The overhaul of Germany’s intelligence services, which is anticipated to be the largest reform in years, is facing intense criticism. Louisa Specht-Riemenschneider, the country’s top data protection officer, warned the “Süddeutsche Zeitung” that the government’s draft legislation introduces massive risks to civil liberties.
Specht-Riemenschneider stressed that intelligence agencies must not be allowed to act or interfere “like the police.” She expressed confidence that the Federal Constitutional Court would rule that the proposed changes go too far, declaring them “unacceptable limitations of fundamental rights.”
Under the current proposal, agencies such as the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Verfassungsschutz) and the Federal Intelligence Service (BND) would gain access to public and private video surveillance systems in public areas. This access would include audio recordings and real-time images. Furthermore, Specht-Riemenschneider noted that data gathered via cameras or drones-even if the collection itself exceeded legal limits-would be permissible under the new rules.
The top data protection officer also sharply criticized the planned regulations regarding data storage. Specifically, the BND would no longer need to delete personal data sourced from publicly accessible materials. She deemed this policy of indefinite storage to be unconstitutional. A core demand of Specht-Riemenschneider is that any response to new security threats must genuinely maintain proportionality and balance between security and freedom, an objective she feels has not been achieved.
Specht-Riemenschneider, who is planning to retire in September due to health reasons, is one of the most crucial regulators of German intelligence agencies. Her authority is set to expire at the beginning of the year. However, the new supervisory body, the Independent Control Council, will not take over its duties until early 2029. “Citizens will be denied the opportunity to appeal for two years,” she warned, demanding systemic changes: “The rule of law cannot take a two-year vacation.”
