Protection of personal data: The dark side of the welfare state

Citizens are not only perceived as a potential security hazard, but at the same time also monitored with care. Numerous institutions are designed to support people in special life situations and across different phases of life. Unemployment insurance, pension insurance, health insurance and social assistance are used to help individuals into catch personal crisis situations. The sum of the funds redistributed annually via social benefits clearly exceeds the volume of the federal budget.

While the “Kainsmal of surveillance” is literally visible in police data processing, the welfare state is hardly associated with the term “surveillance”. Nevertheless, the social benefits providers have by far the most extensive personal data collections and have the most knowledge about the citizens. The information you store is alsoEspecially sensitive, since they contain, for example, information about the state of health, the neediness or family circumstances.

Although there is no central data pool in which all social insurance data is stored together, the networks between the individual data stocks are constantly growing. Structural changes in the social security system are leading to ever more comprehensive databases. Since different performance systems are linked to each other, different social benefitshave to be offset against each other, there is an increasing data comparison. In addition to the social service providers, other state authorities such as tax offices are also involved. The aim is to uncover cases of unlawful multiple references. This comprehensive data link is important from a data protection perspective because the data is collected for purposes other than originallybe used and this is done without concrete suspicion against the affected persons. In this respect, this procedure is similar to a grid search.

A particularly striking example is the comparison of BAföG recipient data with tax exemption orders. The information provided by the scholarship holders was compared with data from exemption orders registered at the Federal Office of Finance according to the Federal Training Promotion Act. The aim was to find out who concealed his own income or assets when submitting the applicationhad. As a result, the approval notices were revoked for thousands of recipients, funds were reclaimed and fraud proceedings were initiated. Such adjustments are also made when granting social assistance and unemployment benefit II (ALG II) in order to uncover any concealed income or savings.

With the introduction of unemployment benefit II, the extensive application forms led to protests and complaints. Not only was the personal circumstances and financial situation asked, but also about roommates and relatives. The aim was to determine whether the applicant lives in a “needs community” through further income or assetsor support from relatives or roommates is possible. Initially, the forms contained numerous questions that were actually not necessary for the performance calculation.

Although data protection officers were able to push through changes in lengthy negotiations, the basic problem remained: ALG II is a subsidiary service, depending on the individual need. If someone has other income or assets, they must first be used up. Only those who prove that they have no other means receive ALG II. This example shows thatPrivacy issues are often closely related to the conception of the performance systems and cannot be solved in isolation.

When the costs for ALG II unexpectedly increased, the causes were quickly searched for. Federal Minister of Economics Wolfgang Clement presented case studies to prove that social benefits were taken unlawfully on a large scale. There was a lot of publicity about abuse. In many cases, the relationship was legal, for example when adult childrenundress and thus receive a separate right to support.

One can have different opinions as to whether certain housing constellations are morally justifiable if they only serve to avoid a “community of needs”. However, such designs are legally permissible and are accepted in other areas, such as tax law.

Health insurance companies, long-term care and pension insurance also collect large amounts of data. Many politicians are calling for increased control in view of the rising costs. More information about health status, treatments and performance is being stored. By 2003, billing documents were only sent to associations of statutory health insurance physicians to ensure that health insurance companieslimit to sensitive health data.

With a change in 2003, however, the health insurance companies were informed about the health status of their insured persons, since treatment data are reported directly to the health insurance companies. The Bundestag made it clear that this data may only be used for billing and testing purposes. Whether these restrictions will last in the long term in view of rising health costs is questionable.

The health insurance companies receive highly sensitive information through hospital reports and nursing documentation. These documents contain detailed information on the state of health and the need for care. They are often processed automatically. These data are usually not for better care, but for the control of the nursing services. The distribution of such intimate information isproblematic and must be protected.

The evaluation of personal data by insurance companies is understandable in order to control costs and prevent fraud. However, the data collected often exceeds the amount necessary for the billing. Data protection has the task of protecting people from excessive control of their most intimate areas of life, especially those who have hardly any chance ofto resist it.