Uwe Schulz, February 11, 2021, Data Strategy

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/209, pp. 26349-26350.

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen.

In digital policy matters, the Federal government can be reproached for many failings, yet surely not for one; namely, that it has no strategy. Cyber security strategy, digital strategy, mobile phone strategy, broadband strategy, AI strategy, high tech strategy, and now the data strategy, all with multi-colored brochures, pretty internet sites. Ja, though with verbiage and marketing alone no state is made, neither an analog nor a digital.  

Thus draft laws for the implementation of the strategies rain down upon us, will be winked through the parliament here, and then as before be sluggishly implemented. The IT security law  comes at least a year too late and delivers more questions than answers. The digital pact school, the on-line access law, or the digitalization administration have hand-made defects. Yet not only the administrative courts have long since come to terms with the quality of so many of the products which this sovereign house has left in the lurch. Strategies for broadband construction and an adequate maintenance of mobile phones were set in sand; even developing countries were better here. Now Corona must come and draw the German cart out of the mud.  

Yet now the really big throw: The Federal government’s data strategy, already announced by Chancellery Minister Braun in January 2020. The implementation should result in the current legislative period. Minister Braun was proud of the ambitious schedule. Dr. Helge Braun was already, ja, proud of his management ability as the “refugee crisis terminator” – so the “Giessner Presse” named him at the time. And surely his failed Corona warning app also filled him with pride. And it is now more than questionable what of the data strategy, which will have been so slowly proclaimed, will be implemented by the end of his service time.

All in all: That everything is drawn out and drawn along is a trademark of this Federal government. That is so much more regrettable, ladies and gentlemen, when the data strategy put forward actually contains some important points. Thoughtful citizens always start up when it is about the gathering and use of personal data. It has here proven to be a giant area of tension. One side attracts the potential of data usage, on the other side is the danger of misuse and the citizens’ perception of how politics masters this balance. Here certainly is now to be expected a higher legal standard, indeed for the user as well as for the digital economy. At least, that is the plan. And the promotion of research and certification projects for data trustees and systems of anonymity are sensible and important.

Why, however, in Germany criteria for an unbureaucratic process for data trustees just today begin to be implemented, dear Federal government, is your secret. Since data protection and IT security are no hindrance for a functioning data society but are its basis. We also ought to be anxious as to whether you adhere to your announcement to allow no additional bureaucratic monsters. Since when you can do a really good one, then it is, ja, just one official, just one commission to create and just one more decision level to fit in.    

What we lack in the digital strategy concept is a transparent presentation of the timely and technical dependencies of the specified measures. A continual and transparent progress report is required for an efficient implementation of the strategy. Yet transparency is as you know, ja, not your thing. You master perfectly the ramification of the decision process. We know that also in the competence jumble of your Digital Agenda where too the principle commands: If thou wishes to conceal, then tangle and maximize the number of associated intersections.

Besides that, we would have wished that the data strategy entered more comprehensively into the specifics in connection with the market dominant firms. Here, concrete requirements are lacking. The reference to the amendment of the laws restricting competition is not sufficient.

An essential danger consists of the abusive use of data, primarily by non-European states. Germany and Europe can bring forward a more regulated and open access to data. The seizure of data however must be prevented. The AfD was the first to here address this in the case of China relative to Huawei.  

We also have a big bellyache with the planned standard platform for analysis of open source data. For example, social media data shall be used so as to

process and, by use of non-state actors, to generate international,                qualitatively high value data on foreign policy relevant topics…and to place                it at the disposal of the Federal government

Cited from the submitted instruction. – Here, the door to abuse is opened, since this formulation leaves everything open. Only one government is envisaged which makes use of the data of its citizens so it might be used for its own purposes of political power – domestic and foreign. Yet, ladies and gentlemen, why concern ourselves? This is all, ja, only wicked ulterior motives which one can have here, conspiracy theories, fiction – like what appears only in dystopian novels.

            Saskia Esken (SPD): The AfD’s black lists.

I come to a conclusion. All in all, the Federal government’s data strategy is an important and correct start. It pushes a long overdue development process, a process which in other countries was already long since initiated. That is to say, we require full steam ahead. For that, the submitted strategy is by far not ambitious enough. What is generally lacking is a superimposed vision, and indeed a vision therein of how we can place data at the service of society, economy and state, yet also thereby make possible a secure use. This primarily for the defense of the private sphere of our citizens, defended from the misuse of politicians who are ready to cancel our hard won rights of freedom.

Many thanks.

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

Uwe Schulz, December 17, 2020, 5 G Technology

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/202, pp. 24565-24566.

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

Christmas mood in parliament. – The construction of the 5 G network in Germany progresses so slowly – and that is also good. My delegation regards a 5 G German Bundestag as an important future technology for town and country. We of the AfD have also always called in this place for security of rights and planning, whether or not it is about permission to deliver 5 G network components of Far Eastern firms close to the state. The Federal government has here the opportunity to create clarity in the present draft of the IT security law. It unfortunately again re-prints for itself one solution – yet that is only on the margin; of that, we may speak next year. Today it is about 5 G, although in another connection.

Dear colleagues, 5 G is a revolution for mobile data transfer. Yet many fellow citizens have reservations. The fear of radiation in regards mobile telephones is certainly great. The discussion began already in the mid-90s concerning earlier generations of mobile phones. Countless citizens initiatives had been promoted to prevent antenna installations. The courts today still have much to do in that regard.

Yet with 5 G the conflicts take on substantially new dimensions. Many experts, doctors and scientific organizations meanwhile demand clarification of the eventual dangers and they ask how the effects of electro-magnetic radiation are to be evaluated. Also, the scientific service of the European Parliament – it is there also – calls for comprehensive researches into the real or supposed danger of 5 G.

The bandwidth reserved for 5 G is especially large and not always serious. The considerations range from scientifically based arguments to lists of alleged occurences. There is talk of birds falling from the sky on account of 5 G radiation, and of dying trees. There were sworn testimonies of 5 G apocalypses; 5 G was designated as a radiation weapon and as an instrument of genocide. On the other side are interest groups which banish any negative 5 G effect directly into the realm of fairytales.

On the whole, the fronts between the two camps have hardened. The discussion concerning 5 G puts into the shadows the reservations which we already heard concerning 3 G and 4 G. Yet the fact is: There is no acknowledged evidence that 5 G harms the well-being of man, animal and nature. The fact however is: There are no independent studies which prove the harmlessness of 5 G

            Falko Mohrs (SPD): Rubbish!

and, before all, there are no studies which have focused on a long-term view.

All of us must be aware: 5 G technology can become the digital nerve center of our economy and infrastructure. Yet it is logical that the enormous potential of innovation will then first expand when 5 G is received and accepted by the citizens. And how is acceptance produced? By creating clarity and removing fear from the people.

            Falko Mohrs (SPD): That is ja your strength!

We therefore require a study, independent of business interests, which will provide us with an as great as possible transparency into the perhaps still present tricks and health hazards.

The study’s results and derivations, ladies and gentlemen, must be understandable for a wide public. Since very many citizens from all areas of society really do want to understand what it is about here. It will only so succeed by taking the wind out of the sails of frivolous, self-named “experts”. And should it be laid out at the end of the day that real medical problems can be associated with the employment of 5 G, then the Federal government similarly has a basis of argumentation for the required decisions and steps.   

Ladies and gentlemen, it is for us here in the German Bundestag to create clarity for our citizens. We must dissolve the reciprocal suspicions that exist between 5 G proponents and 5 G opponents. If we really want to bring forward the digitalization, we need secure data highways which will also be used and accepted. And we must guarantee that the 5 G infrastructure can grow uninterruptedly, in all cases in our country, without providing fodder for opinions, lawyers and courts.

I request that you support our motion [Drucksache 19/25308] and thereby demonstrate that you really do take seriously the needs of the people and at the same time show that the German Bundestag does not stand in the way of construction of the digital infrastructure.

May it be a beautiful Christmas festival for you. Many thanks.

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Uwe Schulz, November 19, 2020, Identification Number

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/192, pp. 24338-24339.

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen.

The AfD supports every measure for the introduction of sensible digital solutions for authorities and administrators. For us, only one thing is important: Everything must be tailored for the customer [Kunden], for the citizen – I do not understand why you laugh at the word “customer”. With the planned registration modernization law, the citizens’ basic data shall be centralized and it is quite clear that such a project makes sense. If, however, it is conceivable that the transparent citizen [gläserne Bürger] results from this move, then for us of the AfD the threshold of pain is exceeded. For it is precisely these transparent citizens which the Federal government appears to want. And if the draft is implemented, there are yet only a few steps and the state obtains, on the head of a pin, a comprehensive profile of every citizen.

The principle weak point of the draft is the introduction of a unified identification number. For with such a number, relations records will be possible. Despite that, now – and Herr Krings said it – the tax ID has been selected, introduced in the year 2007, although it was assured at the time it had nothing to do with exactly that on constitutional grounds. And naturally the Federal Constitutional Court and the Federal commission for data protection again warn against the use of this number. The Federal government, however, ignores this warning, even so as does the scientific service of the German Bundestag.

And the Austrian prospect is of no interest, although there, and without conflict with the constitution, data management based on a recognition number [kennnummer] has been centralized. And what does Herr Seehofer’s ministry say to the Austrian model? The procedure was too expensive and lasts too long. Ja, ladies and gentlemen, the Federal government gladly submits itself to all possible international authorities and NGOs; yet in matters of data security, to learn for once from the neighbor Austria, that is evidently too costly.

In this connection, it is amusing that yesterday Minister Seehofer called to me in this room that he now for 50 years works for the security of Germany. Yet, Herr Minister Seehofer, – he is not there – the years do not count, but only the success. And certainly when it concerns the data security of our citizens, not “quick and dirty” but only and alone care counts, and which may even be somewhat more expensive.

Ladies and gentlemen, the draft law put forward is the next step to transparent citizens and it is presently happening. We have yesterday experienced how far the Federal government is willing to go in the patronizing of the people. And meanwhile must each recognize that state surveillance and regimentation shall reach deep into the private sphere. Ladies and gentlemen, with the planned law, it will be possible to gather together and use personal data from many corners – data which Corona detectives can also use for their dirty business; since Herr Lauterbach of the SPD is quite openly thinking of introducing such a spy organization – not to be called back, ladies and gentlemen.

Yet allow it to be said: With the AfD, there will be no modern block leader; data of our citizens shall come into the hands of no private and no state snooper, and no Federal commissioner may invade the deepest private sphere of our citizens.

The draft law shall evidently again be driven through the committees at a pig’s trot – and that we know already – and clearly also will our Federal President and Chief Magistrate Steinmeier again fill up his fountain pen and stand at the ready for a quick signing. It is all as always.

Many thanks.

 

[trans: tem]

Uwe Schulz, December 20, 2019, 5G Internet Security

Uwe Schulz

5G Internet Security

German Bundestag, December 20, 2019, Plenarprotokoll 19/138, pp. 17302-17303

[Uwe Schulz is an Alternative für Deutschland Bundestag member from the central German state of Hessen. He is a businessman.]

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

Already ten months ago, the AfD demanded of the Federal Government finally to concern itself with measures for the security of our communications network. In contrast to most in this house, it was quite clear to us then that there was a need to act in regards 5G security.  

The bill’s author, on one page, must examine and adapt the legal grounds.

Primarily, it must be politically guaranteed that the 5G network be constructed only with trustworthy firms. For the AfD, it is clear: Firms which are substantially under the influence of undemocratic states, and which can be pressed into espionage, are not partners for us.

            Michael Fulda (CDU/CSU): Then what is it with you and Russia and China?

All of you rejected our motion of February 13, and there was not alternative motion, nothing.

            Christoph Bernstiel (CDU/CSU): Since 2018!

Yet you now come with similar demands that give up the ghost. To you, dear colleagues of the FDP and Greens, is Germany’s security obviously only important when it fits your partisan political concept.

            Ursula Groden-Kranich (CDU/CSU): The righteous speak!

            Falko Mohrs (SPD): Already a bit confused.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is a tragedy that even though 5G is long since at the starting gate, the government coalition indicates no clear position. In your oh-so-aggressive 2017 5G strategy, there is nothing on the theme of “Internet Equipment Security”, and in regards frequency auctions, for you, the Federal Government, the proceeds are more important than the security aspects.

            Falko Mohrs (SPD): That is still rubbish! The criteria were already announced! 

A bit of acquaintance with the facts helps!

Yet in that regard, even the Federal Government must have understood what it meant: The 5G network in the future will be the central, critical infrastructure for essential social and economic functions. For you, completely responsible officials have written into the risk assessment that the key components of the 5G networks must be subject to control and that dubious network suppliers are to be excluded. Thus far is theory: Since the Chancellor’s arrogance appears again to have won the upper hand. Frau Merkel is quite well aware that the German intelligence service urgently warned of that in referring back to Chinese network supplier Huawei for the German 5G network. While Frau Merkel believes in her own infallibility, the Economics Minister lapses into angst, fearing Chinese sanctions should Huawei not get underway. The Federal Republic of Germany, ladies and gentlemen, allows itself to be extorted by a country to which we yearly pay more than half a billion euros in development assistance.

What do you notice?

Yet you also know – the Federal Government which is not on hand – that China, in strengthening its own economy, is driving an extremely hard bargain: The banning by Chinese officials of foreign computer technology is only one example. Does that look like trust, ladies and gentlemen? Does that look like partnership?  I think not.

It is a question here of whether we as the Federal Republic of Germany will hand over our digital sovereignty to the Chinese Communist Party or whether we want to make a self-determined foreign and economic policy which defends our sovereignty or even restores it. We demand of the Federal Government an end to your embarrassing game of hide-and-seek and finally take a definite position.

            Michael Grosse-Brömer (CDU/CSU): When will you again be going to Putin?

Yet perhaps, ladies and gentlemen of the government parties, your vision will become somewhat clearer should you finally take leave of your dependence on Huawei as a sponsor of your party day –

            Ursula Groden-Kranich (CDU/CSU): Not us!

– since that is long since overdue.

Many thanks.

[Translated by Todd Martin]