Letters to the editor on Frankly speaking “Give them the key!”, 8. 9.
Openly contradicted: Dear Mr. Patterer, I generally appreciate your clever and well-considered comments in the Kleine Zeitung. But this time you have fallen for the trap of our wild interior minister. The so-called messenger surveillance actually poses more risks than it is capable of preventing. Why?
Firstly, messenger surveillance would not have been effective in any of the recent attacks or attack plans. The attackers in Vienna were discovered via officially accessible Instagram channels – unfortunately not by our DSN. And the attacker in Munich was completely unremarkable.
Secondly, in order to monitor messages from suspects, software must be installed on smartphones to do this. Unless you get hold of the smartphone, this can only be done by exploiting a possible security loophole. And this is where Pandora’s box opens. If the state deliberately looks for such loopholes or even intentionally keeps them open, it won’t be long before the bad guys get hold of them. In doing so, the state is knowingly endangering the security of all citizens!
That is why I clearly demand: Hands off our smartphones.
Markus Steiner, Ortisei
What is more important?
The Austrian secret services should be able to look deep inside me, via my cell phone or the Internet. And no one should know how they manage it if it prevents even one assassination attempt or one death. The self-appointed (self-staging) data protection advocates should go to the parents, partners, children… of innocent victims, express their deep sympathy, and then explain to them that protecting all private dirty photos, embarrassing, childish chat messages, boring, saucy movement patterns, etc. is more important than preventing a violent crime.
What data protection officers should do, what Austria needs, is a strong “Internal Investigation“, an independent authority that prevents personalized files from the police stations and public prosecutors’ offices from appearing in the media practically hot off the press – even if it currently only harms political competition. If a doctor, notary, or lawyer handles customer data so carelessly, he loses his license. I am not aware of any transfers, charges, or convictions, although it can be ruled out that an accused’s lawyer leaked them.
So please ensure that the highest quality surveillance equipment is installed quickly, under judicial supervision and with foreign training.
Wolfgang Peternell, St. Veit
Lack of efficiency
I agree with you on many, but not all, points regarding surveillance. I don’t think it’s possible to actually conduct effective investigations with the restrictions you’ve mentioned. Once there’s a suspicion, surveillance can begin (with permission).
Foreign services are so effective because they have access to all data and do not need permission to do so. Only when I filter all the data can I determine whether the person is a threat.
Johann Eisenberger, Neumarkt
