A draft law mandating the mandatory storage of IP addresses for three months is poised to be introduced by the German government, marking a significant expansion of surveillance powers despite mounting criticism from privacy advocates. The legislation, spearheaded by Justice Minister Stefanie Hubig of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and agreed upon in the coalition treaty between the SPD and the Christian Union parties, aims to bolster efforts against online crime, particularly child pornography, online fraud and hate speech.
According to reports in “Bild am Sonntag”, the proposed law compels internet service providers (ISPs) to retain an extensive suite of data, including the IP address itself, the precise date and time of connection initiation and termination and unique identifiers associated with each internet connection. Minister Hubig, drawing on her prior experience as a public prosecutor, has publicly stated her intent to “effectively combat crime on the internet” arguing that current measures frequently allow perpetrators to evade justice.
The draft legislation has already been circulated to other ministries for review and is slated for a parliamentary vote in the spring. While Hubig has emphatically dismissed concerns regarding privacy violations, asserting that the law safeguards the confidentiality of communication and excludes the creation of user profiles, critics are already raising serious questions about the potential for abuse and mission creep.
The scale of data collection required by the law raises concerns about vulnerabilities to hacking and data breaches, potentially exposing vast amounts of user information. Furthermore, legal scholars are questioning the proportionality of the measure, arguing that such broad-reaching data retention could infringe upon fundamental rights to privacy and freedom of expression. The impending legislation is therefore likely to spark intense debate within the Bundestag and beyond, particularly as opposition parties prepare to challenge its necessity and potential impact on civil liberties. The government’s assurances about preventing profiling will be scrutinized and the question remains whether this expansion of state power is justified by the stated goals of combating online crime.