Data retention

The retention ( VDS ; also minimum data storage or minimum retention period ) is a criminal policy tool that the providers of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications network committed to certain data, the design of them for the establishment, content, amendment or termination levied a contractual relationship of telecommunications services for the purpose of investigating, establishing and prosecuting criminal offenses. The desired storage period goes well beyond the period permitted for purely contractual purposes and is not prompted by contractual purposes such as payroll accounting or the creation of a proof of individual connection at the customer's request, nor by a specific suspicion . The data of all contractual partners of the provider are therefore stored "in reserve" without cause.

The data to be saved in advance (e.g. the telephone numbers and location data of the conversation partners for phone calls, the time and IP address used when using the Internet) allow those who have access to retrospectively analyze previous personal social networks . With the help of the data to be saved in reserve, the communication behavior of each participant in the past can be reconstructed without accessing the communication content. As telecommunications grows , the importance of such analytics in creating personality profiles will grow.

The stated purpose of data retention is to improve the possibility of preventing and prosecuting serious crimes.

The data retention is to be distinguished from the telecommunications monitoring (TKÜ), which also reduces the anonymity on the Internet , but only allows data to be collected for the future from the start of the monitoring measure. In addition, in the case of the TKÜ, the security bodies themselves collect the data from a specific subscriber, while in the case of data retention, data already stored by the providers about the subscriber concerned must be made available to the authorities. The TKÜ primarily records the content of a conversation by listening to or reading e-mails , while data retention is used to determine the source and addressee of a message on the basis of the stored traffic and location data.

Comprehensive overview of the German legal situation

In 2006, all EU member states were obliged to introduce data retention according to an EU directive. In Germany, the law introduced by the grand coalition to reorganize telecommunications surveillance and other covert investigative measures as well as to implement Directive 2006/24 / EC was adopted by the Bundestag on November 9, 2007 and came into force at the beginning of 2008.

In response to mass lawsuits , the German Federal Constitutional Court declared the German data retention regulations to be unconstitutional and null and void in a judgment of March 2, 2010. The ruling obliged German telecommunications providers to delete the data collected up to that point immediately. As a justification, the court stated that the law on the unprovoked storage of extensive data from all users of electronic communication services does not provide for any specific measures for data security and that the barriers to state access to the data are too low. According to the Federal Constitutional Court, the regulation on data retention violates Article 10, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law (GG).

On April 8, 2014, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) declared the EU data retention directive to be invalid as it was incompatible with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union . In Germany, the storage of traffic data is allowed for seven days. Internet service providers are allowed to store the IP addresses of their customers for internal purposes for up to seven days, as the storage is not used for law enforcement purposes. This was decided by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) with its judgment of July 3, 2014 (III ZR 391/13).

A new law on data retention was passed in Germany in October 2015 and came into force on December 18, 2015. The reintroduced storage obligations must be fulfilled by July 1, 2017 at the latest ( Section 150 (13 ) TKG ). Constitutional complaints have been made against this law from many quarters.

On December 21, 2016, the European Court of Justice reiterated that data retention without cause is illegal. The Higher Administrative Court of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia decided on June 22, 2017 that this law violates EU law. The data retention was then "effectively suspended" by the Federal Network Agency. It has been possible to save since July 1, but it does not have to be until a final judicial clarification. After the leap revision to the Federal Administrative Court, the matter for decision is now with the EUGH.

History of telecommunications

Telecommunications originally required the electrical connection of two connections, which was made by hand. The connection was noted so that the billing could be based on it.

With the introduction of the automatic switching centers in the first half of the 20th century, the connections were established automatically, connection counters only added the charges, without recording the date, time and connections involved. Now security authorities (police, public prosecutor, secret services) were no longer able to understand the communication behavior of suspects. Therefore catch circuits were necessary.

The use of modern computers as a switching device from the beginning of the 1980s made charge meters obsolete. For each communication process, the computer stored a data record with the data relevant for billing. As a side effect, this made it possible to provide proof of individual connections on telephone bills. This was seen as an advantage for the consumer, who was able to control the billing. Thus he could z. B. defend against false invoices more effectively. The interception circuit became obsolete, but the phone numbers of the connections involved were now recorded automatically. The fact that such a recording endangers fundamental rights, for example when the data is used by investigative authorities and secret services, as well as due to the increasing amounts of data due to further technical developments, was criticized at this early stage.

However, telecommunications providers are only allowed to save the data required for billing. This does not include, for example, location data, IP addresses, e-mail connection data or data from prepaid and flat-rate customers. In 1996 the Federal Council therefore called for the introduction of "minimum periods" for the storage of connection data for the first time. The authority u. a. the law enforcement authorities to query connection data run empty if the desired data has already been deleted.

Data retention in telecommunications

In the political discussion, the term data retention is now used synonymously for the storage of telecommunications data for law enforcement purposes: Telecommunications providers are to be obliged to store traffic data of their customers, location data and unique device identifications for a certain period of time ( minimum storage period , 6 months) so that the police and intelligence services can access them can. This particularly concerns those traffic data that do not have to be saved for billing purposes (e.g. for flat rate and prepaid tariffs, incoming connections, mobile phone location, IP addresses, email connection data). Exceptions are the "content of communication, data about accessed Internet pages and data from electronic mail services ".

As an encroachment on constitutionally protected fundamental rights such as the secrecy of telecommunications and the right to informational self-determination , data retention is extremely controversial. Critics also argue that the protection of informants for journalists is restricted and that critical reporting is made more difficult, which in fact amounts to a restriction of freedom of the press . The confidentiality obligation of doctors and lawyers as well as the pastoral care and confessional secrets of ordained clergy are affected.

According to previous law, the providers must delete the traffic data immediately after the connection is terminated, unless they need the data for billing purposes. For example, location data, IP addresses in the case of flat rates and e-mail connection data are not required for billing purposes. Billing data had to be deleted by sending the invoice until 2007 at the customer's request. By using flat rates, storage can also be avoided entirely. In a judgment of December 7, 2005, the Darmstadt Regional Court prohibited T-Online from storing traffic data beyond the duration of the connection. The Federal Data Protection Commissioner then enforced that IP addresses - depending on the provider - are no longer stored or for a maximum of seven days, as an overview of the working group on data retention shows.

In a resolution passed on February 17, 2005, the 15th German Bundestag expressly rejected a minimum storage period and thus the storage of traffic data without cause. He called on the federal government to act in this way at the EU level as well .

On the other hand, on February 15, 2006 , the 16th German Bundestag asked the Federal Government to support the so-called compromise proposal for an EU directive on data retention in the Council of the European Union . The decision was made with the votes of the grand coalition consisting of CDU , CSU and SPD against the votes of FDP , Die Linke and Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen .

Reason

The data retention is justified with the need to fight crime and fight terrorism . In order to justify the directive on data retention, reference is made to the considerable increase in electronic communications in recent years. Both scientific research and practical experience in several Member States have shown that data on the use of electronic communications are a necessary and effective investigative tool for law enforcement, especially in serious cases such as organized crime and terrorism. It must therefore be ensured that this data is available to the law enforcement authorities for a certain period of time. Because of new business models such as flat rates, prepaid and free services, traffic data are not stored by the operators to the same extent as in previous years. This makes it difficult for the authorities to carry out their duties in relation to the prevention and control of organized crime and terrorism. Criminals could communicate with each other without fear that law enforcement agencies could track them down by analyzing the data.

Specifically, it is argued that telecommunications data made a decisive contribution to the investigation of the Madrid attacks in 2004. All available means should be used to protect the lives of potential victims of terrorist attacks and other crimes. Data retention is also necessary to combat child abuse, organized crime, right-wing radicalism and phishing .

Based on figures from the Federal Criminal Police Office , the clearing-up rate would in the best case increase by 0.006 percentage points, see illustration under “ Disproportionately low benefit ”.

Furthermore, a study by the Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law shows "that the elimination of data retention cannot be shown as the cause of movements in the clearance rate."

IP data retention

The IP data retention is a variation of data retention. This is not saved who who when called or e-mail wrote, or at which location it when was, but used at what time the IP address for an Internet connection. The SPD discussion group "Network Policy and Digital Society" Henning Tillmann, Alvar Freude and Jan Mönikes also favored 80-day IP data retention at times, but now officially supports a motion by the Jusos at the SPD federal party conference, which speaks out against any data retention the application commission has not taken up a compromise and thus continues to reject data retention in the broadest sense, which would allow movement and communication profiles. The inclusion of IP data retention in the SPD's program could thus be prevented at the proposal level.

Members of the Chaos Computer Club and the working group for data retention, Michael Konken, the chairman of the German Association of Journalists, the New Judges' Association , the Association of the German Internet Industry (eco) and lawyers speak out against IP data retention because they believe the IP - Data retention would inevitably lead to the "tracing of every click and every input by the owner over days, weeks or months" would be possible. With an assignment of IP address and identity that can be viewed by the state upon judicial request, “even the content of a person's telecommunications can be traced, i.e. who was looking for what on the Internet, was interested in what and what article was published.” The IP address allows also the determination of the sender of e-mails and the creation of approximate movement profiles. Despite alleged anonymity due to an allegedly missing IP data retention so far, it was often possible to investigate cybercrime: “The investigation of cybercrime is already successful in most cases.” The critics warn: “IP data retention would undermine the protection of journalistic sources and thus fundamentally damage the freedom of the press. It would also undermine lawyer, doctor, pastoral, counseling and other professional secrets. If dangerous or endangered people can no longer seek help without fear of disadvantage, this prevents meaningful prevention and can even endanger the life and limb of the innocent. "

To combat cybercrime, the critics demand as an alternative in their letter: “The establishment of high-performance special police and public prosecutor's offices to prosecute computer crime seems sensible. Particularly qualified police officers and public prosecutors are also required for these tasks, the development of a professional profile "computer criminal", the development of standardized administrative procedures on a national level and the development of standards for IT forensics on an international level. "

Another argument in favor of IP data retention is the help in medical emergencies for people who are e.g. B. out of desperation or confusion are not able to enter their contact details in an online form.

It should also be noted that sole IP data retention is not a means against illegal, anonymous Internet offers. Offers in certain foreign countries ( offshore servers ), as well as on Darknets , which represent overlay networks with great anonymity, like Freenet from version 0.7, would hardly be influenced by IP data retention.

If there were no IP data retention and no further control measures on the Internet, normal Internet users with dynamic IP addresses would be almost completely anonymous . This would mean that copyrights , data protection rights and other content rights on the Internet would no longer be enforceable, since practically no perpetrator could be identified.

The fact that the assignment of IP addresses and connections is saved without cause is often criticized for the fact that it could also be used to warn people who “have neither a computer nor a DSL router or who were demonstrably not online at the time in question”.

The working group for data retention (organized by FoeBuD e.V. among others ) advocates that the storage and access of the assignment between the IP address and the subscriber may only take place in "suspected cases" and "only during the existing internet connection". The “approach of recording telecommunication connections only when a criminal offense is suspected” is “preserving fundamental rights”.

On the occasion of a ruling by the Federal Constitutional Court on the assignment of dynamic IP addresses to subscriber data , the complainant Patrick Breyer commented positively on the concept of very strong anonymity on the Internet , which basically only allows identification in special individual cases and not by storing data in advance: "It It is grossly disproportionate to identify all telecommunications customers without any reason, just because a fraction of this data could be useful for 'combating abuse'. … Our society needs anonymous telecommunication so that everyone can call for advice or help over the phone, report criminal offenses and inform the press of grievances without fear of disadvantages. "

With this ruling on February 24, 2012, the Federal Constitutional Court approved IP data retention for a transitional period up to June 30, 2013 at the latest: “In addition, Section 113 (1) sentence 1 TKG does not authorize the assignment of dynamic IP addresses. For a transitional period, until June 30, 2013 at the latest, the provision may be applied regardless of these provisions. ... If these requirements were to take effect immediately, in numerous cases, until new retrieval regulations of the specialist law were issued, neither information on telecommunications numbers would be possible nor dynamic IP addresses could be identified.

In September 2011, Sebastian Nerz , then chairman of the Pirate Party Germany , rejected IP data retention: “It's not about a small-scale discussion, as the SPD apparently wants to lead, as to whether IP addresses are part of the inventory or connection data . "The Federal Data Protection Commissioner Peter Schaar warned that Internet providers such as Google log every click based on the IP address and that the assignment of IP addresses is therefore" highly sensitive ".

Data retention draft of the Federal Ministry of Justice

After the BVerfG rejected the current law on data retention in March 2010 as extremely questionable and partly unconstitutional, Commissioner Cecilia Malmström , who is now responsible, has announced changes to the EU directive, on the regulation of which the national law on data retention is based. Federal Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger (FDP) would like to wait for a corresponding change, but is increasingly urged by Federal Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich (CSU) and the responsible bodies in Brussels to finally implement current EU law into national constitutional law. The Minister of Justice, who once successfully took action against data retention before the BVerfG as a plaintiff, sees civil rights as threatened by state data collections anyway and therefore presented only a very narrow regulation in 2011, which provides for an event-related storage obligation, in which only the storage of traffic data of those persons who have given sufficient cause to do so.

The draft bill of the Federal Ministry of Justice (BMJ) on "Securing existing traffic data and ensuring inventory data information on the Internet" provides for the event-related storage of data available at telecommunications companies ("freezing"). By order of the law enforcement authorities in suspected cases, the data is "temporarily saved". The law enforcement authorities' assumption that they can successfully use the data to prosecute criminal offenses is sufficient as a threshold for “freezing”. After a judicial decision, these frozen data can then be made available to the investigating authorities (“thawing”). Access to the data is therefore only possible with the decision of a judge (§ 100 g II sentence 1 StPO). In addition, so-called "inventory data information" is to be made possible in particular to combat child pornography on the Internet. Inventory data information is understood to be the communication from the telecommunications company about which subscriber was assigned a specific Internet protocol address already known to the police authorities at a specific point in time. For this purpose, the Internet protocol address (IP address) of a specific person (name and address) is assigned at a specific time and stored for seven days. The storage is therefore aimed at who has moved behind an already known IP address. In order to comply with the requirements of the Federal Constitutional Court, the subscriber will be notified (Section 101 (4) to (8) StPO).

Outside the FDP, however, this draft law is criticized as unacceptable and so the CDU and CSU increased the pressure on the Minister of Justice, as Interior Minister Friedrich (CSU) submitted a draft law from his house that ignored all compromise offers made by the Union side in the meantime.

European directive

→ Main article : Directive 2006/24 / EC on data retention

History of origin

In the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 7 reads: "Everyone has the right to their communications being respected" and Article 8: "Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning them."

It has long been discussed whether and to what extent the Council of the European Union can oblige the member states to retain telecommunications data by means of a framework decision (for which there was not the required unanimity in the EU) or whether such a decision requires the consent of the European Parliament , for example on an EC directive .

On December 14, 2005 the European Parliament voted with 378 votes in favor, 197 against and 30 abstentions for the controversial data retention directive. The majority of the two largest parliamentary groups, Christian Democrats and Conservatives (EPP-ED), with 39 votes against and 10 abstentions, and the Socialists (PES) with 24 against and 2 abstentions , voted for the draft . The political groups of the Greens and Free European Alliance (Greens / EFA) and Left and Nordic Green Left (GUE / NGL) voted against, while 25 MEPs from the Group of Liberals and Democrats (ALDE) voted for and 37 against the draft. There were only three months between the presentation of the draft directive and the decisive reading. This makes it the fastest legislative process in EU history to date. Critics criticize the lack of an opportunity to debate.

On February 21, 2006 the Council voted by a majority for the directive without further discussion by the interior and justice ministers; the representatives of Ireland and Slovakia voted against the directive. Opponents of this decision, such as the Irish Justice Minister, questioned the legal basis; On July 6, 2006, Ireland brought an action against the Directive (Az. C-301/06) before the European Court of Justice . In support of this, Ireland stated that data retention would improve law enforcement and should therefore not be decided by way of an EC directive. On February 10, 2009, the European Court of Justice dismissed the case. The right legal basis had been chosen because the directive primarily serves to protect providers from different storage obligations within the EU. In its judgment, however, the Court of Justice made it clear that "the action brought by Ireland relates solely to the choice of legal basis and not to a possible violation of fundamental rights as a result of interference with the right to privacy by Directive 2006/24."

In 2010 the Irish High Court announced that it would submit the question to the ECJ as to whether data retention was compatible with EU fundamental rights.

German politicians often point out that in the negotiations on the directive Germany negotiated significant improvements over the original draft. This concerns the points of minimum storage period, unsuccessful call attempts and location data. The approval of the compromise proposal finally decided was necessary in order to prevent further storage obligations. Germany is now obliged to implement the directive. Ireland's action for annulment does not remove the obligation to implement. In the implementation, Germany did not go beyond the minimum requirements of the directive.

In June 2013, revelations made by US citizen Edward Snowden revealed that the US operates a giant wiretapping system called PRISM and the UK operates one called Tempora . The Echelon system had previously been known. On July 9, 2013, the ECJ was negotiating the retention of data; Ireland and Austria put questions to him. The ECJ has informed the parties, u. a. the EU Commission, presented unusually sharp questions beforehand. The Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) reported on June 26, 2013 that it had the questions.

domestic market

The directive is further justified by the fact that different rules in the Member States with regard to the retention of traffic data hamper the internal market for electronic communications services, since the requirements of service providers are different from country to country.

Limited scope

In order to prove the proportionality of the data retention, its restricted scope is stated. Telecommunication content would not be recorded. Motion profiles would not be created. Connection data would already be saved for billing purposes before the departure. State access to the data takes place only in individual cases and is subject to high requirements.

Repeal of the data retention directive by the European Court of Justice (ECJ)

With its judgment of April 8, 2014, C-293/12 and C-594/12, the European Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) adopted the Data Retention Directive (2006/24 / EC) for violating the fundamental rights set out in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights (GRC) to respect for private and family life (Art 7 GRC), the fundamental right to the protection of personal data (Art 8 GRC) and because of a violation of the principle of proportionality (Art 52 GRC).

According to the established case law of the ECJ, the protection of the fundamental right to respect for private life requires that the exceptions to the protection of personal data and its restriction be limited to what is absolutely necessary (Rn 52). The protection of personal data is of particular importance for the fundamental right to respect for private life. The Union rules on data retention must provide clear and precise rules on the scope and application of the measure in question and ensure effective protection of personal data against misuse, unauthorized access and unauthorized use.

These proportionality requirements are not met by the data retention policy. On the one hand, there is no restriction of any kind on the group of people whose data should be stored. On the other hand, the data retention directive does not provide for any restriction on the use of data to specific serious criminal offenses that could justify an interference with the fundamental rights concerned. Rather, it leaves their determination to the national regulations of the member states. Neither is the number of people who have access to the retained data limited to what is strictly necessary, nor does this access require approval by an independent court. Furthermore, the Data Retention Directive does not guarantee that the data must be irrevocably deleted after the storage period has expired (Rn 67) and it also does not guarantee that the retained data must be stored in the Union, which alone ensures effective control of the data security measures ordered by the directive (Rn 68).

The ECJ thus comes to the conclusion that the Union legislature, when adopting the Data Retention Directive (2006/24 / EC), exceeded the limits that it set to maintain the principle of proportionality with regard to the encroachment on the fundamental right to respect for private and private life Family life and the fundamental right to protection of personal data.

The cancellation of the data retention directive as invalid has immediate effect in the entire territory of the European Union. However, this does not affect the validity of the national implementing laws.

According to the Working Group on Data Retention, the Legal Service of the EU Council informed the EU Justice Ministers in a non-public council meeting on 6/7. June 2014 communicated that the statements of the European Court of Justice in section 59 of its ruling on data retention “suggest that general, unconditional storage of data is no longer possible in the future”. A legal opinion on behalf of the European Green Group comes to the conclusion that, according to the judgment, general and indiscriminate data retention is inadmissible. This also applies to national laws on the retention of telecommunications data as well as to EU measures for the retention of passenger data, payment data and fingerprints.

Implementation in Germany

On December 10, 2015, the law introducing a storage requirement and a maximum storage period for traffic data was passed. The legislative changes contained therein have been effective since December 18, 2015.

The "Law for the new regulation of telecommunications surveillance and other covert investigative measures as well as for the implementation of Directive 2006/24 / EC" regulated data retention from January 1, 2008 to March 2, 2010.

Adoption of the law in 2007

On November 9, 2007, the members of the German Bundestag passed the law in a roll-call vote with 366 yes-votes, these came exclusively from members of the CDU / CSU and SPD parties. On November 30, 2007 the Federal Council approved data retention. On December 26, 2007, Federal President Horst Köhler signed the controversial law on telephone surveillance. On December 31, 2007 it was announced in the Federal Law Gazette.

The SPD members of the Bundestag Christoph Strässer , Niels Annen , Axel Berg , Lothar Binding , Marco Bülow , Siegmund Ehrmann , Gabriele Frechen , Martin Gerster , Renate Gradistanac , Angelika Graf , Gabriele Groneberg , Gabriele Hiller-Ohm , Christel Humme , Josip Juratovic , Anette Kramme , Ernst Kranz , Jürgen Kucharczyk , Katja Mast , Matthias Miersch , Rolf Mützenich , Andrea Nahles , Ernst Dieter Rossmann , Bernd Scheelen , Ewald Schurer , Wolfgang Spanier and Ditmar Staffelt issued a declaration on November 9, 2007 in accordance with Section 31 of the Rules of Procedure of the German Bundestag submitted why they voted for the draft law:

“Despite serious political and constitutional concerns, we will ultimately approve the draft law for the following reasons. First. In principle, we agree with the approach of the Federal Government and the majority of our parliamentary group to the effect that the unstable security situation, which has arisen in particular as a result of international terrorism and its consequences, also needs new answers in Germany. [...] Approval is also justifiable because it can be assumed that in the foreseeable future a decision by the Federal Constitutional Court will possibly declare unconstitutional elements to be ineffective. "

- German Bundestag

The domestic political spokesman for the SPD parliamentary group does not agree with this justification:

“Data retention has relatively little to do with counterterrorism. I would be in favor of data retention even if there was no terrorism at all. "

- Dieter Wiefelspütz

Content of the law

According to the law, the following six data had to be recorded and could be stored for a maximum of seven months:

1. Store providers of phone service, including cellular and internet phone service
   1. the call number or other identifier of the calling and the called connection as well as in the case of switching or redirection of each additional connection involved
   2. the start and end of the connection by date and time, specifying the underlying time zone
   3. in cases in which different services can be used within the scope of the telephone service, information on the service used
   4. in the case of mobile telephone services also:
      1. the international identifier for mobile subscribers for the calling and the called connection
      2. the international identifier of the calling and called terminal
      3. the designation of the radio cells used by the calling and the called connection at the beginning of the connection
      4. in the case of prepaid anonymous services, also the first activation of the service according to the date, time and name of the radio cell
   5. in the case of internet telephone services, also the internet protocol address of the calling and the called line
2. This applies accordingly to the transmission of a short, multimedia or similar message; the times when the message was sent and received must be saved.
3. Save providers of electronic mail (e-mail) services
   1. when a message is sent, the identifier of the electronic mailbox and the Internet protocol address of the sender and the identifier of the electronic mailbox of each recipient of the message,
   2. When a message is received in an electronic mailbox, the identifier of the electronic mailbox of the sender and recipient of the message and the Internet protocol address of the sending telecommunications system,
   3. when accessing the electronic mailbox, its ID and the Internet protocol address of the person calling it up,
   4. the times of the use of the service named in numbers 1 to 3 by date and time, stating the underlying time zone.
4. Store Internet access service providers
   1. the Internet protocol address assigned to the subscriber for Internet use
   2. a unique identifier for the connection via which the Internet is used
   3. the beginning and the end of Internet use under the assigned Internet protocol address according to the date and time, stating the underlying time zone
5. Anyone who provides telecommunication services and changes the information to be saved in accordance with this provision is obliged to save the original and the new information as well as the time when this information was rewritten by date and time, stating the underlying time zone.
6. Providers of mobile radio networks for the public save data on the names of the radio cells, from which the geographical location of the respective radio cell and the main beam direction of the radio antenna result.

The European Commission, among others, is of the opinion that the storage obligation only includes “services generally provided for a fee” (see also Section 3 No. 24 TKG). Services that are not funded by their users or by advertisers are not subject to storage. The black and red federal government took a different view. Since January 1, 2009, all providers could be prosecuted for an administrative offense if they did not comply with the storage obligation.

Anyone who saved traffic data in advance without being obliged to do so was acting improperly and could be fined up to 10,000 euros by the Federal Network Agency (section 149 (1) no. 17 TKG).

Only connection data stored in advance could be used and transmitted

1. to prosecute criminal offenses,
2. to avert significant threats to public safety
3. to fulfill the legal tasks of the constitutional protection authorities of the federal and state governments, the federal intelligence service and the military counterintelligence service to the responsible bodies
4. to provide information about the identity of telecommunications and Internet users in accordance with Section 113 TKG.

Due to interim orders from the Federal Constitutional Court, however, the use of data was only permitted under more stringent conditions than those provided for in the law.

In the area of ​​criminal prosecution, access to traffic data for the prosecution of “serious” or “telecommunications-based crimes” was permitted ( Section 100g StPO ). This includes, for example, copyright infringements committed in Internet file sharing networks. In 2008 there were 8,316 investigative proceedings in Germany in which traffic data were collected in accordance with Section 100 g of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A total of 13,904 surveys were ordered. This does not include surveys carried out by the police for preventive purposes and the surveys carried out by the intelligence services that are not controlled by the judiciary.

Private rights holders did not have direct access to the stored data. But you could file a criminal complaint and then view the investigation files.

Inventory data

With the law on data retention, the identification requirement for users of telephone numbers has been extended to users of all permanent connection identifiers ( Section 111 TKG). This includes telephone connections, cell phone cards and DSL connections. E-mail providers are exempt from the identification requirement; However, if they collect data about the identity of their users, they must also save this information for the purpose of providing information to authorities. Anonymous e-mail services remain legal, as do anonymous WLAN Internet access and telephone booths.

The providers of the services affected by the identification obligation have to save a series of data in a database before activating the user:

1. assigned phone number or email address
2. Name and address of the owner
3. Start date of contract
4. Date of birth of the owner
5. for landline connections, the address of the connection

The providers are entitled, but not obliged, to check the accuracy of the information provided by the customer, for example using an identity card. The data will be deleted one to two years after the end of the contract ( Section 95 (3) TKG). In order to fulfill their legal tasks, a large number of bodies can request inventory data information ( Section 112 TKG): Courts, law enforcement authorities, police enforcement authorities of the federal and state levels for the purpose of hazard prevention, customs criminal investigation offices and customs investigation offices for purposes of criminal proceedings, customs criminal authorities for the preparation and implementation of measures Section 39 of the Foreign Trade Act, Federal and State Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Military Counter-Intelligence Service, Federal Intelligence Service, Emergency Call Centers, Federal Financial Supervisory Authority, Customs Administration to combat illegal work.

In addition to this customer database, providers of telecommunications services are obliged to provide individual information about inventory data ( Section 113 TKG). This regulation makes it possible, for example, to ask an Internet access provider which customer was assigned a dynamically assigned IP address at a specific point in time. Passwords, PINs and PUKs can also be requested. Information is to be provided for the prosecution of criminal offenses and administrative offenses, for the defense against threats to public safety and order and for the fulfillment of the statutory tasks of the constitutional protection authorities of the federal and state levels, the Federal Intelligence Service and the military counterintelligence service.

Constitutional Complaints 2007 to 2010

Handover of power of attorney on February 29, 2008 at the Federal Constitutional Court

On December 31, 2007, a collective constitutional complaint initiated by the data retention working group against data retention ( § 113a , § 113b TKG) was submitted to the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe (Az. 1 BvR 256/08). In connection with the more than 150-page complaint, an application was also made to suspend the data collection immediately because of "obvious unconstitutionality" by means of an interim order.

For the first time in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany, 34,939 complainants hired a lawyer to lodge a constitutional complaint. Since the registration and evaluation of the powers of attorney could not be completed in time, the complaint was initially submitted on behalf of eight first complainants. On February 29, 2008, most of the powers of attorney were finally handed over to the Federal Constitutional Court. All powers of attorney had been available to the court since mid-March 2008 (Az. 1 BvR 256/08 and 1 BvR 508/08).

FDP politicians around Burkhard Hirsch filed a separate constitutional complaint against the law (Az. 1 BvR 263/08). In the proceedings with the file numbers 1 BvR 586/08 and 2 BvE 1/08, Prof. Dr. Jens-Peter Schneider filed a constitutional complaint and organ complaint on behalf of many members of the Bundestag of the Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen parliamentary group. Another constitutional complaint was submitted by the ver.di union (Az. 1 BvR 1571/08).

On March 11, 2008, at the request of the eight first complainants in proceedings 1 BvR 256/08, the Federal Constitutional Court severely restricted the law on mass storage of telephone and Internet connection data by means of an interim order . Although the storage obligation for communication companies was not suspended, the disclosure of the data to law enforcement authorities was only permitted to investigate serious crimes. Before the collected data can be accessed, there must be a fact-based suspicion, and other means of investigation must be made significantly more difficult or futile. In addition, the Federal Government should report to the Federal Constitutional Court by September 1, 2008 on the practical effects of data retention.

At the beginning of January 2009, a defense brief, written for the federal government, was published by the working group on data storage, according to which data storage is an object that is beyond review by the Federal Constitutional Court on the basis of the provisions of the Basic Law because it complies with the mandatory requirements of the relevant EU Guideline.

The Federal Constitutional Court sent a catalog of questions in April 2009. See also : Expert opinions / statements .

On December 15, 2009, the Federal Constitutional Court negotiated the constitutional complaints against data retention.

The judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court on the constitutional complaints was pronounced on March 2, 2010. The Constitutional Court declared the provisions on data retention to be unconstitutional and the corresponding provisions null and void: The law in its version at that time violated Article 10 (1) of the Basic Law. It is true that data retention is not fundamentally incompatible with the Basic Law; With regard to the telecommunications secrecy of the citizens concerned, however, a prerequisite is that the data is only stored decentrally and secured with special measures; the direct use of the data by the authorities must be limited to precisely specified cases of the most serious crime and serious dangers; The challenged law does not meet these requirements. Indirect use, as z. B. is necessary for a connection investigation via an IP address, the court considers admissible for all criminal offenses, in certain cases even for administrative offenses (guideline 6). According to the ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court, until the reintroduction of data retention in 2015 in Germany, it could no longer be stored without cause, as there was no legal basis for this until then.

Discussion following the judgment of the BVerfG

In preparation for a new regulation, Federal Justice Minister Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger published a key issues paper in January 2011, which essentially provides for two measures: on the one hand, an event-related backup of existing traffic data as a result of a "backup order" (" quick freeze "), on the other hand, a seven-day retention of data Any Internet connection to enable inventory data information (in particular via the assignment of IP addresses to people). The attempt to reintroduce data retention was rejected by the data retention working group , the German Association of Journalists, the Chaos Computer Club , the New Judges' Association and the Association of the German Internet Industry (eco) . The Federal Bar Association spoke out in favor of the quick-freeze procedure proposed in the key issues paper, but against comprehensive data retention.

In February 2011, the Scientific Service of the German Bundestag stated in a legal opinion on the "Compatibility of the Directive on the Retention of Data with the European Charter of Fundamental Rights" that "there is no doubt that this directive cannot be rewritten that would ensure compatibility with the Charter of Fundamental Rights." It has been shown that "the success of data retention is very limited". Due to the only “marginal” improvement in the clearance rate due to the data retention, the report comes to the conclusion: “At least the purpose and means are not in a balanced relationship here.” Another analysis by the Scientific Service in March 2011 came to the conclusion that the introduction of a Data retention has not led to a significant change in the detection rate of criminal offenses in any EU country.

In April 2011, the EU Commission announced significant changes to the EU data retention directive because it had not achieved the goal of standardization. At the same time, she called on the Federal Republic of Germany to "as soon as possible" enact a law to implement the current directive. Otherwise, there is a risk of proceedings for violation of the EU treaty.

Federal Justice Minister Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger presented a new draft law in June 2011. According to the key issues paper of January 2011, a seven-day retention period of data for every internet connection is planned in order to enable inventory data information (in particular about the assignment of IP addresses to persons). Fourteen personalities from civil society, “Internet community”, journalism, law and science criticized the draft law in an open letter to the members of the FDP parliamentary group in the German Bundestag. The project largely means the end of anonymity on the Internet, is not necessary for criminal prosecution and violates the election manifesto and several resolutions of the FDP against data retention.

On June 16, 2011, the EU Commission requested a statement from the Federal Ministry of Justice as the first stage of infringement proceedings due to the failure to implement data retention.

In the course of the attacks in Norway in 2011 , the CSU politicians Hans-Peter Uhl and Beate Merk once again called for the introduction of data retention in order to be better equipped against such acts of terrorism. In this context, Uhl also spoke out in favor of unjustified data retention that went beyond the original plans. These demands were sharply criticized by the SPD, the Greens, the FDP and the Left Party. It is “downright cynical” and “populist” to use the attacks for the “domestic political agenda” of the Union, and in addition, data retention in Norway could not prevent the attacks. In Hamburg, the Federal Data Protection Commissioner presented guidelines for storage periods for private providers.

In September 2012, the members of the German Jurists' Conference spoke out in favor of the implementation of the EU Directive 2006/24 / EC and thus the introduction of data retention at the 69th meeting.

Lawsuit by the EU Commission

After the federal government failed to transpose the European directive into German law despite repeated requests, the EU Commission filed a lawsuit with the European Court of Justice at the end of May 2012 . She argued that Germany's refusal had negative consequences for the EU internal market and that the investigative work of the German police in serious crimes would be hindered. After the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg rejected the data retention directive in 2014, the Commission withdrew its action against Germany.

The Federal Republic of Germany would have had to pay a daily penalty payment of 315,036.54 euros until the directive was transferred. This would be one of the highest sums the Commission has ever asked for in a home affairs procedure. The total is calculated using a formula that takes into account the size of the member state and the severity of the violation (penalty range for Germany: 13,436 to 807,786 euros).

Renewed adoption in 2015

In October 2015, the agreed parliament for the bill the federal government for the introduction of a data retention and maximum retention period for traffic data , which on 16 October 2015 by the Bundestag was decided. The Federal Council approved the law on November 6, 2015, signed by the Federal President on December 10, 2015 and announced in the Federal Law Gazette on December 17, 2015 . The law obliges telecommunications companies to store the following data no later than 18 months after December 18, 2015:

• Location data of the participants of all mobile phone calls at the beginning of the call, to be saved for 4 weeks;
• Location data when starting mobile Internet use, to be stored for 4 weeks;
• Telephone numbers , time and duration of all telephone calls , to be saved for 10 weeks;
• Call numbers, sending and receiving times of all SMS messages , to be saved for 10 weeks;
• The assigned IP addresses of all Internet users as well as the time and duration of Internet use are stored for 10 weeks.

The data must be stored in Germany and deleted after the prescribed period. Except in the case of imminent danger, a previously issued judicial order is required to surrender the data to law enforcement agencies or to avert danger .

Opponents of the new law criticize its violation of fundamental rights and have announced an action before the Federal Constitutional Court .

Constitutional complaints from 2015

Since 2015, several constitutional complaints have been filed against the new edition of data retention (new name: introduction of a storage requirement and maximum storage period for traffic data ).

1. Already on December 18, 2015, the law firm Müller Müller Rössner filed the first constitutional complaint (Az. 1 BvR 3156/15). The 22 complainants included the former pirate politician Martin Delius , the Bundestag member Tabea Rößner ( Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen ) and the Berlin-Brandenburg regional association of the German Association of Journalists (DJV).

2. Not long afterwards, on December 28, 2015, lawyer André Byrla from the Berlin law firm Northon filed a constitutional complaint (Az. 1 BvR 17/16). He stated that he also represented doctors and lawyers in addition to private individuals in these proceedings, and criticized that the "precautionary storage of telecommunications data of all citizens without cause means a considerable encroachment on the secrecy of telecommunications and the protection of personal privacy due to its range and intensity".

3. On January 18, 2016, Nico Lumma , Valentina Kerst and Jan Kuhlen from the SPD-affiliated association D64 (Center for Digital Progress eV), represented by Prof. Niko Härting, lodged a complaint, although their own parliamentary group for the law had voted (Az. 1 BvR 141/16).

4. On January 27, 2016, the FDP submitted its complaint (Az. 1 BvR 229/16). Their deputy federal chairman, Wolfgang Kubicki, said: "In France, during the terrible attacks in January and November, we could see that the unprovoked data storage was ineffective on this issue." Other complainants are the former Federal Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger and the party chairman Christian Lindner . A short version of the complaint was published.

5. At the beginning of May 2016, the Bavarian SPD member of the state parliament Florian Ritter , represented by the Munich law firm Wächtler und Kollegen, lodged a constitutional complaint. In his lawsuit, Ritter also particularly opposes access by the security authorities of the federal states to the stored data as part of preventive measures. "In such cases, the data is accessed without any suspicion, without cause, without judicial reservation, without any chance for those concerned to ever be informed about this monitoring and without any possibility of legal protection."

6-9 At the beginning of September Konstantin von Notz and Jan Philipp Albrecht submitted their complaint together with 16 other members of the Bundestag from Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen (including the parliamentary group chairmen Katrin Göring-Eckardt and Anton Hofreiter as well as the chairwoman of the Bundestag legal committee, Renate Künast ).

According to the Federal Constitutional Court, three further constitutional complaints were filed between January 27, 2016 and November 28, 2016. Only the file numbers of these are known to the public: Az. 1 BvR 847/16, Az. 1 BvR 1258/1, Az. 1 BvR 1560/16, Az. 1 BvR 2023/16. (One of these file numbers is part of the B90 / Greens complaint.)

10. On November 28, 2016, an alliance coordinated by Digitalcourage and the working group on data storage submitted a constitutional complaint (Az. 1 BvR 2683/16). The complainants include the German Association of Journalists (DJV), the International League for Human Rights (ILMR) and the mailbox.org company, 20 prominent personalities from various areas of society, including the writer Juli Zeh , ver.di boss Frank Bsirske , who Vice-President of the Bundestag Petra Pau ( Die Linke ), the songwriter and kangaroo chronicle author Marc-Uwe Kling , Katharina Nocun from the advisory board of the Whistleblower-Netzwerk e. V., the Jesuit priest, economist and social ethicist Friedhelm Hengsbach , the lawyer Julia Hesse from the FDP-affiliated LOAD e. V. and Patrick Breyer , parliamentary group leader of the Pirate Party in Schleswig-Holstein. Internet entrepreneur Peer Heinlein is also there personally. The legal representative is Meinhard Starostik , who was successful in 2010 with his constitutional complaint against the first data retention. In terms of content, this complaint applies. a. the point of the monitoring accounts raised by the Federal Constitutional Court. More than 30,000 people supported the complaint online. It is public in full.

11 . On December 19, 2016, a lawyer from Bavaria filed a constitutional complaint (Az: 1 BvR 2840/16) In terms of content, he continues the point of the monitoring total accounting and comes to the conclusion that with the current expansion of the data retention, it lists an all-encompassing orientation of official data collections criminal procedural measures mean. The severity of the interference results only to a small extent from the current laws, but only from the interventions of the investigative authorities that are inevitably followed. This all-encompassing technical construct, the alignment of non-official or official data collections to criminal procedural measures should make it clear to every citizen that resistance to this legal system is pointless. The citizen turns from a responsible citizen who respects the legal system in free decision to the animal that fears this legal system and inevitably submits to it. Modern means of communication such as cell phones would become electronic shackles. He also held the Federal Constitutional Court responsible for this development of data retention, because with its judgment on the tax CD (Az: 2 BvR 2101/09) it gave the investigative authorities every freedom to access information for criminal proceedings. Information that is actually not usable because it was obtained illegally could be washed clean by tactical investigative intermediate steps. The brief is publicly available. The complaint of the lawyer from Bavaria (Az: 1 BvR 2840/16) was not accepted without a reason. He has now brought a state liability suit against Germany under Union law at the LG-Berlin (AZ: 28 O 45 2/17). The Union law state liability suit was referred to the LG-Karlsruhe Az: 10 O 39/18. In these proceedings, the Federal Republic of Germany is represented by the Federal Constitutional Court, which is represented by its President. The not yet legally binding judgment LG-Karlsruhe Az: 10 O 39/18 is publicly available.

Higher Administrative Court Münster 2017

On April 25, 2016, the Internet association Eco, together with the Munich Internet provider SpaceNet AG, filed a lawsuit at the Cologne Administrative Court on the initiative of its chairman Sebastian von Bomhard , and an urgent application was made at the same time. The author of the lawsuit and the urgent motion, Matthias Bäcker , Professor of Public Law at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, justified this with the fact that, unlike constitutional complaints, which were subject to a limited examination framework, the entire applicable law could be considered before the administrative court , including the case law of the ECJ that has been in force since December 2016. The urgent application was initially rejected by a decision of January 25, 2017, but the applicants were successful in the subsequent appeal against the decision before the Higher Administrative Court for the State of North Rhine-Westphalia in Münster. With a decision of June 22, 2017, the urgent application was granted - the Higher Administrative Court thus confirmed the incompatibility of German legislation with European case law. As a result, the Federal Network Agency suspended the obligation to retain data under the law that came into force on July 1, 2017, until a lawsuit in the main proceedings was decided.

Administrative Court Cologne April 2018

In its decision, the Cologne Administrative Court states that the person obliged under Section 113a TKG, Deutsche Telekom, is not obliged under Section 113b TKG to store such data in accordance with Section 113a TKG. This means that telecommunications providers like Telekom do not currently have to record any connection data of their customers.

It justifies its decision with reference to the decision of the OVG Münster Az: 13 B 238/17 with the fact that the aforementioned obligation is incompatible with European law, especially Article 15 (1) of Directive 2002/58. The reasoning continues with reference to the decision of the European Court of Justice C-203/15 and C-698/15 - Tele2 Sverige AB and Watson, in which the latter states that a VDS covering all communication participants without exception, without those persons giving any reason to do so are not compatible with European law. In the opinion of the Cologne Administrative Court, the German law in § 113a and 113b TKG regulates this just as illegally. Telekom could invoke the right to bring action on the violation of its entrepreneurial freedom guaranteed under Union law, Article 16 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which in this regard corresponds to the German Article 12 of the Basic Law on freedom of occupation.

The longer term effect of the decision of the Cologne Administrative Court is questionable. On the one hand, Directive 2002/58, against which the VDS was legally measured, will soon be replaced by a corresponding EU regulation (COM (2017) 10 final). In the drafts of this regulation, it is just mentioned that the right of the member states to maintain a national VDS or to introduce a new one should not be affected. That is why the lawyer from Bavaria has extended the questions referred to the ECJ in his EU-law state liability suit at the LG Karlsruhe Az: 10 O 39/18 already mentioned here, whether the future EU regulation (COM (2017) 10 final), which the directive Replaced in 2002/58, also contradicts the German VDS laws.

Furthermore, the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court on the current VDS laws (law introducing a storage obligation and a maximum storage period for traffic data of 10 December 2015 (Federal Law Gazette I p. 2218 ff.)) Must be awaited. In its first decision in 2010, Az: 1 BvR 256/08, 1 BvR 263/08, 1 BvR 586/08, the BVerfG had determined the basic legality of the VDS at the time, but criticized the level of data protection of the law at that time. It annulled the law. Furthermore, it states in this judgment that the professional freedom of the providers was not affected by the regulations at the time. In its current action Az: 9 K 7417/17 at the Cologne Administrative Court, Telekom is referring to the violation of its freedom of occupation, more precisely the entrepreneurial freedom under Union law. In several decisions on data protection, the BVerfG also found that German laws that are not based on an EU directive are not determined by Union law, i.e. their legality cannot be measured against Union law, and therefore a submission to the ECJ in principle is eliminated. If the German constitutional court were to determine in its judgment on the current VDS that these provisions are constitutional and not determined by Union law, a submission to the ECJ would not be considered and the judgment of the Cologne Administrative Court would lose its legal force. Since the decisions of the BVerfG in accordance with Section 31 (1) BVerfGG and the supporting reasons are binding on all German courts and authorities, the Federal Network Agency would have to enforce the VDS obligation again with Telekom and all other providers.

In this context, however, the European Data Protection Supervisor refers in his opinion on the planned e-privacy regulation COM (2017) 10 final to the case law of the ECJ, according to which national (and consequently also German) regulations on data retention comply with the principles of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and especially the ECJ decisions in the cases Digital Rights Ireland and Tele 2 Sverige and Watson and others would have to take into account. The decisions mentioned have declared general and indiscriminate data retention to be inadmissible and require a restriction in several categories to what is absolutely necessary for permissible data retention. According to this opinion, these requirements would also have to be taken into account by the Administrative Court of Cologne in the event of an amended e-privacy regulation (COM (2017) 10 final).

Federal Administrative Court September 2019

On September 25, 2019, the Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) decided to hand over the final interpretation of the data protection directive for electronic communication (Directive 2002/58 / EC) to the ECJ. Until the final clarification in Luxembourg, the data retention will remain suspended in Germany.

Implementation in Austria

The law obliges network operators to store telephone and Internet connection data for six months and, upon a court order, to transmit them to the law enforcement authorities if a serious criminal offense is suspected. The so-called master data can also be requested from the public prosecutor's office (subject to the dual control principle ). The data queries should be logged without gaps, the Minister of Justice must also report regularly to the National Council on data queries. In the event of inadmissible publication of stored data, there is a risk of imprisonment of up to one year.

Infringement proceedings for late implementation

Austria was convicted at the end of July 2010 for failing to implement the 2006 EU directive. That is why the infringement proceedings with the EU threatened a fine in the millions of euros. On April 29, 2011, the National Council decided to introduce data retention on April 1, 2012. On May 12, 2011, the Federal Council confirmed the corresponding federal law amending the Telecommunications Act 2003 (TKG 2003).

Repeal by the Constitutional Court

Three applications have been submitted to the Constitutional Court aimed at repealing parts of the Telecommunications Act relating to data retention. The applicants (the Carinthian provincial government, an employee of a telecommunications company and over 11,000 private individuals) believe that the Austrian Federal Constitution and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights have been violated.

The VfGH shared the concerns and decided on November 28, 2012 to submit a series of questions to the ECJ regarding the admissibility of data retention and the interpretation of the data protection law guaranteed by the EU.

On April 8, 2014, the European Court of Justice declared the EU data retention directive to be invalid as a result of an application by the Austrian Constitutional Court (see above).

After the ECJ rejected the directive on the storage of stored data, the Constitutional Court in Austria overturned the national implementation on June 27, 2014. A period for repair was not granted. The repeal came into force with the announcement of the repeal, which was carried out immediately by the Federal Chancellor. The Constitutional Court justified its decision G 47/2012 by stating that such a serious encroachment on fundamental rights must be designed in such a way that it is in accordance with the Data Protection Act and the European Convention on Human Rights .

Governing Law

In § 99 Telecommunications Act 2003 (TKG 2003) the so-called call data retrieval is regulated, which in connection with the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO), the Security Police Act (SPG) and the Police State Protection Act (PStSG) in certain cases for the disclosure of already existing and legally stored data authorizes the telecommunications service provider and their subsequent evaluation by the law enforcement authorities.

Implementation in other EU countries

Bulgaria

In Bulgaria , data retention should also be able to be used for minor offenses and the Ministry of the Interior should have direct access to the data. The EU directive only requires access to the prosecution of “serious crimes”.

France

In France , data retention of 12 months was introduced under the anti-terrorism laws on January 23, 2006.

Ireland

In Ireland , the Irish civil rights organization Digital Rights was sued against the introduction of data retention . The Irish Constitutional Court referred the case to the European Court of Justice.

Netherlands

In the Netherlands , the government initially proposed storing connection data for one and a half years. The Parliament , however, decided in consultation with law enforcement agencies and researchers at the Erasmus University, for a one-year storage period. In 2011 it was decided to reduce the storage period to six months. The Senate also criticized the data retention in principle. On March 11, 2015, a court in The Hague suspended the Dutch law on data retention for the time being.

Sweden

The Swedish government originally refused to enact a law that would implement data retention into national law. Therefore, on February 4, 2010, the country was convicted by the European Court of Justice . In early 2011, the government presented a bill to introduce data retention. However, the parliament decided to postpone the decision for a year. On March 21, 2012, the Swedish Parliament passed a law on six-month data retention. The earliest known date of its introduction is May 1, 2012.

Hungary

In Hungary , the data retention law came into effect on March 15, 2008. Investigators may access the data without specifying a purpose. However, the EU directive calls for access to the prosecution of “serious crimes” to be restricted. The “Hungarian Civil Liberties Union” ( Társaság a Szabadságjogokért ) filed a constitutional complaint against the Hungarian law on June 2, 2008.

Romania

In Romania , a law on six-month data retention has been repealed by the Constitutional Court. In the judgment of the Romanian Constitutional Court it is said that a suspiciously free data retention threatens to "undermine" the presumption of innocence, declares the entire population to be potential criminals, appears "excessive" and violates Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights . The ECHR also applies in Germany. The European Court of Human Rights has not yet ruled on the question, and the Federal Constitutional Court has not dealt with it.

Czech Republic

In the Czech Republic , the Constitutional Court declared the law on data retention to be unconstitutional and repealed it. According to the judges, it contradicts the right to privacy and the right to informational self-determination . According to the reasons for the judgment, there were fundamental doubts "whether indiscriminate and precautionary storage of traffic and location data of almost every electronic communication is necessary and proportionate with regard to the intensity of the interference and the large number of private users of electronic communication." The court was not convinced of this that a retention of the data of unsuspecting citizens is at all an "effective means" to take action against serious crimes.

United Kingdom

In the UK , the retention data is retained for twelve months. In 2009 there were plans to extend storage to social networks such as Facebook and Myspace . In 2010 the new government made up of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats agreed to “stop” the “storage of Internet and e-mail logs for no good reason”.

In July 2014, data retention in the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act was resolved again.

Legal situation in Switzerland

→ Main article : Internet surveillance in Switzerland

On January 1, 2002, the Federal Act (BÜPF) and Ordinance (VÜPF) on the surveillance of postal and telecommunications traffic came into force. In April 2002, the Service for Special Tasks (DTA) of the Federal Department for the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications (DETEC) issued technical regulations for the monitoring of telecommunications, which had to be implemented by April 1, 2004. With the introduction of the BÜPF, responsibility was transferred to the Post and Telecommunications Surveillance Service (ÜPF service) in the Federal Justice and Police Department FDJP.

Based on the reserve data from National Councilor Balthasar Glättli , the digital society published a visualization over six months of monitoring by means of reserve data storage at the end of April 2014.

The digital society asked the responsible post and telecommunications monitoring service (ÜPF service) to refrain from data retention in Switzerland. This application was rejected on June 30, 2014. As a result, the digital society filed a complaint with the Federal Administrative Court on September 2, 2014. This complaint was also rejected with a judgment of November 9, 2016: The encroachment on the confidentiality of communication and informational self-determination is provided for in the BÜPF, justified by the public interest and proportionate in view of the protective mechanisms in the Data Protection Act. The digital society announced on December 16, 2016 that it would take the complaint to the Federal Supreme Court.

Mobile telephony

According to the BÜPF and VÜPF, all mobile phone operators must store the following data for six months and make them available to the ÜPF service:

1. Numbers for outgoing and incoming communications
2. SIM (Subscriber Identity Module), IMSI (International Mobile Subscribers Identity) and IMEI (International Mobile Equipment Identity) number
3. "The location and the main direction of radiation of the antenna of the mobile phone with which the telecommunications system of the monitored person is connected at the time of communication"
4. Date, time and duration of the connection

This means that both the mobile phone number and the device number are saved in advance.

Since November 1, 2004, all users of prepaid cards that have been put into operation after November 1, 2002 have been required to register. Changes of address and the transfer of SIM cards are not subject to notification.

e-mail

According to the VÜPF, all internet service providers must keep for six months:

1. Type of connection or connection (telephone, xDSL, cable, leased line, etc.) and, if known, login data, addressing elements of the origin (MAC addresses, telephone numbers), name, address and occupation of the participant and time from the beginning and end of the connection
2. Time of sending or receiving an e-mail, the envelope information according to the SMTP protocol and the IP addresses of the sending and receiving e-mail facilities.

The e-mail facilities are SMTP, POP3, IMAP4, webmail and remail servers and the access facilities include dial-up, RAS, DHCP services, etc. The pure SMTP or POP3 traffic does not have to be recorded. So if these services are operated locally, abroad, by a company or an organization, or are only transported by the ISP, no data is generated in the sense of the BÜPF.

As part of its complaint against data retention, the digital society has processed the data types collected in more detail and also analyzed the underlying catalog of criminal offenses.

Data retention in the United States

In the United States, data retention was introduced after the terrorist attack in New York City in 2001 by the US secret service NSA . In the wake of the NSA scandal and the revelations by Edward Snowden in 2013, the mass storage of telephone data in the United States is increasingly being viewed critically by the public. In December 2013, a US federal court in Washington held the massive, suspicious-free storage of telephone data without a judge's reservation to be unconstitutional.

criticism

Data protectionists , constitutional lawyers, parties and representatives of various professional groups question the sense and proportionality of data retention; it points the way towards the surveillance state : If one cannot be sure of being able to communicate freely, civil society will suffer and citizens would be exposed to political statements in the Internet shy away. Anonymous pastoral care and counseling services are also at risk as fewer people dare to use these services.

Striking disclosure of sensitive information

A step-by-step expansion beyond the “fight against terror” to include less serious crimes is in sight, as the example of the discussions about genetic fingerprints previously showed. The German Association of Journalists sees freedom of the press and the protection of informants in jeopardy, as it stated in a communication dated February 22, 2006 in response to the adoption of the EU directive.

Many critics therefore consider the case-by-case quick freeze process to be a more legally acceptable alternative to general data retention. It should be noted, however, that data can only be "frozen" through a corresponding arrangement if the operator has it at all; H. are saved. If the police only find out about an act after weeks or months (through a criminal complaint or ex officio), this data is usually no longer available, since the network operators were no longer allowed to save this data for legal reasons without a data retention obligation.

While the cabinet of the Bundestag decided on April 18, 2007 the draft for the data retention of Brigitte Zypries , there were protest demonstrations in front of the Reichstag building .

On July 29, 2008, a petition against data retention was also rejected by the Bundestag. The petition had been signed by 12,560 people.

On March 15, 2011, the data retention working group submitted another petition that was intended to urge the German Bundestag to work for an EU-wide repeal of Directive 2006/24. The petition was published in late August.

On International Human Rights Day in December 2013, 560 writers from 83 countries joined forces in an appeal “against the dangers of systematic mass surveillance” as part of the “ StopWatchingUs ” campaign . 32 renowned newspapers around the world documented the writers' appeal, five of whom were Nobel Prize winners for literature.

Disproportionately little benefit

The storage of traffic data is necessarily related to the past and can therefore essentially only be used for the subsequent investigation of crimes that have already been committed. A deterrent effect due to a higher risk of discovery cannot be proven and cannot be observed in countries in which data is retained. Taking into account the various evasion options, which are mainly used by professional criminals (e.g. use of telephone booths , foreign cell phones, internet cafés ), data retention can only be of use in a few and regularly insignificant individual cases. An influence on the overall level of crime was not observed in practice. The suitability for combating organized crime or for preventing terrorist attacks should be rated from “extremely low” to “not given”. By storing data, neither the attacks on September 11, 2001, nor the attacks in Great Britain in July 2005, nor the planned attacks on German trains in 2006 could have been prevented.

The Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law found in a study from 2007 for the communication data available without retention: “However, even under today's legal conditions, the file analysis shows only for about 2% of the queries that they are due to Deletions go nowhere. ”In a study by the Federal Criminal Police Office from November 2005, 381 crimes were recorded, mainly in the areas of Internet fraud, the exchange of child pornography and theft, which could not be resolved in recent years due to a lack of telecommunications data. These 381 cases face 6.4 million criminal offenses each year, of which 2.8 million remain unsolved every year, according to crime statistics . According to a statement by the working group on data retention , the average clearing-up rate could be "increased from 55% in the best case to 55.006%". Against this background, it is not clear why users of (mobile) telephones and the Internet should be monitored, especially since the clearance rate in this area is above average even without data retention. While the average clear-up rate in 2006 was 55.4%, in the area of ​​crimes committed by means of telecommunications, even without data retention, 78.5% of the cases of dissemination of pornographic material via the internet, 86% of the cases of internet fraud and 85.5% of the crimes against copyright regulations enlightened on the Internet.

An evaluation of the German crime statistics 2009 showed that data retention neither deter offenses nor increases the proportion of criminal offenses solved. Activists of the working group on data retention therefore describe them as superfluous. An evaluation of the German crime statistics 2010 by the working group on data storage showed that in Germany 71% of all known internet crimes were solved even after the end of data storage. This meant that crimes committed on the Internet, even without data retention, were cleared up significantly more often than offenses committed outside the Internet (55%). Lower Saxony's Interior Minister Schünemann (CDU) declared on May 29, 2011 in front of the Lower Saxony state parliament: "There are no significant effects in terms of the clarification rate for crimes committed in connection with the Internet as an agent."

An analysis of the status quo by the scientific service of the Bundestag (Ref .: WD 7 3000 036/11) comes to the conclusion that there is no evidence in the EU that logging of user traces independent of suspicion demonstrably helps the investigating authorities in their work. It notes that there was a significant change in the clearance rate in only one country between 2005 and 2010, although this was also not due to data retention.

An expert opinion by the Freiburg Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law , which was commissioned by the German Ministry of Justice, came to the conclusion that data retention does not cause any changes in investigation rates. According to the 270-page report, the statistics do not provide any evidence that the prevention or investigation of criminal offenses suffered due to the removal of the storage obligation. No measurable effects of data retention could be demonstrated in homicides and robberies, nor in child pornography and internet crime. According to the scientists, there is also no evidence whatsoever that retained data has led to the prevention of an Islamist terrorist attack in recent years.

Risk of abuse and error

On the one hand, telecommunications data are very meaningful and allow conclusions to be drawn about the entire life situation of those affected, but on the other hand they cannot be clearly assigned to a person. The data therefore developed a great attraction on the one hand to people who intend to abuse it (see Deutsche Telekom surveillance affair ), but on the other hand it could also lead to false suspicions. On the part of the state, it is to be feared that the data will be used to take action against political opponents and organizations and people who are critical of the state or otherwise unpleasant. The use for industrial espionage by foreign states is also to be feared. There is also a threat of abuse by private individuals, for example by criminal blackmailers or sensational journalists. In its decision, however, the Federal Constitutional Court postulated requirements for the legislature that protective mechanisms must be created within the framework of the new regulation of data retention in order to prevent data misuse.

Causing inhibitions, deterrent effect

The knowledge that one's own behavior is being logged and that it could be used against the communicating party in the future may have a deterrent effect . According to a Forsa survey, the majority of those questioned would forego the advice of marriage counseling centers, psychotherapists or drug counseling centers by phone or email if they needed it. According to the survey, every thirteenth respondent stated that this waiver had already occurred once in reality. Furthermore, whistleblowers could be prevented from reporting abuses to the press, authorities or other organizations regulating society. People could be deterred from becoming involved in a way that is critical of the state. This indirectly endangers the entire open society , the functioning of which presupposes the impartial interpersonal communication and the maturity of the citizens.

Counterproductive effect

A data retention could favor the development and dissemination of technical means to cover up electronic tracks. This could thwart surveillance even in specific suspected cases.

One example is the onion routing method, used e.g. B. by a Tor client, which can be used for private Internet access: This not only encrypts the data traffic, but also prevents the analysis of this data.

In addition, taking into account the sources of information and communication partners, the suspicion-independent data storage allows conclusions to be drawn about the behavior and areas of interest of certain people.

Economic impact

Statutory requirements for data retention caused annual operating costs (investment and maintenance costs) in the estimated three-digit million range for network operators. These costs are not offset by income or benefits from the state, so the cost bearer for data retention is solely the telecommunications customer. The state benefited from additional VAT revenues for costs that it had itself caused. However, the provider had already made the necessary investment costs for the standardization of the 2008 obligation for data retention; In addition, a quick freeze process (see above) proposed by the critics of data retention would be more expensive for business.

The disproportionately high burden on the small providers would result in considerable distortions of competition and direct competitive advantages for the large network operators.

Furthermore, the data retention inhibits and prevents the development of cost-effective telecommunication systems and thus price reductions for the consumer. The original idea was to keep the data, which are used to prove the connections for billing reasons, as information for investigations into serious criminal offenses. Now data storage has been expanded to include all possible services and data is stored that is not communicated to the customer by the network operator. In the case of e-mail, there has never been a single link. Today, in the age of the flat rate, you no longer need proof of connection from the network operator. For reasons of data retention, the telecommunications operator must have technical components (hardware and software) available to enable the connection data to be recorded. Dispensing with these records would significantly reduce the process costs of the pure brokerage operation and thus the price for a flat rate.

Legal arguments

Violation of European law

The data retention directive is void because it violates fundamental Community rights and lacks a legal basis. In its judgment of 30 May 2006 on the transmission of passenger data, the European Court of Justice ruled that the European Community was not responsible for public security and law enforcement. There is no obligation to implement the data retention directive because the European institutions exceeded the powers granted by the member states when the directive was adopted. In its Maastricht judgment, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that such legal acts were not binding in German sovereignty and that the German state organs were prevented from applying these legal acts in Germany for constitutional reasons. It does not matter whether the European Court of Justice has already ruled on the legality of the legal acts.

In an expert opinion by the Scientific Service of the Bundestag on August 3, 2006 on the “admissibility of data retention under European and German law”, it says: “There are concerns as to whether the directive [on data retention] in the form adopted is compatible with European law. This concerns on the one hand the choice of the legal basis, on the other hand the compatibility with the fundamental rights recognized in Community law. ”Furthermore, it is“ doubtful that the legislature will succeed in a constitutional implementation based on the European legal requirements. ”

Violation of German law

From a legal point of view, it is argued that data retention violates the fundamental rights of communicators and telecommunications companies. In Germany there is a violation of the confidentiality of letters, post and telecommunications and the right to informational self-determination , the freedom of information and occupational freedom and the principle of equal treatment. Since the traffic data of conversations are also recorded from private rooms, the fundamental right to the inviolability of the home ( Article 13.1 of the Basic Law) is violated. Finally, one could see in this a violation of the freedom of broadcasting and freedom of expression ( Art. 5 GG), since the storage of traffic data makes the communication behavior of journalists traceable. In a legal commentary on the Federal Data Protection Act it says literally: “This means that the protection of his informants can no longer be guaranteed. This indirectly leads to a reduction in the freedom of reporting in the press, radio and television. This affects the freedom of every individual to obtain information from generally accessible sources without hindrance. ”At European level, there was a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights , namely Article 8 of the ECHR, the right to respect for private life and correspondence, against the Freedom of expression and the right to respect for property.

The benefit of data retention is disproportionately small compared to its harmful consequences . A suspicion-independent logging of the telecommunications behavior of the entire population is excessive. Over 99% of those affected by data retention are not suspicious and have given no reason to log their communication. According to studies, less than 0.001% of the stored data is actually requested and required by the authorities.

The judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court of March 12, 2003 (Az. 1 BvR 330/96) has often been quoted, which says:

“The serious encroachments on the secrecy of telecommunications are only proportionate in the narrower sense, if the counter-concerns are correspondingly weighty. The weight of the criminal prosecution interest depends in particular on the gravity and importance of the criminal offense to be investigated (cf. BVerfGE 100, 313 <375 f., 392>). In this respect, it is not sufficient for constitutional requirements that the recording of connection data is generally used for criminal prosecution (see aa above). Rather, what is required are a criminal offense of considerable importance, a concrete suspicion and a sufficiently reliable factual basis for the assumption that the person affected by the order is acting as a communications broker. […] The intensity of the suspicion against the accused is also decisive for the weight of the matter pursued (cf. BVerfGE 100, 313 <392>). A specific suspicion is a prerequisite for the collection of connection data. On the basis of certain facts, it must be assumed that the accused has committed criminal offenses of considerable importance with sufficient probability (see also BVerfGE 100, 313 <394>). "

Unusual storage of personal data for a long time violates the principle under applicable law that personal data may only be stored if this is necessary for a specific, legally permitted purpose. Data that is not, not yet or no longer required to be stored must be deleted.

Violation of the European Convention on Human Rights

In a judgment of October 8, 2009, the Constitutional Court of Romania (Curtea Constituţională a României) rejected the Romanian law on the six-month retention of all connection, location and Internet access data as unconstitutional. In the judgment it is said that the recording of all connection data could "not be considered as compatible with the provisions of the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights".

Future of informational self-determination

Finally, critics argue that recognition of the data retention principle ultimately means the end of the right to informational self-determination. If one considers a comprehensive recording of the behavior of the population to be legitimate simply because the state could one day be interested in it, then the principle of precautionary behavior recording threatens to gradually encroach on all areas of life. No information can be excluded from the fact that it could one day be used to prosecute criminal offenses.

Demonstrations

On September 22nd, 2007, 15,000 people demonstrated in Berlin against data retention and state surveillance under the motto “Freedom instead of fear”.

A number of demonstrations took place against data retention , including in Bielefeld, Berlin and Frankfurt am Main, which were organized by the data retention working group .

One of the largest demonstrations with around 15,000 participants took place on September 22nd, 2007 in Berlin under the motto “ Freedom instead of fear ”.

The working group for data retention called for nationwide decentralized rallies on November 6th, after the indications had increased that the Bundestag would vote on the draft law on November 9th, 2007. Protest rallies took place in Berlin, Cologne, Leipzig, Frankfurt (Main) and Dresden in over 40 German cities.

According to the organizers, 100,000 people (15,000 according to the police) demonstrated in Berlin on October 11, 2008 under the motto " Freedom instead of fear "

The largest demonstration so far took place on October 11, 2008 in Berlin. About 50,000 people (according to the organizers up to 100,000, according to the police officially 15,000) took part in the demonstration. Under the motto Freedom not Fear , civil rights organizations worldwide called for participation in the international day of action against surveillance. In addition to Berlin, actions took place mainly in Latin America and the USA.

Further demonstrations took place on September 12, 2009 and September 11, 2010 in Berlin. In addition to a demonstration in Berlin on September 10, 2011, a demonstration in Brussels is also planned for the first time in 2011.

Historical context

Extended surveillance is viewed critically in the Federal Republic of Germany due to historical experience. Critics point to experiences with totalitarian surveillance in the Third Reich by the Gestapo and in the GDR by the Stasi . They fear that the expansion of monitoring instruments could undermine democracy again and ultimately, de facto, abolish it.

Possible expansion to social networks

In the course of answering a parliamentary question in the German Bundestag, plans became known in November 2012 that in future chats and postings in social networks should be subject to the same monitoring and storage rules as telephone calls. According to this, in the future it should also be stored who communicates with whom, when and where on the Internet. The European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) is working to this end already in the upcoming standard for a standard interface for "lawful interception" also "legitimate monitoring", can be automated on the need arises upon the contents of the communication and access near real-time .

The project is being promoted by the interior ministries of France and Great Britain, with the British government already submitting a corresponding draft of the “Communications Data Bill” in early 2012. The Association of Israeli Electronics and Software Industries, British Telecom , Vodafone , Siemens and a standardization company called Yanaa Technologies specializing in data monitoring are also involved in the plans . It was also officially confirmed that the German Office for the Protection of the Constitution has been providing staff for the ETSI surveillance force since 2003.

Workarounds

→ Main article : Anonymizer

By using proxy servers or virtual private networks (VPN), data retention for the Internet can be bypassed as far as possible. To do this, your own computer no longer connects directly to the desired website, but instead establishes an encrypted connection to a virtual private network, which in turn only controls the website. Thanks to the encryption, your Internet provider does not know which website has been accessed, and the website operator can only find the IP address of the VPN and not that of the home connection.

attachment

literature

• Jan Philipp Albrecht : Security instead of the rule of law - the conflict over data retention is coming to a head. In: ForumRecht. (FoR) 1/2007, pp. 13-15. Download (PDF).
• Mark Bedner: Problems with the application of the data retention directive and legality of its implementation in national law. Master thesis . Mainz Media Institute and Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz. medien-recht.org (PDF).
• Mark Bedner: Vorratsdatenspeicherung In: Data protection and data security. (DuD) 6/2009, p. 372.
• Michael Biendl: Data retention in Europe, Germany and Bavaria. A comparative consideration and evaluation from the point of view of IT security. Download (PDF).
• Patrick Breyer: Data Retention - The total logging of telecommunications is coming. In: Data protection news . (DANA) 1/2006, pp. 17-20.
• Patrick Breyer: The systematic recording and retention of telecommunications traffic data for government purposes in Germany (data storage, traffic data retention). Dissertation . Rhombos Verlag, Berlin 2005, ISBN 3-937231-46-3 . Download (PDF; 1.5 MB).
• Patrick Breyer: Legal problems of the directive 2006/24 / EG on data retention and its implementation in Germany. In: Defense lawyer. (StV) 4/2007, pp. 214-220. Download ( Memento from March 22, 2011 on WebCite ; PDF) googleusercontent.com
• Patrick Breyer: No obligation under European law to reintroduce data retention. In: MMR-Aktuell. 2011, 321241. Read on the Internet
• Mathias Bug, Ursula Münch, Viola Schmid (Eds.): 2nd SIRA Conference Series. Internal security - stored in advance? ISBN 978-3-943207-01-9 . Download (PDF).
• Nikolaus Forgó, Tina Grügel: Regulations on data retention are unconstitutional: After the decision is before the decision In: communication and law. (K&R) 4/2010, pp. 217-220.
• Patrick Gasch: Limits of the usability of data from electronic toll collection for preventive and repressive purposes. Duncker & Humblot, 2012, ISBN 978-3-428-13642-1 .
• Ermano Geuer: Dispute over data retention: More surveillance does not mean more security In: Legal Tribune Online. January 27, 2012 Read on the Internet
• Andreas Gietl: The introduction of data retention In: Kommunikation und Recht (K&R) 11/2007, pp. 545-550.
• Andreas Gietl: The fate of data retention In: Data protection and data security. (DuD) 5/2008, pp. 317-323. Download (PDF).
• Andreas Gietl: The future of data retention In: Data protection and data security. (DuD) 6/2010, pp. 398-403.
• Rotraud lattice, Christoph Schnabel: The guideline on data retention and its implementation in national law In: Multimedia and law . (MMR) 7/2007, pp. 411-417. Download (PDF).
• Paul J. Faith: Data retention overshoots the mark. In: Deutsche Richterzeitung (DRiZ) 2/2007, pp. 33–35. Reading on the Internet
• Thomas Hoeren: The implementation of the data retention guideline - consequences for the private sector. In: Juristenteitung (JZ) 13/2008, pp. 668–673.
• Diethelm Klesczewski: Critique of Vorratsdatenspeicherung In: E. Weßlau, W. Wohlers (Hrsg.): Festschrift for Gerhard Fezer for his 70th birthday. Munich 2008, p. 19. Read (PDF; 115 kB) on the Internet
• Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger : Data Retention - A Pre-programmed Constitutional Conflict. In: Journal for Legal Policy . (ZRP) 1/2007, pp. 9-13.
• Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger: The data retention from a legal perspective. In: Specialist journalist. 2/2008, pp. 4-10.
• Doris Liebwald: BVerfG: Concrete design of data retention not constitutional. In: JusIT . 2/2010 LexisNexis, Vienna.
• Doris Liebwald: The systematic recording of data via electronic communication for monitoring purposes, Directive on data retention 2006/24 / EC. In: JusIT 2/2010 LexisNexis, Vienna.
• Doris Liebwald: The New Data Retention Directive. In: MR-Int 1/2006 (European Media, IP & IT Law Review), pp. 49–56.
• Thomas Petri: The guideline 2006/24 / EG for the retention of telecommunication traffic data. In: DuD. 9/2011, pp. 607-610.
• Jens Puschke : Data retention as an instrument of law enforcement. In: Data protection news . (DANA) 2/2006, pp. 65-73.
• Jens Puschke, Tobias Singelnstein: Telecommunication monitoring, data retention and (other) secret investigative measures of the StPO after the new regulation on January 1st, 2008. In: Neue Juristische Wochenschrift. (NJW) 2008, pp. 113-119.
• Marcel Raschke: Saving doesn't hurt? - Comment on the decision in terms of “data retention”. In: Iurratio. 1/2010, pp. 10-12.
• Alexander Roßnagel , Mark Bedner, Michael Knopp: Answers to questions 11 - 13 of the questionnaire (of the BVerfG in the process of data retention). cms.uni-kassel.de (PDF).
• Alexander Roßnagel, Mark Bedner, Michael Knopp: Legal requirements for the storage of stored data. In: DuD . 2009, pp. 536-541. (PDF; 819 kB).
• Burkhard Schröder : Data retention - No saving under this number. In: Specialist journalist. 2/2008, pp. 10-16.
• Sebastian Sonn: Overview of the legal situation before and after the interim order of the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG decision of March 11, 2008 - Az. 1 BvR 256/08). In: Freilaw. 2/2008 Download (PDF).
• Dorothee Szuba: Data retention: the European and German legislators in the field of tension between security and freedom. Dissertation . 1st edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden, ISBN 978-3-8329-6488-7 .
• Moritz Tremmel: Data retention and panoptism. Applicability and insights from the data retention analysis with Foucault's power theory. Thesis . Tübingen 2010. Download (PDF).
• Christof Tschohl: Data security during the implementation of data retention in Austria (PDF) Vienna, Univ.-Diss., 2011
• Bianca Uhe, Jens Herrmann: Monitoring in the Internet - Storage of personal data in reserve by Internet service providers. Thesis . Berlin 2003. Download (PDF).
• Dirk Wüstenberg: The storage of internet connection data according to § 100 TKG in the light of EU law. In: Media and Law - International. (MR-Int) 2007, pp. 136-139.
• Dirk Wüstenberg: Data retention and basic rights. In: Media and Law - International. (MR-Int) 2006, pp. 91-97.
• Dietrich Westphal: The guideline on the retention of traffic data - Brussels statement on the relationship between freedom and security in the 'Post-9/11 information society'. In: European law. (EuR) 5/2006, pp. 706–723.
• Dietrich Westphal: The new EC directive on data retention: privacy and entrepreneurial freedom under security pressure '. In: European Journal of Business Law. (EuZW) 17/2006, pp. 555-560.
• Mark Zöller: Data retention between national and European law enforcement. In: Goltdammer's archive for criminal law. (GA) 2007, pp. 393-414.
• Mark Zöller: encroachments on fundamental rights: draft law on data retention. In: Civil Rights & Police / CILIP. 3/2006, pp. 21-30.
• Further literature (SWB online catalog)

Expert opinions / statements

• Boehm / Cole: Data retention after the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, June 30, 2014. (PDF).
• Scientific service of the Bundestag: The practical effects of data retention on the development of the clearance rates in the EU member states (March 18, 2011) (PDF; 120 kB).
• Scientific service of the Bundestag: On the compatibility of the directive on the retention of data with the European Charter of Fundamental Rights (February 25, 2011) (PDF; 192 kB).
• Chaos Computer Club : Statement of the Chaos Computer Club on data retention (PDF; 12.3 MB) June 9, 2009.
• Felix Freiling, University of Mannheim: On the use of traffic data in the context of data retention (PDF; 179 KB) June 22, 2009.
• Expert opinion by the Max Planck Institute on the “legal reality of the provision of information about telecommunications connection data according to §§ 100 g, 100h StPO” (February 2008) (PDF; 2.2 MB).
• Statements of the experts to the Legal Committee of the German Bundestag (hearing on September 21, 2007).
• Scientific service of the Bundestag: Legal opinion on the admissibility of data retention under European and German law (August 3, 2006) (PDF; 218 kB).
• Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law: Protection gaps due to the omission of data retention? (Expert opinion on behalf of the Federal Office of Justice, July 2011; PDF; 2.5 MB).
• Advocate General Pedro Cruz Villalón at the Court of Justice of the European Union: Opinion of December 12, 2013 in cases C-293/12 (Ireland) and C-594/12 (Austria) (EU Directive 2006/24 / EC does not comply with the Charter of EU fundamental rights and should therefore be adapted.)

Web links

 Wikinews: Data Retention  - In The News

Wiktionary: Data retention  - explanations of meanings, word origins, synonyms, translations

• Data retention history
• BVerfG, judgment of 14 July 1999, 1 BvR 2226/94, 1 BvR 2420/95, 1 BvR 2437/95, quoted from: German-speaking case law (DFR), ed. v. A. Tschentscher (as of June 8, 2007) Judgment of July 14, 1999
• BVerfG, 1 BvR 330/96, paragraph no. (1–135) Judgment of March 12, 2003
• Legal opinion on the admissibility of data retention under European and German law (PDF; 16 kB) Scientific service of the Bundestag
• Stop the data retention - information video for the campaign of the Chaos Computer Club , the FoeBuD and the working group data retention (May 23, 2012)
• ECJ judgment of April 8, 2014

Individual evidence

1. ↑ Volker Briegleb: Interior Minister warns of legal vacancies on the Internet :
   “Like the North Rhine-Westphalian Interior Minister Ralf Jäger (SPD) at the European Police Congress, Wendt advocates the term“ minimum data storage ”. [...] Friedrich also prefers to speak of minimum data storage: "This term is better, because with data retention you are looked at in a strange way." ", Heise online, April 4, 2011
2. ↑ zeit.de
3. ↑ cf. Storage rights according to the Telemedia Act and the Telecommunications Act . (PDF) University of Münster, as of December 2016
4. ↑ Kai Biermann : What reserve data reveal about us. The Chaos Computer Club calls cell phones "locating bugs". And rightly so, as our interactive graphic shows: The inventory data of the Green Party politician Malte Spitz reveal his life. In: Zeit Online . February 24, 2011, accessed September 20, 2011 . 
5. ↑ BVerfG, press release No. 11/2010 of March 2, 2010.
6. ↑ BVerfG, judgment of March 2, 2010 , Az. 1 BvR 256/08, 1 BvR 263/08, 1 BvR 586/08, full text.
7. ↑ zeit.de: European Constitutional Court overturns data retention
8. ↑ ^{a b c} Decision in full text.
9. ↑ Judgment of July 3, 2014 - III ZR 391/13 (PDF) No. 23
10. ↑ Resolution of October 16, 2015. (PDF) Documentation and information system of the Bundestag and Bundesrat, October 16, 2015, accessed on November 8, 2015 (194 kB). 
11. ↑ Draft law full text of the law passed on October 16, 2015 with minor changes. (PDF) Documentation and information system of the Bundestag and Bundesrat, June 9, 2015, accessed on November 8, 2015 (449 kB). 
12. ↑ ^{a b c d} Law on the introduction of a storage obligation and a maximum storage period for traffic data (html) text, synopses, process flow ; Proclamation in Federal Law Gazette 2015 I p. 2218 (PDF; 106 kB)
13. ↑ European Court of Justice confirms: Unusual data retention is illegal December 21, 2016, Heise online , access December 21, 2016
14. ↑ Higher Administrative Court for the State of North Rhine-Westphalia (June 22, 2017): The retention of data provided for in the Telecommunications Act violates Union law ( memento of the original from June 22, 2017 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. 
15. ↑ tagesschau.de (June 28, 2017): The urgent application as a storage blockade
16. ↑ tagesschau.de (June 28, 2017): Data retention stopped for the time being (from minute 4:33)
17. ↑ space.net (25.09.2019): Data retention: Now the ECJ is asked
18. ↑ Horst Bieber : Our post office secretly stores data. Once again, Post Minister Gscheidle shows that he has no political sensitivity . In: Die Zeit , No. 47 / 1980-11-14
19. ↑ Federal Council, BT-Drs. 13/4438 (PDF; 1.1 MB), p. 23.
20. ↑ Section 96 (2) of the Telecommunications Act
21. ↑ Section 97 (4) of the Telecommunications Act
22. ↑ Commentary on the Darmstadt T-Online judgment ( memento of the original from January 3, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link has been inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information, January 25, 2006. 
23. ↑ Who stores which connection data
24. ↑ Resolution of Bundestag printed paper 15/4597 (PDF; 2.1 MB) plenary minutes 15/157, p. 14733.
25. ↑ resolution of the Bundestagsdrucksache 16/690 (PDF; 110 kB)
26. ↑ heise.de: data retention for a 0.006 percentage point higher clarification rate. July 16, 2007.
27. ↑ Protection gaps due to the omission of data retention? ( Memento of the original from October 13, 2015 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF; 2.5 MB) January 27, 2012. 
28. ↑ SPD network politicians mark line for data retention
29. ↑ SPD sample application on the subject of data retention
30. ↑ henning-tillmann.de
31. ↑ Intelligent strategies for a secure network - stop IP data retention! (PDF; 142 kB)
32. ↑ vorratsdatenspeicherung.de (PDF; 443 kB) “After collecting the retroactive traffic data, the sender IP address could be assigned to an Internet cafe in Munich. A short time later, targeted search measures meant that the woman was found by the police in the said internet cafe and immediately taken to a doctor. "
33. ↑ Copyright: Put the warning industry in its place . Federation of German Consumer Organizations; Retrieved April 19, 2012
34. ↑ False alarm: ECJ does not allow data retention against file sharing (Patrick Breyer, April 19, 2012)
35. ↑ The threat of Internet data retention (September 6, 2011)
36. ↑ Constitutional Court restricts the release of user data "The release of passwords and PIN codes must be reorganized, the Karlsruhe judges decided. This also applies to information on dynamic IP addresses. "(February 24, 2012)
37. ↑ Regulations of the Telecommunications Act on the storage and use of telecommunications data are partly unconstitutional
38. ↑ September 11th: PIRATES call for a paradigm shift in surveillance ( memento of September 25, 2011 in the Internet Archive )
39. ↑ daten-speicherung.de
40. ↑ faz.net
41. ↑ ^{a b c d} bmj.de ( Memento of the original from July 22, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF) 
42. ↑ BVerfG, 1 BvR 256/08 of March 2, 2010.
43. ↑ ^{a b} Who want to know everything , Süddeutsche Zeitung, June 26, 2013.
44. ↑ vorratsdatenspeicherung.de 3rd paragraph, sentence 3
45. ↑ vorratsdatenspeicherung.de 1st paragraph, sentence 1
46. ^ "Action for annulment - Directive 2006/24 / EC - Retention of data generated or processed during the provision of electronic communications services - Choice of legal basis" , judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber), February 10, 2009, file number C-301/06 , curia.europa.eu
47. ↑ Stop the data retention! - Data retention before the European Court of Justice (May 9, 2010)
48. ↑ vorratsdatenspeicherung.de
49. ↑ Boehm / Cole: Data retention after the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (June 30, 2014) ( Memento of the original from November 8, 2014 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF) 
50. ↑ Draft of a law to reorganize telecommunications surveillance and other covert investigative measures as well as to implement Directive 2006/24 / EC (PDF; 2 MB)
51. ↑ List of roll-call votes (PDF; 200 kB)
52. ↑ Tagesschau: Federal Council votes on data retention - soon it must be saved (tagesschau.de archive)
53. ↑ Law on the new regulation of telecommunications surveillance and other covert investigative measures as well as the implementation of Directive 2006/24 / EC (html) text, synopses, process flow; Proclamation in Federal Law Gazette 2007 I p. 3198 (PDF; 132 kB)
54. ↑ Stenographic report of the 124th meeting (PDF; 1.4 MB), Appendix 4, p. 90.
55. ↑ Answer to parliament watch.de of November 11, 2007.
56. ↑ Answer of April 16, 2009, Link .
57. ↑ daten-speicherung.de
58. ↑ Answer of July 27, 2009 ( BT-Drs. 16/13855 (PDF; 479 kB), p. 17).
59. ↑ Section 150 (12b) TKG
60. ↑ Overview of traffic data collection (measures according to § 100 g StPO) for 2008. (PDF) Status: August 24, 2009. (No longer available online.) Federal Office of Justice Section III 3, archived from the original on April 19, 2011 ; Retrieved April 19, 2011 . 
61. ↑ wiki.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de (PDF)
62. ↑ vorratsdatenspeicherung.de
63. ↑ vorratsdatenspeicherung.de
64. ↑ Documentation film for filing the lawsuit ( memento of the original from March 21, 2008 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. 
65. ↑ Urgent application: Federal Constitutional Court restricts "data retention" - notification from March 19, 2008 on free-urteile.de
66. ↑ Press release of the Federal Constitutional Court
67. ↑ Tagesschau: data retention is restricted ( memento of November 9, 2008 in the Internet Archive ); Heribert Prantl : The constitutional court pulls the emergency brake . In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , March 19, 2008.
68. ↑ c't background : Federal government accuses opponents of data retention of "systematic" errors . January 2, 2009.
69. ↑ Questionnaire of the Federal Constitutional Court (PDF) April 21, 2009 (PDF; 1.7 MB)
70. ↑ Press release BVerfG on December 15, 2009
71. ↑ BVerfG, judgment of March 2, 2010, 1 BvR 256/08
72. ↑ Principles on the judgment of the First Senate of March 2, 2010. Federal Constitutional Court
73. ↑ suc / cis / dpa / AFP: Basic judgment: data retention violates the constitution. In: Spiegel Online . March 2, 2010, accessed May 13, 2020 . 
74. ↑ APA / DPA: Germany - data retention is unconstitutional . ( Memento of the original from October 8, 2010 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. Relevant.at; Retrieved March 2, 2010. 
75. ↑ Short message from the BMJ ( Memento of the original from June 17, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. dated January 17, 2011, accessed June 16, 2011. 
76. ↑ "Key point paper for securing existing traffic data and ensuring inventory data information on the Internet"  ( page no longer available , search in web archives )  Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF; 46 kB).  
77. ↑ Working group on data retention, position paper on the key issues paper (PDF; 2.2 MB)
78. ↑ djv.de ( Memento of the original from September 18, 2011 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. 
79. ↑ faz.net
80. ↑ nrv-net.de ( Memento of the original from September 26, 2011 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF) 
81. ↑ golem.de
82. ↑ Federal Bar Association , press release 10/2011 of June 10, 2011: "Data storage only in case of suspicion" , accessed on July 19, 2011.
83. ↑ On the compatibility of the directive on the retention of data with the European Charter of Fundamental Rights (PDF; 190 kB)
84. ↑ The practical effects of data retention on the development of the clearance rates in the EU member states (PDF; 120 kB)
85. ↑ EU Commission wants to fundamentally revise specifications for data retention . heise online
86. ↑ dab: Data retention: EU urges Germany to go backwards in data protection. In: Spiegel Online . April 16, 2011, accessed May 13, 2020 . 
87. ↑ Quick-Freeze: Federal Minister of Justice presents draft law. (No longer available online.) Federal Ministry of Justice , June 10, 2011, formerly in the original ; Retrieved July 25, 2011 .  ( Page no longer available , search in web archives )  Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.    
88. ↑ "Law on Securing Existing Traffic Data and Ensuring Existing Data Information on the Internet" (draft discussion by the BMJ) (PDF; 232 kB) netzpolitik.org
89. ↑ daten-speicherung.de (PDF)
90. ↑ EU initiates proceedings against Germany. Retrieved June 22, 2011 . 
91. ↑ Thwarting such attacks in advance . In: FAZ.net. July 25, 2011. Retrieved July 25, 2011.
92. ↑ After murder attacks in Norway: Coalition argues over data retention . In: Stern.de. July 25, 2011. Retrieved July 25, 2011.
93. ↑ SECURITY: Union calls for “unjustified” data retention. The SPD criticizes the “instrumentalized” debate after the attacks in Norway ( Memento from February 28, 2013 in the Internet Archive ). In: Märkische Allgemeine. July 26, 2011. Retrieved July 26, 2011.
94. ^ Matthias Gebauer, Florian Gathmann, Sebastian Fischer: Oslo assassination attempt: The riddle of the Germany connection. In: Spiegel Online . July 25, 2011, accessed May 13, 2020 . 
95. ↑ FDP politician Buschmann rejects the demand for data retention . In: Wirtschaft.com. July 25, 2011. Retrieved July 25, 2011.
96. ^ After the bloodshed in Norway. The hopeless call for data storage  ( page no longer available , search in web archives )  Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. . In: RP-Online. July 25, 2011. Retrieved July 25, 2011.  
97. ↑ vorratsdatenspeicherung.de
98. ↑ Minutes of the decision (PDF) p. 11 (PDF; 332 kB)
99. ↑ ^{a b} Nikolas Busse: Data retention: every day 315,036.54 euros fine . faz.net, May 31, 2012; Retrieved June 1, 2012.
100. ↑ Beck-Online ECJ: Germany achieves success in the dispute over data retention
101. ↑ ^{a b c} Bundestag: Introduction of a storage obligation and maximum storage period for traffic data. (PDF)
102. ↑ Data retention - no thanks - beck-community. In: blog.beck.de. May 15, 2015, accessed October 16, 2015 . 
103. ↑ Surveillance Act: Bundestag resolves controversial data retention. In: Spiegel Online . October 16, 2015, accessed October 16, 2015 . 
104. ↑ Stefan Krempl: Bundestag introduces data retention again - heise online. In: heise.de. October 16, 2015, accessed October 16, 2015 . 
105. ↑ Surveillance Act: Federal Council votes for data retention. In: Spiegel Online Netzwelt. November 6, 2015, accessed December 8, 2015 . 
106. ↑ Simon Rebiger: Federal Council waves data retention through. netzpolitik.org , November 6, 2015, accessed December 8, 2015 . 
107. ↑ Hauke Gierow: Act into force - storing not. Golem.de , December 18, 2015, accessed on December 23, 2015 . 
108. ↑ tagesschau.de: Data retention: Danger for whistleblowers and journalists. In: tagesschau.de. October 16, 2015, accessed October 16, 2015 . 
109. ↑ as / dpa / AFP / Reuters: Wolfgang Kubicki wants to sue against data retention. In: Spiegel Online . April 16, 2015, accessed May 13, 2020 . 
110. ↑ Markus Beckedahl: Data retention explained for beginners and advanced users. In: netzpolitik.org. October 16, 2015, accessed October 16, 2015 . 
111. ↑ Fabian Reinbold: Data retention: The great peeking is coming back. In: Spiegel Online . October 15, 2015, accessed October 16, 2015 . 
112. ↑ ^{a b c d} Angela Gruber: Anyone who complains about data retention. In: Spiegel Online Netzwelt. January 27, 2016, accessed November 28, 2016 . 
113. ↑ press release. (PDF) In: Northon Attorneys website. December 30, 2015, accessed November 28, 2016 . 
114. ↑ Christian Dingler: D64 files a constitutional complaint against data retention. In: D64 website. January 19, 2016, accessed November 28, 2016 . 
115. ↑ FDP files a constitutional complaint against data retention. In: Heise Newsticker. January 27, 2016, accessed November 28, 2016 . 
116. ↑ Jakob May: Another constitutional complaint filed against data retention. In: Netzpolitik.org. January 27, 2016, accessed November 28, 2016 . 
117. ↑ Prof. Dr. Heinrich Amadeus Wolff and lawyer Marco Buschmann : short version of the constitutional complaint of the FDP against data retention. (PDF) January 20, 2016, accessed November 28, 2016 . 
118. ↑ Bavarian SPD deputy complains against data retention. In: heise online-DE. Retrieved March 4, 2017 . 
119. ↑ Data retention - I am suing the Federal Constitutional Court - Florian Ritter. Retrieved March 4, 2017 . 
120. ^ Arne Meyer-Fünffinger: Green lawsuit against data retention: "Everyone is suspicious". In: tagesschau.de. September 3, 2016, accessed November 28, 2016 . 
121. ↑ Information from the Federal Constitutional Court on the number and types of complaints received. In: Freiheitsfoo. November 28, 2016. Retrieved November 29, 2016 . 
122. ↑ @digitalcourage: Correction: The file number of our constitutional complaint against data retention is correctly 1 BvR 2683/16. In: Twitter. December 7, 2016, accessed December 7, 2016 . 
123. ↑ Peter Mühlbauer: Karlsruhe should check data retention again. In: Telepolis. November 28, 2016. Retrieved November 28, 2016 . 
124. ↑ Rightly so: lawsuit filed against telephone & internet surveillance. In: digital courage website. November 28, 2016. Retrieved November 28, 2016 . 
125. ↑ Meinhard Starostik: Constitutional Complaint. (PDF) (No longer available online.) November 28, 2016, formerly in the original ; accessed on November 29, 2016 .  ( Page no longer available , search in web archives )  Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.    
126. ↑ Constitutional complaint against data retention. In: vorratsdatenspeicherung.jimdo.com. Retrieved January 12, 2017 . 
127. ^ LG-Berlin state liability suit . ( wixsite.com [accessed November 30, 2017]).
128. ↑ Background paper on the lawsuit by SpaceNet AG against data retention. (PDF) May 9, 2017, accessed on August 16, 2017 . 
129. ↑ Stefan Krempl: Spacenet and Eco are suing the administrative court against the data retention. In: Heise Online. May 9, 2017. Retrieved August 16, 2017 . 
130. ↑ Press release from Eco: Eco supports Spacenet in lawsuit against data retention. May 9, 2017. Retrieved August 16, 2017 . 
131. ↑ SpaceNet and eco are suing data retention. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung (dpa). May 9, 2017 . 
132. ↑ Stefan Krempl: Cologne Administrative Court does not suspend data retention. In: Heise Online. February 14, 2017. Retrieved August 16, 2017 . 
133. ^ Judgment as scan: Cologne Administrative Court , decision of January 25, 2017. (PDF) Retrieved on August 16, 2017 . 
134. ↑ Martin Holland: Federal Network Agency suspends data retention. In: Heise Online. June 28, 2017. Retrieved August 16, 2017 . 
135. ↑ VG Köln: Press release on the judgment of April 20 ( memento of the original of May 11, 2018 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. ( Ref .: 9 K 7417/17) 
136. ↑ Proposal for an EU regulation on privacy and electronic communication . 23 August 2020.
137. ↑ EDPS Opinion on the proposal for a regulation on privacy and electronic communications . 23 August 2020.
138. ↑ Press release 66/2019 of the BVerwG
139. ↑ Federal Administrative Court, order of September 25, 2019, file number 6 C 12.18
140. ↑ Controversial data retention: Austria implements EU requirements ( Memento of the original from May 5, 2011 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. parliament.gv.at 
141. ↑ Federal law consolidated: Entire legal regulation for the Telecommunications Act 2003 valid version
142. ↑ Austria and the fear of the million dollar fine Der Standard, February 7, 2011.
143. ^ Daniel AJ Sokolov: SPÖ and ÖVP decide to save data in Austria. Heise online , April 29, 2011, accessed May 21, 2011 . 
144. ↑ Federal Law Gazette I No. 27/2011 : Federal Act amending the Telecommunications Act 2003 - TKG 2003 (NR: GP XXIV RV 1074 AB 1157, p. 102. BR: AB 8493, p. 796.)
145. ↑ Preliminary ruling on G 47 / 12-11 and a. (PDF)
146. ↑ Court of Justice overturns data retention directive , Zeit.de, April 8, 2014.
147. ↑ The Court of Justice declares the data retention directive invalid (PDF) Press release of the European Court of Justice of April 8, 2014.
148. ↑ Federal Law Gazette I No. 44/2014 (PDF)
149. ↑ Constitutional Court G47 / 2012 RIS
150. ↑ Information on data from the transmission of messages and monitoring of messages Website of the Federal Ministry for Digitization and Business Location , as of July 11, 2018
151. ↑ Bulgaria wants to expand data retention. zdnet.fr, November 30, 2005.
152. ↑ ^{a b c} Constitutional lawsuit against data retention in Hungary Heise from June 5, 2008.
153. ↑ Loi n ° 2006–2064 du 23 janvier 2006. jurizine.net, 23 January 2006, accessed on 8 May 2010 . 
154. ↑ European Court of Justice overturns data retention . Time online
155. ↑ ^{a b} edri.org ( Memento of the original from August 29, 2011 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. 
156. ↑ Court in the Netherlands prohibits data retention . Beck-Online; accessed on March 11, 2015
157. ↑ Sweden opposes data retention . heise.de, February 6, 2010
158. ↑ unwatched.org
159. ↑ sverigesradio.se
160. ↑ sverigesradio.se
161. ↑ HCLU press release (English version) of June 2, 2008 , accessed on July 7, 2011.
162. ↑ Frank Möcke: Romanian Constitutional Court prohibits data retention. Heise online , October 10, 2009, accessed on March 8, 2010 . 
163. ↑ vorratsdatenspeicherung.de
164. ↑ heise.de
165. ↑ vorratsdatenspeicherung.de
166. ↑ British want to monitor Facebook . taz of March 25, 2009.
167. ↑ coalition agreement (PDF; 487 kB), p. 11.
168. ↑ mak / dpa: British Parliament decides on data retention. In: Spiegel Online . July 17, 2014, accessed May 13, 2020 . 
169. ↑ Swiss Federal Act of October 6, 2000 on the Monitoring of Post and Telecommunication Traffic (BÜPF)
170. ↑ Swiss Ordinance of October 31, 2001 on the Surveillance of Postal and Telecommunications Traffic (VÜPF)
171. ↑ Data retention - The monitored life of National Councilor Balthasar Glättli .  ( Page no longer available , search in web archives )  Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. Digital Society, April 27, 2014.  
172. ↑ Where has Mr. Glättli been for the last six months? Watson, April 27, 2014.
173. ↑ The glass National Council . In: Switzerland on Sunday , April 27, 2014
174. ↑ What the reserve data reveal . In: NZZ , April 27, 2014
175. ↑ Data retention in Switzerland: The digital society has been appealed to the Federal Administrative Court . Digital Society, September 2, 2014
176. ↑ Judgment of the Federal Administrative Court of November 9, 2016 (PDF)
177. ↑ Data retention: digital society goes to federal court . Digital Society, December 16, 2016
178. ↑ Monitoring of e-mail and mobile phone in Switzerland and possible protection against it
179. ↑ The data from the data retention
180. ↑ The «Criminal Offense Catalog » for data retention
181. ↑ US secret service, court considers NSA telephone surveillance to be unconstitutional ( memento of December 17, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) tagesschau.de
182. ↑ Data storage: DJV calls for journalists to be excluded. (No longer available online.) In: Press release. German Association of Journalists, February 22, 2006, archived from the original on April 19, 2011 ; Retrieved April 19, 2011 . 
183. ↑ Film contribution ( Memento of the original from September 27, 2007 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. of the Märkische Allgemeine 
184. ↑ Bundestag rejects petition against data retention. (No longer available online.) Heise online , July 29, 2008, archived from the original on April 19, 2011 ; Retrieved April 19, 2011 . 
185. ↑ epetionen.bundestag.de
186. ^ The call of the writers faz.net, December 10, 2013, accessed dto
187. ↑ Defending Democracy in the Digital Age change.org, December 10, 2013, accessed dto
188. ↑ Legal reality of the provision of information about telecommunication connection data according to §§ 100 g, 100h StPO, vorratsdatenspeicherung.de (PDF) 407.
189. ↑ Minimum retention periods for telecommunications connection data - legal facts to prove the deficit legal situation (PDF; 146 kB) Federal Criminal Police Office, November 15, 2006.
190. ↑ Opinion: Data retention unconstitutional June 16, 2007.
191. ↑ Federal Criminal Police Office, Police Criminal Statistics 2006, bka.de (PDF) 65.
192. ↑ Federal Criminal Police Office, Police Criminal Statistics 2006, bka.de (PDF) 243.
193. ↑ Evaluation of the data retention working group: "Data retention according to crime statistics superfluous" (September 2, 2010)
194. ↑ vorratsdatenspeicherung.de
195. ↑ mi.niedersachsen.de
196. ↑ Bundestag analysis : data retention does not really help investigators . heise.de, April 7, 2011.
197. ↑ Surveillance: Study questions the sense of stored data . Spiegel Online , January 27, 2012
198. ↑ Study doubts the usefulness of data retention . Süddeutsche Zeitung Online, January 27, 2012
199. ↑ Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law: Protection gaps due to the omission of data retention? (Expert opinion on behalf of the German Ministry of Justice), July 2011 ( Memento of the original from October 13, 2015 in the Internet Archive ; PDF; 2.5 MB) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. 
200. ↑ Metadata reveal the most intimate details of private life Golem.de, accessed on March 21, 2014.
201. ↑ daten-speicherung.de (PDF).
202. ↑ Permissibility of data retention under European and German law. (PDF; 207 kB) (No longer available online.) In: Wissenschaftlicher Dienst: Elaboration. German Bundestag, 2006, archived from the original on April 19, 2011 ; Retrieved April 19, 2011 . 
203. ↑ ^{a b} Bergmann / Mörle / Herb - The data protection comment . Part VI: Multimedia and data protection Preparatory 2.6. Richard-Boorberg, Stuttgart 2009, ISBN 978-3-415-00616-4 .
204. ↑ Uhe, Herrmann: Monitoring on the Internet . Diploma thesis, 2003, p. 161 ig.cs.tu-berlin.de ( Memento of the original from May 17, 2006 in the Internet Archive ; PDF) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. . 
205. ↑ BVerfG, judgment of March 12, 2003, 1 BvR 330/96, paragraph no. (1–135) 3rd paragraph, sentence 3
206. ↑ vorratsdatenspeicherung.de
207. ^ Call for nationwide decentralized rallies on Tuesday, November 6th, 2007
208. ↑ Thousands demonstrate nationwide against data retention (November 7, 2007)
209. ↑ Tens of thousands demonstrated against data storage in Berlin Der Standard from October 12, 2008.
210. ↑ Civil rights activists call for a large demonstration . heise-online; Retrieved June 28, 2008.
211. ↑ Newsticker of the Demoorga: wiki.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de , accessed on February 13, 2009.
212. ↑ blog. Freiheitstattangst.de ( Memento of the original from March 4, 2011 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. 
213. ↑ wiki.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de
214. ↑ ^{a b} Retention for Facebook data. FM4 Online ( Austrian Broadcasting ); Retrieved November 8, 2012

Please note the information on legal issues!