The German surveillance system compared to the USA: The official view of freedom and self-determination

The German system of citizen monitoring is characterized by strict control, bureaucracy and a strong delegation of surveillance tasks to private actors. This development means that citizens are hardly able to recognize and monitor the boundaries that could possibly serve to uncover criminal acts. The consequence is a deep discrepancyBetween the official regulations and the actual implementation, which is pushing the citizen more and more into the defensive.

Comparison with the US identification system

In contrast, the United States of America is a prime example of democracy, freedom and individual self-determination. Practice shows that identification and state control are much less restrictive and self-determined. There is no uniform, nationwide identity card – rather, the identification is usually carried outState-issued drivers’ licenses or even through less formal documents such as library cards. For many everyday activities, no central registration is necessary, and if it does, then to a significantly smaller extent than in Germany, for example in comparison to the registration of SIM cards, the presentation of ID cards or the obligation to copy. In the USA, there is also noObligation to report the residence centrally. This eliminates the need for a form of state surveillance that is common in Germany, which leads to a high degree of personal freedom and self-determination. The American system can therefore be regarded as a counter-model to the German surveillance state: It shows that personal freedom and a functioning everyday life without comprehensivestate control are possible.

Contradictions and problems in German identification law

But in Germany, many forms of identification reveal profound contradictions. In certain cases, the Identity Card Act requires the submission of an identification document to determine the identity. However, no mandatory copying or permanent scan is provided. At the same time, the Money Laundering Act requires identity verification and documentation,In many cases, the creation of full scans or the optical digitization of the documents are permitted. These contradictory regulations open up a leeway that many private providers are exploiting to assert their own interests.

Practical impact on citizens and service providers

In practice, numerous telecommunications providers, prepaid SIM providers and other service providers require consent to create and process an ID copy before the actual identification. If this consent is denied, the service is often refused to, for example the activation of a SIM card. Although the law expressly noprescribes a duty of copying, this creates a de facto compulsion for the citizen. According to the specifications of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), consent should be given voluntarily, informed and without pressure. But in reality, the opposite is the case: if the use of a service is bound by the consent, the voluntary nature is actually abolished. This system of mutualDistrust begins with the state that has issued the regulations on identity verification and documentation.

Influence of large and small companies on surveillance practices

Large corporations acting on behalf of or within the framework of legal obligations implement these requirements and in some cases tighten them up in order to avoid possible legal risks and regulatory restrictions. Smaller businesses and even the smallest traders jump on this train, require identical conditions, often without a legal basis or actual need,because otherwise there is a risk of official measures, for example in the form of additional tax audits or other checks. In anticipatory obedience, they tighten the already restrictive regulations of the state even further, which puts even more pressure on the citizen. The result is a system in which the righteous citizen is comprehensively monitored and monitored while theInspectors themselves are hardly checked and their monitoring activities are hardly transparent.

Security Risks and Privacy Scandals

Numerous scandals about data loss, data leaks, illegal data trading and abuse show how vulnerable this system is. In such cases, those responsible usually go into hiding or hide behind a wall of organizational irresponsibility. In this situation, the citizen usually sits on his damage – be it through plundered accounts,Credit card fraud or identity theft: Many of the service providers who are used in sensitive procedures such as Video-Ident or the verification of ID documents are not based in Germany, but abroad. This outsources the review of the data to international companies where compliance with Germandata protection standards is hardly controllable. Anyone who shows their ID cards trust private, sometimes distant people, whose handling of the data is only understandable to a limited extent.

Distrust and delegation of control to private companies

At the same time, the citizen is generally placed under general suspicion, although he is acting law-abiding. This system reveals a profound contradiction: The state enforces strict regulations, but at the same time sows distrust of citizens. He delegates control to private companies that set their own rules and often tighten them up against legalto hedge risks. The result is a society in which the righteous citizen is increasingly being disempowered by monitoring, data control and documentation obligations. At the same time, the actual risks – such as data theft, account theft or identity abuse – are largely unconsidered.

Dangers of private service providers in identification procedures

A particularly alarming example is the practice of identifying procedures or making copies of ID cards by private service providers or individual employees. Here there is a risk that people with criminal energy will take the opportunity to make complete copies of ID cards – front and back -Save or share magnification Anyone who believes that the recipients of these documents are serious is based on trust, but there is no guarantee of the security of this data. It is hardly controllable whether these sensitive documents will later be abused, resold or used for criminal offenses. While the state requires the citizen to fully open up and his dataTo disclose, the citizen himself remains in danger of becoming a victim of criminal activities.

Paradoxes and inefficiencies of the monitoring system

This system shows a profound paradox: There are a variety of regulations and laws that regulate identity security, but in practice the system is anti-civil, inefficient and paradoxical. Personal freedom and privacy are severely restricted, while actual security against criminal acts is hardly improved. thatMonitoring system in Germany is a construct that relies on control, trust in private actors and enormous bureaucracy without effectively minimizing the actual risks. It is a system that constantly monitors the citizen, controls them and collects their data, while controlling the inspectors themselves is hardly checked and even with very rare transfersonly have to expect symbolic penalties.

Loss of balance between security, control and freedom

This leads to a dangerous development: The balance between security, control and freedom has been lost. Today, freedom means above all freedom of choice and control over one’s own data. But it is precisely this freedom that is systematically undermined in Germany. Instead of relying on trust and self-determination, fear, surveillance and the fear of data misuse dominate.This disproportion shows that a system that sees distrust but does not offer any effective countermeasures against the actual dangers is not only ineffective, but also undermines the foundation of our constitutional state. It damages trust in state institutions and creates a society where control and supervision set the tone, while citizens are alwayshave less control over your own data and your privacy.