• English Site
• > Germany
• > Data Protection

Press Freedom Under Attack

Big Brother Eyes German Journalists

By Markus Brauck, Marcel Rosenbach and Markus Verbeet

Part 2: 'The Free Press is Facing a Devastating Blow'

A further amendment to the bill has been pushed through by Siegfried Kauder, a legal expert in the CDU parliamentary party and the chairman of the parliamentary committee investigating the German foreign intelligence agency (BND). It was Kauder who sought to uncover media leaks from the committee, a move which led to state prosecutors pressing charges against a number of journalists.

Kauder has proposed that so-called coincidental discoveries made during police searches of media premises and confiscated material may not as a rule be used in subsequent legal proceedings, unless they are linked to cases of serious misdemeanors or felonies.

Moreover, he adds that the classic case of suspicion of divulging state secrets has been explicitly removed from the proposed legislation: "The original draft would have made journalists worse off. This amendment improves their legal position," says Kauder.

However, the coalition is still unwilling to abandon the idea of granting journalists fewer privileges than members of parliament, the clergy and defense lawyers. The idea is that journalists should receive only second-class rights to refuse to give evidence.

Many politicians have a hard time seeing much of anything worth protecting in the work of journalists. This may be partly due to the fact that the relationship between politicians and journalists has been extremely strained over the past few years. Politicians complain of inaccurate research and the dogged focus on exclusive stories. They have had their share of bad experiences with sensationalist journalism and would like to see more explanatory journalism.

For a long time now, journalists have come under growing pressure from state prosecutors who try to use them to gain access to informants. And all this has been taking place amid an atmosphere of growing competition in the media world. This is precisely why ZDF editor-in-chief Brender is so upset about the politicians' lack of sensitivity as they chip away at the confidentiality of sources. "These days, with the free press already treading on thin ice, this is a devastating blow."

Meanwhile, the main target of the criticism doesn't understand what all the fuss is about. Justice Minister Zypries feels that she has been woefully misunderstood -- and treated rather unfairly.

After all, the whole thing was not her idea, but rather a European guideline.

Zypries says that mandatory data retention needs to be implemented as part of an EU directive. She explains that it is only thanks to her and her ministry that the new proposed regulations are not considerably more far reaching: "We fought virtually alone in Brussels and won concessions from the other member states."

And then she lists the concessions. Originally, every unsuccessful phone call was to be entered into the record. Now, attempted phone calls play no role in the EU directive.

What's more, the six-month retention limit in Germany "is at the lower limit" for the implementation of the directive, says the minister. She points out that in other European countries the retention limit extends as far as 24 months. In addition, she says that the proposed law in Germany clearly states that "those affected will be notified later and the retained data will be erased."

Ireland is even going one step further by challenging the data retention directive before the European Court of Justice (ECJ). But that, according to Zypries, has never been a viable option for Germany: "We wanted to play an active role and prevent unacceptable maximum demands instead of sulking in the corner with no means of influencing the legislation."

Pulling a Fast One on the EU

Many opponents of the bill, including representatives of the telecom and Internet industries, argue that it would be better to wait at least until the ECJ issues a ruling in the spring before investing hundreds of millions of euros. But the Justice Minister will hear nothing of it -- despite the fact that she has made similar objections to the controversial proposal by Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble to introduce online searches of suspects' computers.

Zypries explains that, in contrast to the online search debate, the Irish legal challenge before the ECJ is a purely procedural matter. Ireland actually backs the principle of data retention and is merely contesting the way this European legislation was passed -- not the actual contents of the EU directive.

The fact of the matter is that proponents of the directive pulled a fast one at the EU level. Instead of calling the data retention regulations a crime prevention initiative, they billed it as a series of measures to foster the internal market.

There was a special reason behind this labeling switcheroo. A framework decision on combating crime would have required a unanimous vote by the Council of Ministers. This trick made it possible to sidestep small countries like Ireland and Slovakia.

Nonetheless, the protests appear to have made some impression on the justice minister after all. Quietly, a number of articles in the original draft have been changed again. The ministry is inching its way forwards, slowly but surely.

History has shown that there are good reasons for the concerns and suspicions of journalists and publishers with regard to the new data collection mania. The powers of the state have always been only too eager to tighten the reins on journalists.

From the SPIEGEL affair in the early 1960s to the illegal search of the editorial offices of the monthly political magazine Cicero in 2005 and the recent investigations of 17 journalists who cited confidential documents from the ongoing BND investigative committee -- the goal has always been to track down leaks in the state apparatus.

And when state authorities intervene, they are not only -- as politicians invariably maintain -- seeking to combat terrorism or avert major threats.

Recently, the higher regional court in Dresden gave the district court in Chemnitz a dressing down for allowing investigators to check the mobile and landline phone calls made by a journalist working for the Dresdner Morgenpost.Law enforcement officials wanted to find out who had leaked the time for a planned search of the residence of former Saxony Economics Minister Kajo Schommer. The next day, there was a picture of Schommer in the paper, in his pajamas.

Which all proves at least one point: If the authorities want to access data, they will invariably do so.

In Dresden the court ruled that the protection of sources is vital because the press depends on information from private individuals. According to the judges, this information only flows freely if sources can depend on journalists to maintain the confidentiality of their sources.

"Up until now, public prosecutors have made a few dents in reporters' privileges, but the courts have always managed to hammer them back into shape," says a legal adviser to the German Journalists Association, Benno Pöppelmann. "However, what we could be facing now in the area of law enforcement investigations is a total smash-up that can't be fixed."