Acts of sabotage, espionage, cyber-attacks and covert operations carried out by foreign powers require new responses,” says the Federal Minister of the Interior responsible for security in Germany, Alexander Dobrindt, repeatedly stresses. Therefore, he seeks to strengthen the capabilities of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, which operates within the country, and the Federal Intelligence Service (BND), which is active abroad, and to enable closer cooperation with the police.
Why is there a principle of separation between the intelligence agencies and the police?
To achieve this goal, Dobrindt hopes to obtain parliamentary approval for the draft law, which he submitted in August. However, some experts have serious doubts about the extent to which the planned reform is compatible with the state's legal principles.
In a hearing of experts that lasted for several hours, held by the German Bundestag on Monday, the critical voices prevailed.
Many of the questions of representatives from all parliamentary blocs revolve around what is known as the “principle of separation” between the police and intelligence services. In Germany, a system of separate powers was established as a lesson learned from the atrocities committed by the secret police (Gestapo) during the Nazi era, where intelligence services collect information on suspected enemies of the constitution, spies, terrorists and extremists. The police are responsible for responding to suspected or perceived dangers.
“The goal is to prevent the emergence of authorities with absolute powers.”
Markus Löffelmann from the Federal Institute of Public Administration advises to firmly adhere to the principle of separation: “This principle aims to prevent the emergence of authorities with absolute powers that possess all information capabilities, and even executive capabilities.” In his justification, he refers to the rulings of the Federal Constitutional Court, which several times rejected the laws of the Federal Intelligence Service (BND) or laws protecting the Constitution as violating the Constitution.
Therefore, Lovelman warns against any further attempt to redefine the role of the intelligence services: “If there is any possible way to grant powers to the police, it must be in accordance with the rules of police work,” the expert demands.
“The police don't break into any place and destroy things.”
Matthias Becker from the University of Mainz supports this view. He refuses to allow the Internal Intelligence Service, for example, to break into homes. Baker says the proposed reform relates to powers that would never be granted to the police: “The police don't break into anywhere and destroy anything,” Baker explains his criticism in strong words.
As for Günter Varg, who, like Markus Löfelmann, teaches at the Federal Institute of Public Administration, he sees the matter from another angle. He believes that the limits of intervention for the purposes of combating risks are clearly defined: “It must relate to terrorist threats and specific cases of espionage and sabotage.” For this reason, Varg does not see any constitutional concerns in the draft law presented by the federal government.
Is artificial intelligence better than humans at analysis?
Franziska Goerlitz of the Freedom Rights Foundation (GFF), which is funded by donations and membership contributions, views the reform plans generally critically. She considers the use of artificial intelligence to collect and analyze data dangerous: it is no longer the idea of a human to analyze a process. “Rather, the analysis software does the analysis on its own and then sends the intelligence services a list of the top ten risk predictions.”
There is also criticism of the intention to organize oversight of the intelligence services differently in the future, and among other things, the Data Protection Commissioner will no longer have the right to participate in decision-making. Hans-Georg Maassen, former head of the Constitutional Protection Service, also fears that legal protection for people affected by surveillance measures will be further undermined.
Hans-Georg Masen is the most famous and controversial expert
He can only imagine such a thing in limited cases, for example in the field of counterintelligence. “It is not necessary to inform the Russian ambassador in Germany that such action has been taken against him,” Maassen says in a sarcastic tone. “But in the case of ordinary citizens, they must be informed of this later.” They should also have the possibility of filing a lawsuit against it.
Maassen is the best-known and most controversial expert at the hearing on planned intelligence reform. Critics accuse him of increasingly veering towards the far-right camp after his dismissal from the presidency of the Constitutional Protection Agency.
The head of the Constitutional Protection Service, Sinan Selin, demands more powers
Meanwhile, the current head of the domestic intelligence service, Sinan Selin, hopes for a radical shift in the course of work of his agency and the German foreign intelligence service. While experts in the Bundestag criticize the draft law more than they praise it, Selin himself hosts the annual symposium of the Constitutional Protection Service in Berlin. In this context, he talks about a “transformation” in his organization: moving away from merely collecting and evaluating information and moving towards effective contribution in the field of security.
“We now realize that the intelligence services and police must play an active role in the joint protection mission. This requires appropriate powers,” says Selin. German Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt adds on this occasion: “What the intelligence services can do is no longer sufficient to confront the current threat situation.”
Strings of lights in front of the Brandenburg Gate?
Dobrindt emphasizes that the goal is to put the Constitutional Protection Service and the German Federal Intelligence Service on an equal footing with other European and international partners. He believes that he agrees on this matter with the majority of the population. He smilingly speculates that if this had been a few years ago there would have been a protest against such reforms in the form of “strings of lights in front of the Brandenburg Gate” in Berlin.
In the face of critics of his agenda, including the majority of experts who participated in the hearing held by the Bundestag, the Minister of the Interior responds with his consistent position: the existence of different powers between the domestic and foreign intelligence services, that is, between the Constitutional Protection Service and the Federal Intelligence Service, is outdated. “Everything we lack in capabilities will be exploited by those who attack us.”
Alexander Dobrynt: “It's not just Russia”
After incidents such as the discovery of a drone loaded with explosives at Leipzig/Halle Airport, Dobrindt often speaks of "foreign powers" allegedly being behind these incidents. This time, he adds: "The matter is not limited to Russia only." By this he means that intelligence indicates that other countries pose a threat to Germany through cyberattacks, sabotage, espionage and state-organized terrorism.
Prepared in Arabic by: M.A.M./Edited by: Salah Sharara
