
I come to conclusion, Frau President. – On precisely these
grounds we reject a storage of data without cause. Only with sufficient
suspicion and – I stress – only with a judicial order are interventions in
informational self-determination acceptable; not however by means of a legal
free ride ticket.
Many thanks.
[trans: tem]
