Stalking relativeswho stalk their victims even though they move; Nazi threatening messages against political opponents – This is partly possible using address information from German population registers. If those affected do not have any information blocks, such queries are easily possible. This should change according to the will of the current federal government.
Even though it is more than uncertain whether the law will still be voted on in the Bundestag after the traffic lights are turned off, an expert hearing took place in Parliament today Changes to the Federal Registration Act instead of. Lars Castellucci (SPD) chaired the meeting and pointed out that although one never knows exactly what will happen to a hearing, the Bundestag is “continuing to work under difficult conditions” and the importance of the topic is “sufficiently clear” so that the There is no doubt that a future Bundestag would also deal with this.
The planned new regulations go back to one Draft law from the Federal Ministry of the Interior by Nancy Faeser (SPD), the federal government approved the draft in May. The goal: On the one hand, it should become more difficult to improperly query reporting data. On the other hand, information blocks should be easier to obtain for people who are particularly at risk. In doing so, the Ministry of the Interior responded to increasing hostility and threats from politically active people and elected officials. Local politicians in particular are often exposed to hostility and violence.
Slightly higher hurdles for requests for information
Anyone who wants to request a current private address from the registration offices in the future will have to provide more information about the person they are looking for than before. Currently, those seeking information must provide the first and last name, date of birth, gender or address of the person they are looking for. According to the draft law, either the address or two other pieces of information will be required – for example, place of birth and date of move-in.
This is intended to raise the hurdles, but some warn that more data could be collected than before, especially in the business sector – so that business partners can subsequently apply for reporting information if it becomes necessary. So writes the industry association Bitkom in his statement: “Collecting this data would lead to additional effort and bureaucracy. In addition, the collection of additional personal data would reduce data protection and the principle of data economy to absurdity.”
The Federal Data Protection Commissioner points out in their statement points out that the Conference of Data Protection Commissioners has long been calling for those affected to have the right to object to requests for information. This would allow you to prevent data transfer as long as there is no legitimate reason for the information. Extended registration information could even always be tied to a legal interest. Andreas Hartl, who took part in the expert hearing on behalf of the authority, also pointed this out.
Why is there any information at all without a legitimate interest?
In contrast to simple information, the extended data contains, among other things, information about the previous addresses of the person queried and the addresses of life partners. To date, a legitimate interest must be proven. A legal interest exists, for example, when there is a legal dispute and someone wants to enforce claims for damages against a person.
Kai Dittmann from the Society for Freedom Rights asked the counter question at the meeting to illustrate the problem: “Why should an address be given out if there is no legitimate interest?” Possible concerns about a high level of bureaucratic effort for the registration authorities, the requests for information He countered that in most cases the situation would be clear. If companies are interested, they could simply submit an invoice to be paid.
Four years instead of two for information blocks
In order to actively protect themselves from address inquiries, those affected could in the past apply for a blocking of information for two years. This period of validity should be extended to four years in order to relieve the burden on those affected and the authorities. To ensure that those who are at acute risk are not left without protection while applying for a block, there should also be temporary information blocks until a decision has been made on the application.
The Women’s Shelter Coordination Association e. V. the planned regulations do not go far enough. The association would like to see an automatic ban for women affected by violence, not just while they are in a women’s shelter. Besides, it does Women’s shelter coordination in its statement Please note that if information is blocked successfully, the addresses of shelters must still be stated when registering your place of residence. Problems would also arise if, for example, youth welfare offices and courts did not pay sufficient attention to the block and print addresses on documents.
“The real address of women’s shelters must not be registered and placed on the market,” demands the association and suggests several possible solutions. For example, when registering, you can specify the official address of the provider and not the specific address of the shelter itself.
Representatives better protected
According to the draft, anyone who fills out a mandate for the EU, federal, state or local authorities should from now on be routinely treated in the same way as others who are at risk due to their profession or commitment. For some experts, that’s not enough. Josephine Ballon, managing director of HateAid, advocated expanding those in need of protection by default. As an example, she gave journalists who are often exposed to hostility. The weighing up must be based more broadly on social commitment.
Dittmann also mentioned people who work in counseling centers for those affected by violence as generally in need of protection. Doctors who perform abortions are also often at risk. In addition, there could be problems with candidates for political office, but these have not yet been covered by the new regulations. Next to him, Heiko Teggatz from the German Police Union called for an expansion to include police officers. They are also often victims of hostility and attacks.
No uniform practice
All of these people can now request a block, but they must individually justify why they need a block on information. There is apparently no consensus as to whether an authority recognizes this. HateAid’s Ballon pointed out that the approval of bans is handled very differently depending on the authority. While some offices apply blocking requests without major obstacles if there is a plausible reason, those affected in similar situations elsewhere have to sue to block information. People also get the impression that “the child must have fallen into the well first” – that is, that they must already be in real danger in order to be protected. In its advisory work, HateAid recommends that those affected print out their comment columns or hate emails to the authorities.
The draft law does not include a revision of the imprint requirement, which has been repeatedly criticized. There, many website operators have to provide a private address, which potentially makes them vulnerable. The opportunity to address the problem in the Digital Services Act remained unused. Due to the government’s break, a required regulation on the planned law against digital violence can no longer be expected.
