Federal Registration Act

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Basic data
Title: Federal Registration Act
Abbreviation: BMG
Type: Federal law
Scope: Federal Republic of Germany
Legal matter: Reporting
References : 210-7
Issued on: May 3, 2013 ( BGBl. I p. 1084 )
Entry into force on: November 1, 2015
Last change by: Art. 82 VO of June 19, 2020
( Federal Law Gazette I p. 1328, 1337 )
Effective date of the
last change:
June 27, 2020
(Art. 361 of June 19, 2020)
Weblink: Text of the law
Please note the note on the applicable legal version.

The reporting laws are laws that regulate reporting in Germany .

The Federal Registration Act (BMG) has been in force since November 1, 2015 , previously the registration system was regulated by state law.

Legal history

Since 1980, the Registration Law Framework Act has regulated the tasks and powers of the registration authorities. It was supplemented by the state registration laws.

Since the federalism reform that came into force in September 2006 , the federal government has exclusive legislative competence for the reporting system ( Art. 73, Paragraph 1, No. 3 of the Basic Law ).

In April 2008, the Federal Ministry of the Interior presented a draft bill for a federal registration law for the first time , but this was not introduced because of “different ideas about the future structure of the registration system”. The extensive federal registration register envisaged therein should first be streamlined again to form a citizen information system, which, however , was assessed by the Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information as too extensive for centralized data storage. With the draft of a law on the further development of the reporting system (MeldFortG) , the first version of a federal reporting law was submitted to the Bundestag for discussion and controversially discussed in November 2011.

The new Federal Registration Act was originally supposed to come into force on May 1, 2015. Its entry into force, however , was postponed to November 1, 2015 due to the amendment of Art. 4 of the Law on the Further Development of the Reporting System (MeldFortG) , "so that federal ordinances, state regulations and administrative provisions can come into force at the same time as the MeldFortG due to the early enacting authorization bases. “It was also changed by Art. 3a of the Bundeswehr Attractiveness Increase Act.

Legal policy debate on the further development of the reporting system

The legislative procedure as well as the content-related requirements and the scope of register information for the purposes of advertising and address trading were particularly controversial in terms of legal policy.

2011 bills

The federal government wanted to use the nationwide register network to strengthen data protection when querying residents' registers . Data for advertising and address trading should only be released after express consent. Information about first and last names, academic degrees and current addresses should only be given out with the express consent of the citizen. The debt collection and direct marketing industry, as well as credit agencies, “ran storm” against these plans and started lobbying . At “express request” and under pressure from the CSU, the draft law was then changed.

The Interior Committee of the Bundestag then changed the originally consumer-friendly set of rules and tightened the regulation. He decided that citizens would have to actively object to data trading in the future - knowing full well that hardly anyone would make this effort. Three days before the decisive vote in the Bundestag, Hans-Peter Uhl (CSU) and Gisela Piltz (FDP) presented this amended bill. The reporter of the FDP, Manuel Höferlin , gave a speech in the later Bundestag vote for the record, "which reads like a fiery plea for the objection regulation". This solution would ensure that the citizens “would not be bothered with annoying requests for consent”, says this speech.

The draft law included 65 pages. It says u. a .: "One focus of the further development of the reporting system aimed at by this law is linked to the function of the reporting system as a central service provider for the provision of data, especially for the public sector [...]. The inquirer must prove the consent of the data subject to the use of the data for advertising purposes, unless this information is already available to the registration authority. The registration authority is free to ask for the consent of the person concerned when registering. "

In § 44 BMG-E it says: If a person requests information about another person or if a body other than the one specified in § 34 Paragraph 1 Clause 1 or § 35 BMG, the registration authority may only provide information about the following data from specific individuals (simple registration information):

  1. Family name,
  2. First names,
  3. PhD and
  4. current addresses and,
  5. if the person is deceased, that fact.

If the data is used for advertising or address trading purposes, these must be given.

In contrast to the original draft, the citizen's consent was no longer provided if his data were to be passed on to companies for advertising purposes or for address trading. Consumers could only object to the transmission of their data - as before.

The draft also stated: “The data subject has the right to object to the transmission of their data [...]; they must be informed of this right when registering […] and once a year by means of a customary notice . ”The opt-in , ie the express consent, became an opt-out , ie the automatic consent. This only does not apply "if the data are used exclusively to confirm or correct existing data".

This regulation would have made it possible for debt collection companies, address dealers or the advertising industry to request large amounts of data from the official registers: name and title, the current address and information on whether the person is still alive. Consumers could - as before - lodge an objection in writing with the office. However, a change in the new law would weaken the right of objection: The objection does not apply in cases where the information is used to confirm or correct existing data, which, however, could regularly be the case. The only thing left for the consumer to do is to object directly to the company, but he would first have to find out from the registration office to whom this data was passed on. However, it is not recorded in all federal states to whom the data has been released, for example in Brandenburg. "A log of the simple registration information given to private individuals and data transmission to authorities" is "not provided for in accordance with the Brandenburg Registration Act" and is "consequently not carried out"

Another problem was that inquiring companies such as B. save the Deutsche Post address results of previous queries. As a result, these companies can use existing research results for new inquiries about this address at low cost and do not have to re-inquire at the registration offices. This means that private individuals cannot find out to whom the data has been released.

Vote in the German Bundestag in 2012

Late in the evening of June 28, 2012, the government parliamentary groups in the German Bundestag passed the law on the further development of the reporting system (MeldFortG) with an objection solution without further discussion. Contrary to previous statements, according to the Pirate Party, the rights of the citizen against address sellers and advertisers would be significantly weakened. In addition, the coalition removed an originally intended electronic right of objection for those affected.

The government parliamentary groups voted to network the data from around 5200 registration offices. The opposition was united against it. She spoke of a "bad law" as it would weaken the privacy of citizens further.

The printed matter 17/10158 of June 27, 2012 recommendation for a resolution and report of the Interior Committee (4th committee) was criticized because the data subject no longer required the consent of the person concerned to pass on the "data for advertising or address trading purposes ". One day after the recommendation for a resolution by the Interior Committee, the draft law was adopted on June 28, 2012 in the second and third reading in the Bundestag against the votes of the SPD, the Greens and the Left Party. It was noted that "[...] at the time of voting for the EM semi-final match Germany - Italy there were hardly any MPs present". The speeches of the members of the Bundestag were only given for the record - two deliberations including a vote in just under a minute. As a result, the law passed parliament "almost in a hurry".

The Vice-President of the Bundestag, Petra Pau , declared the vote to be quorate, although only 26 members were present and therefore the Bundestag was not quorate according to Section 45 of the Rules of Procedure of the German Bundestag , since the required "half of its members were not present in the meeting room". Either a parliamentary group or Petra Pau would have had to question the parliament's quorum for a demolition. Peter Mühlbauer and Florian Rötzer on Telepolis : “Actually, Petra Pau or another member of parliament could have pointed out that the Bundestag does not have a quorum to prevent the vote. But that doesn't seem to have mattered to anyone - or they agreed beforehand to push through the laws in a fast-track process and without the Bundestag having a quorum. "

The opposition could have stopped the law. Omid Nouripour from the Greens admitted in an interview with t-online.de: "If applications are made in such a raid-like manner, there is a wide range of means to stop them". He does not know why neither the parliamentary directors of the Greens, the Left Party nor the SPD made use of it.

Reactions to the result of the vote

politics

Petra Pau (left) said after the vote: “The sell-off of data protection continues. And that with the consent of the FDP, which prides itself on being free and democratic. "

On parliament watch.de, SPD General Secretary Andrea Nahles wrote : The Union and FDP introduced the changes “at the last minute”, and the governing coalition of the Union and FDP “once again buckled in front of the address lobby”. With the law, data protection is "sacrificed for economic interests". Consumer Protection Minister Ilse Aigner distanced herself from the new reporting law. She said that the government draft originally provided "for good reasons" that citizens must expressly consent to their data being passed on. “I still consider this consent solution to be the better way.” She also said: “After the Bundestag decision, I see a need for discussion here”. Aigner emphasized that the responsible committee had changed and "tightened" the law submitted by the government without consultation.

SPD leader Sigmar Gabriel affirmed: "The state register is not a data store for economic purposes". He describes this as "dangerous nonsense". Gabriel went on to say: “I don't want my hometown to be able to sell my address to advertising companies or professional data collectors […]. Unfortunately, the public, i.e. the affected citizens, only find out about it AFTER the passage of such a law. Then it is unfortunately already too late for the outcry […]. Actually, the Union and FDP had promised to strengthen data protection. The transfer of the data from the registration offices should only be possible with the express permission of the citizens. But then the federal government followed the lobby of the data collectors: Now the Union and FDP always want to allow the sale of data - unless [] the citizen objects. And even in the event of a crystal clear contradiction, data collectors can compare existing information with that in the registration offices. ”SPD data protection expert Johannes Kahrs also criticized the update regulation.

In the Süddeutsche Zeitung, Schleswig-Holstein's state data protection officer, Thilo Weichert , criticized the fact that the new law enabled "large-scale private trade with data that was compulsorily collected by the state". The state commissioner for data protection in Bavaria, Thomas Petri , called on the state government to stop the new regulation in the Federal Council. The Federal Commissioner for Data Protection, Peter Schaar , also reported concerns: “This means that a piece of self-determination is being lost for the citizens”. Schaar continued to criticize that the law contained “massive deteriorations” for the citizens. Citizens would have to expressly object to their data being passed on to companies by authorities instead of allowing this in writing. Experience shows, however, that only a few citizens put in this objection at all, said Schaar. And even then, companies that already had old data on guarantors could update them with the authorities - even if they came from "dubious sources". "Even contradiction does not help." The Federation of German Consumer Organizations also called on the Federal Council to reject the present law.

The German Association of Cities also rejected the new registration law, as its interests do not include dealing with addresses, the deputy chief executive, Helmut Dedy, told the Süddeutsche Zeitung . The protection of citizens' data is a valuable asset for cities. A concession to the advertisers in the new Federal Registration Act would be "problematic for us".

Publicity

It started first in internet forums, then a wave of outrage built up, then data protectionists issued a warning, and then “the opposition also woke up”: Resistance to the new reporting law was formed, and the first federal states announced that they would block the law in the Federal Council . The coverage of some media, the tweets of the pirates and the indignation of some bloggers turned the mood.

The fact that the controversial draft law became known aroused outrage among the population, and because of the increasing criticism from the general public, resistance to the new law on the further development of reporting also arose in the federal states. More than 180,000 people took part in the campaign under the motto “My data is not a commodity!” (As of July 18, 2012). The campaign was intended to prevent the sale of reporting data to companies. The online appeal was part of a campaign that the campaign network Campact had started together with the data protection and civil rights organization digitalcourage (formerly FoeBuD) and the Federation of German Consumer Organizations (vzbv). The signatories called on the Prime Ministers to ensure in the Federal Council that no more registration data may be passed on unless the citizen has expressly consented to this.

Position of the initiators and other proponents

The CSU domestic politician Hans-Peter Uhl , who, together with Gisela Piltz (FDP) was the initiator of the draft law put to the vote, said: "According to the highest court rulings in Germany, there is no right to hide." Uhl was probably referring to this Judgment of the Federal Administrative Court from June 2006, which only demands a right of objection for citizens if the registration authority wants to sell their data for advertising purposes in return for a fee. Uhl defended the law and described the contradiction solution as a more efficient way that would save the registration offices an "immense amount of work". Uhl denied that he had acted with the contradiction solution in the interests of advertisers, address dealers and debt collection companies. He spoke of an improvement for consumers compared to the previous legal situation. The whole group decided on the new regulation. Gisela Piltz asserted that as a domestic policy spokeswoman she only acted as a kind of postman for the changes.

The FDP MP Manuel Höferlin , who helped to pass the law, wrote in his blog: “The procedure was carried out properly and parliamentarily flawlessly.” It is no coincidence that companies will in future be able to retrieve the address of a citizen without major problems. "It is not the task of the reporting right to break the connection to a company". That is the task of data protection law . "We JuLis are disappointed with the amendment to the registration law," said the federal chairman of the Young Liberals, Lasse Becker . "Liberals in particular should be more sensitive at this point."

The then Federal Minister of the Interior, Hans-Peter Friedrich , rejected criticism of the new law: Anyone who deals with the “content” of the new law and compares it with the reporting laws of the federal states will find that data protection is being improved compared to the current legal situation. [...] Even when asked, Friedrich did not want to admit to "his" original version of the law or to oppose the tightening of the law decided by the Bundestag.

The CDU MP Wolfgang Bosbach was surprised by the criticism: "I don't understand why the improvement in the data protection situation through the passed law is being sold as a deterioration."

Failure in the Federal Council

CSU boss Horst Seehofer and Federal Consumer Minister Ilse Aigner announced that they would stop the tightened law. From coalition circles it was learned, however, that the controversial tightening of the reporting law "came about at the express request of the CSU". In the coalition “they were therefore irritated” by the criticism of the CSU leadership.

The first parliamentary manager of the SPD, Thomas Oppermann , as well as the Greens and Left Party announced that they would resist and stop the law in the Federal Council. Green parliamentary director Volker Beck : "The law on registration will not pass the Federal Council like this."

After the red-green state government of Rhineland-Palatinate, the green-red ruled Baden-Württemberg also showed its rejection. Federal Council Minister Peter Friedrich said on behalf of the state government: "The transfer of data without the possibility of excluding the citizen is not supported." Every citizen must be able to effectively object to the trade with his personal information. Berlin's governing mayor, Klaus Wowereit , was "horrified" by the new registration law.

Also Böhrnsen , Prime Minister of the red-green governed Bremen, announced resistance: "I do not think the law survives the Federal unchanged," said Böhrnsen, the end of July 2012 had taken over the presidency of the Mediation Committee of the Bundestag and Bundesrat. The Greens announce that they will block the controversial new reporting law. "We will overturn the situation with the red-green governed states through the Bundesrat," said the chairman of the Green parliamentary group Renate Künast .

Decision recommendation of the Mediation Committee 2013

The new registration law passed by the Bundestag on June 28, 2012, which simplifies companies' access to the address data of registration offices, did not come into force after protests by the opposition and data protectionists. The federal government also admitted that the law should be changed, but without the votes of the SPD-led states it would not have passed through the Bundesrat anyway. The federal government assumed that the controversial reporting law would be changed again in the parliamentary procedure, government spokesman Steffen Seibert made clear in Berlin. Ilse Aigner said to Bildzeitung: “From my point of view it was a mistake that the decisive paragraph was changed almost overnight in a fast-track process. So the law will not come ”. The Federal Council will call the mediation committee in September 2012 and presumably demand the restoration of the data protection-friendly regulations from the original government draft.

The chief executive of the Association of the German Information and Telecommunications Industry Bitkom , Bernhard Rohleder, said: “After Acta , this should be the second case in a very short time where the pressure of the street overturns a law. ... The times are over in which relevant legislative proposals can be pushed through parliament in a snap. Such projects must be discussed with the public, made transparent and conveyed in the dialogue between politics and citizens. "

After a referral by the Federal Council in September 2012, the Mediation Committee submitted a recommendation for a resolution in February 2013 that included a change in reporting information for the purposes of advertising and address trading to the need for general consent and renewed expansion of the earmarking of the information, as well as regulations on fines against inappropriate data transfer . The German Bundestag approved this recommendation on February 28, 2013 and a majority of the German Bundesrat on March 1, 2013. On May 3, 2013, the Federal President prepared the Federal Registration Act (BMG) and announced it in the Federal Law Gazette ( Art. 82 GG).

According to information from the Spiegel, the controversial changes to the law of the then government faction CDU / CSU / FDP were known much earlier than they previously admitted. At the request of the CDU / CSU and FDP, the Federal Ministry of the Interior had already presented drafting aids for the law at the beginning of April 2012: This was the first time that the new contradiction solution was laid down, according to which registration offices are generally allowed to surrender personal data even if the citizens concerned had objected. This change was made public during the first reading of the government draft in the Bundestag on April 26, 2012, when the CDU MP Helmut Brandt inadvertently spoke about paragraph 4, although it was not yet in the legal text, but only part of the agreed changes that had not become public. This mistake was not noticed only because the speeches were only put on record and were not delivered.

Content of the Federal Registration Act

Re-registration

Example of a registration confirmation

According to § 17 BMG, a move or move out must be reported to the residents' registration office within two weeks .

The reporting laws of the federal states, which were valid until November 1, 2015, had different deadlines for this, from one week to two weeks. The state laws demanded an immediate change of registration in Rhineland-Palatinate , the change of registration within a week in Baden-Württemberg , Bavaria , Hamburg , Hesse , Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania , Lower Saxony , North Rhine-Westphalia , Saarland , Saxony-Anhalt , Thuringia , or the change of registration within two weeks in Berlin , Brandenburg , Bremen , Schleswig-Holstein , Saxony .

Since January 1, 2007, the obligation to deregister at the old residents 'registration office has been omitted; this is done by electronic comparison by the residents' registration office - deregistration is only necessary for permanent residents outside Germany. Certain professionals such as members of the armed forces are exempt from re-registration - special provisions apply to boatmen, according to which a home port can be freely chosen whose registration office is responsible for administration.

Cooperation of the housing provider

Section 19 BMG in the currently valid version (January 1, 2017) states that the home owner (usually the landlord ) must confirm the move. The housing provider is therefore obliged to cooperate with the registration of the person moving in with the registration office. For this purpose, the housing provider or a person authorized by himmust confirmthe move-in in writing or electronically within thedeadlines specifiedin § 17 paragraph 1 or 2 BMG. He can convince himself by asking the registration authority that the person required to register has registered. The person required to register must provide the owner of the apartment with the information required to confirm the move-in. The confirmation according to sentence 2 may only be issued by the owner of the apartment or a person authorized by him.

One speaks of an accommodation provider confirmation , colloquially also of a landlord's certificate or a move-in or move-out confirmation .

In the original version of the law, both a move-in and move-out certificate from the landlord were required.

criticism

Michaela Schultze, consultant at the Federal Commissioner for Data Protection, doubts the sense of the bureaucratic effort: "We lack reliable figures and knowledge that this requirement is actually suitable to prevent bogus registrations," she explained. The abolition of the requirement a few years ago was precisely based on the fact that the regulation, which the citizens perceived as annoying, had little effect.

The lawyer Udo Vetter explained in the law blog about the amendment to the Registration Act, which the Bundestag passed in June 2012: “Coincidentally, this regulation is also a concern of the GEZ . Radio license fees will soon be calculated according to households and no longer according to people. This raises the question of who is actually the payer, i.e. who actually lives at the address and therefore belongs to the household. Of course, the easiest way to prove this is when information on the tenancy is available. The landlord confirmation, which has now been dispensed with for a number of years, provides exactly this data. "Vetter says on Golem.de that it" is noticeable that the landlord certificate is introduced parallel to the household tax, because the GEZ benefits from this because it is easier to prove it who is at least a tenant and therefore without a doubt belongs to the household. "

Special obligation to register in accommodation facilities

The provision of the new Section 29 BMG, which corresponds to Section 16 (1) of the Registration Law Framework Act (MRRG), regulates the special reporting obligations when a person is admitted to a place of accommodation and for overnight stays in tents, mobile homes, caravans or watercraft.

criticism

Michaela Schultze says that she does not agree to the adherence to the hotel registration requirement. Federal and state data protectionists have long been calling for their abolition for German guests. It is a massive collection of data that should be available for police investigations. A form of data retention independent of suspicion can therefore be assumed. The data protection officer was relieved that there should be no central federal registration register.

Simple information from the register of residents

According to Section 44 (3) No. 2 of the Federal Registration Act (BMG), the transmission of information about a large number of people for the purposes of advertising and address trading requires the express consent of the persons concerned. The consent can be given to the registration authority or the person requesting information and revoked. Anyone who obtains or uses data without this consent commits an administrative offense that can be punished with a fine of up to 50,000 euros ( Section 54 BMG).

Information for commercial purposes

Largest market participants and activities in the areas of address trading, debt collection, scoring, personal identification

There is no nationwide overview of the companies, institutions and facilities involved due to the still decentralized structure of the reporting system. The city of Kiel states that around 30% of inquiries are received from authorities and the contribution service . On the part of the company, the queries are largely made automatically by insurance and debt collection companies. The Federal Cartel Office has examined the market for debt collection and receivables management. Of the market leaders named there, the following companies with subsidiaries or specialist departments are active in the field of querying registration office data:

With the market leaders, this query of registration office data is related to receivables management , debt collection , scoring and address trading .

Information block

The registration authority is obliged to refuse registration information on application or ex officio if there are reasons to believe that the data subject or third parties could endanger life, health, personal freedom or similar interests worthy of protection through information from the register. In these cases, an information block must be entered in the population register.

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Registration Act for the State of Baden-Württemberg in the version of the announcement of February 23, 1996
  2. Registration Act for the Free State of Bavaria in the version dated December 8, 2006
  3. ↑ Inoperative since July 22, 2016: Registration Act for the State of Berlin from 1985 including amendments by September 7, 2006 ( memo of December 3, 2008 in the Internet Archive ) (pdf; 195 kB)
  4. Registration Act for the State of Brandenburg in the version of the announcement of January 17, 2006 ( Memento of February 27, 2007 in the Internet Archive )
  5. ^ Registration law for the state of Bremen in the version of the announcement of December 1, 2006
  6. Registration Act for the State of Hamburg in the version of the announcement of September 3, 1996
  7. Registration Act for the State of Hesse in the version published on March 10, 2006
  8. ^ Registration law for the state of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania in the version of the announcement of January 30, 2007
  9. Registration Act for the State of Lower Saxony in the version of the announcement of January 25, 1998 ( Memento of April 16, 2014 in the Internet Archive )
  10. ^ Registration Act for the State of North Rhine-Westphalia
  11. Registration Act for the State of Rhineland-Palatinate in the version of the announcement of December 22, 1982
  12. Registration Act for the Saarland as published on February 8, 2006 (pdf; 89 kB)
  13. Saxon Registration Act (SächsMG)
  14. ^ Registration law for the state of Saxony-Anhalt in the version of the announcement of August 11, 2004 ( Memento of September 22, 2007 in the Internet Archive )
  15. Registration Act for the State of Schleswig-Holstein in the version published on June 24, 2004
  16. ^ Registration Act for the State of Thuringia in the version of the announcement of October 26, 2006 ( Memento of February 21, 2009 in the Internet Archive )
  17. Info letter from the Federal Government: Effects of the federalism reform (PDF; 258 kB)
  18. BT print. 16/7205 (PDF; 94 kB) Status of the reform of the reporting law and introduction of the X-Meld data exchange format (December 3, 2007)
  19. Activity report 2009 and 2010 of the Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information p. 157, point 12 22. TB No. 5.2 and 6.5 Federal Registration Act (PDF; 2.6 MB)
  20. a b German Bundestag 17th electoral period (Ed.): Draft of a law for the further development of the reporting system (MeldFortG) . Printed matter 17/7746. November 16, 2011 ( PDF [accessed on July 9, 2012] draft law of the federal government).
  21. BT printed matter 18/2009 of July 2, 2014, there the amendment to Art. 4 MeldFortG (PDF; 209kB)
  22. Criticism of the new reporting law is growing louder. (No longer available online.) In: meta.tagesschau.de. July 7, 2012, archived from the original on July 8, 2012 ; Retrieved July 15, 2012 .
  23. Stefan Krempl, Andreas Wilkens: Black-Yellow cuts opt-in for data transfer in the Registration Act. In: heise online. June 29, 2012. Retrieved July 15, 2012 .
  24. Offices as address traders: What does the new registration law mean for me? In: Spiegel Online. July 9, 2012, accessed July 15, 2012 .
  25. a b c d Controversial vote: Federal Government distances itself from the Registration Act. In: Welt Online. July 9, 2012, Retrieved July 9, 2012 .
  26. a b c Achim Sawall: Address trading: New reporting right a "night and fog". In: golem.de , July 5, 2012, accessed on January 3, 2018
  27. a b c d Veit Medick : Dispute over registration law: Suddenly everyone is data protection. In: Der Spiegel , July 9, 2012, accessed on January 3, 2018
  28. a b Dispute about the right to report: These two politicians are to blame for the botch law! In: bild.de
  29. Claudia Ehrenstein: New Registration Law: Suddenly nobody wants to have caused the debacle. In: welt.de , July 9, 2012, accessed on January 3, 2018
  30. a b c http://www.bundestag.de/Mediathek/index.jsp?isLinkCallPlenar=1&action=search&contentArea=details&ids=1771400&instance=m187&destination=search&mask=search
  31. ^ Registration law: Government wants to revise registration law. In: Frankfurter Rundschau. July 9, 2012, Retrieved July 9, 2012 .
  32. a b Criticism of the new reporting law - private sector can access data. In: taz.de , accessed on January 3, 2018
  33. https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/494344/9b3e3ea9656984aa3519be862fc9063c/Ausektiven-der-Foederalismusreform-I-data.pdf
  34. Jan Grossarth: Address sales: outrage over new reporting law. In: faz.net , July 9, 2012, accessed January 3, 2018
  35. Private data in demand: Town hall provides thousands of information to third parties ( Memento from August 1, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) Newspaper article about the reporting system in Potsdam, Märkische Allgemeine July 28, 2012
  36. Data protectionists criticize the handling of register data at address dealers. In: Heise.de , August 29, 2008
  37. http://www.compliancemagazin.de/markt/kommentare/piratenpartei090712.html
  38. Stefan Krempl: Black-Yellow cuts opt-in for data transfer in the Registration Act. In: heise.de , June 29, 2012, accessed on January 3, 2018
  39. Printed matter 17/10158 of June 27, 2012
  40. "Is Aigner now leaving the registration office?" ( Memento from July 11, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) In: blog.zdf.de
  41. Registration offices are involved in data trading. (No longer available online.) In: tagesschau.de . July 4, 2012, archived from the original on July 7, 2012 ; Retrieved July 4, 2012 .
  42. Cities are allowed to sell their citizens' data. In: sueddeutsche.de . July 7, 2012, Retrieved July 7, 2012 .
  43. a b Data protectionists rebel against new reporting law. In: Spiegel Online . July 7, 2012, Retrieved July 7, 2012 .
  44. a b The hometown should become an address dealer. In: swr.de . July 7, 2012, Retrieved July 7, 2012 .
  45. a b Print 17/10158 from June 27, 2012 (PDF; 273 kB) under letter n)
  46. Stenographic report of the 187th meeting on June 28, 2012 (PDF; 3.0 MB)
  47. ^ Video of the 187th meeting on June 28, 2012 Item 21 Further development of the reporting system
  48. German Bundestag adopts reporting law in 57 seconds. In: morgenpost.de , July 8, 2012, accessed on January 3, 2018
  49. ^ Günther Lachmann: Bundestag sells civil rights in just 57 seconds. In: welt.de , accessed on January 3, 2018
  50. a b Peter Mühlbauer, Florian Rötzer: caught opposition. In: Telepolis. July 9, 2012, accessed July 15, 2012 .
  51. Government caves in after protests against the registration law. In: t-online.de , July 9, 2012, accessed on January 3, 2018
  52. Robert Clausen: Bundestag passes new registration law ( memento from January 24, 2013 in the web archive archive.today ) In: gulli.com , July 8, 2012, accessed on January 3, 2018
  53. a b Addresses for advertising - criticism of the new reporting law. In: spiegel.de , July 5, 2012, accessed on January 3, 2018
  54. a b Miguel Sanches: The "secret" reporting law is followed by a storm of indignation. In: derwesten.de , July 8, 2012, accessed on January 3, 2018
  55. a b c d Trade in resident data - data protection activist Schaar criticizes the Registration Act. In: sueddeutsche.de , July 9, 2012, accessed on January 3, 2018
  56. Selling addresses: Government no longer wants law. In: n-tv.de , July 9, 2012, accessed on January 3, 2018
  57. http://www.spd-net-sh.de/sl/silberstedt/
  58. http://me-magazine.info/2012/07/07/neues-melderecht-wenn-die-eigene-gemeinde-zum-adressenhandler-wird/
  59. a b Registration Act of the Bundestag appalles data protectionists. In: bild.de
  60. Markus Horeld: Data transfer: A law that nobody wants anymore. In: zeit.de , July 9, 2012, accessed on January 3, 2018
  61. http://www.campact.de/melderecht/home
  62. Data transfer - tens of thousands of German citizens protest against the registration law. In: Morgenpost.de , July 9, 2012, accessed on January 3, 2018
  63. Archived copy ( Memento from November 9, 2013 in the Internet Archive )
  64. a b Ingo Pakalski: Registration Act: Controversial change was already known in April. In: golem.de , July 15, 2012, accessed on January 3, 2018
  65. quoted from zdf.de: Archived copy ( Memento from July 11, 2012 in the Internet Archive )
  66. Selling personal data - opposition and young liberals rebel against the registration law. In: sueddeutsche.de , July 7, 2012, accessed on January 3, 2018
  67. a b http://www.tagesschau.de/inland/meldewesen114.html ( Memento from July 11, 2012 in the Internet Archive )
  68. Data protection: Analysis: The reporting law falls on the coalition's feet. ( Memento from October 23, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) In: zeit.de , July 9, 2012, accessed on January 3, 2018
  69. BITKOM on the new registration law ( memento from April 14, 2013 in the web archive archive.today )
  70. BR-489/12 (decision)
  71. Bundestag printed paper 17/12463
  72. BR-Drucksache 144/13 (decision)
  73. Law on the further development of the reporting system (MeldFortG). In: offenesparlament.de , accessed on May 22, 2016
  74. Holger Bleich: Registration Act: The government has long known of controversial changes. In: heise online , July 15, 2012
  75. a b Stefan Krempl, Sven-Olaf Suhl: New Federal Registration Act: Experts call for improvements. In: heise online. May 10, 2012, Retrieved July 9, 2012 .
  76. Achim Sawall: Registration Act: GEZ already receives the data from the registration offices. In: golem.de. July 9, 2012, accessed July 15, 2012 .
  77. ^ Newspaper article Kieler Nachrichten Online ( Memento from July 19, 2012 in the Internet Archive )
  78. Decision of the Federal Cartel Office B 9 - 32/05 (PDF; 54 kB), pp. 12, 40.
  79. See Section 51 of the Federal Registration Act