A commentary by our author Klaus Bastian
State authorities are expanding their capacity to monitor citizens. Domestic intelligence agencies are set to be granted powers for deeper digital interventions. EU plans are once again paving the way for the automated scanning of private messages. Furthermore, criminal complaints and reporting portals are increasing the pressure on online speech. At the same time, the federal government intends to amend the Federal Freedom of Information Act, thereby making access to its records more difficult. This could result in critical media outlets losing key investigative rights. Consequently, these developments are fueling concerns about the emergence of a surveillance state.
Critical media outlets could lose their right to access information
The governing coalition plans to restrict future Freedom of Information Act requests to natural persons who can demonstrate a “legitimate interest.” Newsrooms, publishing houses, and associations would no longer be able to file requests in their own name; instead, critical media outlets would have to conduct any such research through individual journalists. This would allow authorities to immediately identify who is investigating a particular topic. Furthermore, the government is considering higher fees, more extensive redactions, and new exemptions. In this way, the state is increasingly deciding for itself who is permitted to hold it accountable.
Image: AI-generated
The requirement to demonstrate a legitimate interest creates a near-impossible paradox. Journalists request files precisely because they do not yet know their contents; yet, they are expected to justify the significance of this unknown information in advance. Consequently, authorities could reject requests on the grounds that the stated interest is too vague or insufficiently substantiated. For ordinary citizens, the hurdle is even higher. Currently, the state bears the burden of justifying secrecy. In the future, the applicant would first have to explain why they deserve access in the first place.
Increased surveillance meets reduced public oversight
At the same time, the Interior Ministry is planning significantly expanded powers for the domestic intelligence agency (BfV) and the foreign intelligence service (BND). The draft legislation includes provisions for online searches, “source” telecommunications surveillance (intercepting data at the source device), and expanded data matching. Intelligence services would also be authorized to intervene directly in specific threat scenarios. Terrorism, espionage, and sabotage demand effective countermeasures. However, any additional power requires a commensurate level of oversight. Yet, the federal government is moving in the opposite direction.
The renewed EU proposal for “chat control” also shifts the boundaries of what is permissible. Service providers would once again be required to scan unencrypted private communications for imagery depicting abuse. While protecting children remains a vital objective, the regulation accustoms millions of users to indiscriminate technical monitoring. The path to a surveillance state rarely begins with a single, all-encompassing measure; rather, it emerges through a series of interventions, each initially justified by a plausible purpose.
One case, millions warned
Criminal complaints filed by politicians have their greatest impact through media coverage. Since September 2021, the Ministry of Economic Affairs has recorded a total of 805 complaints regarding insults or threats directed at Robert Habeck. In the well-known “Schwachkopf” (moron) case, police arrived at a pensioner’s home in the morning and seized his tablet. Although other allegations played a role in the proceedings, the public primarily remembers the police operation triggered by a mocking social media post. The specific legal case concerning the alleged insult ultimately ended without a conviction. The case involving the use of the term “Lackaffe” (dandy/fop) to describe Friedrich Merz played out similarly. Initially, the Heilbronn District Court issued a penal order imposing a fine of 30 daily rates. Following an objection, the court discontinued the proceedings in exchange for a payment of 100 euros. In contrast, the public prosecutor’s office deemed the term “Pinocchio” to be permissible criticism of those in power. For laypeople, the line between the two remains difficult to predict. The message, therefore, follows the principle: punish one to educate many.
When Control Turns into a Surveillance State
Reporting portals and “trusted flaggers” further amplify this deterrent effect. By September 2025, the initiative “Hessen gegen Hetze” (Hesse Against Hate Speech) had received around 85,000 reports; however, approximately 93 percent had no discernible connection to the state of Hesse. Furthermore, platforms are required to prioritize reports from certified trusted flaggers. While they do retain the final decision on whether to delete content, the incentive to block controversial material as a precaution is growing. Consequently, citizens do not merely exercise caution regarding what they write online; they must reckon with the possibility that a heated comment could lead to the police showing up at their door the next morning, devices being confiscated, and investigations being launched. The mere prospect of this disciplines far more people than any subsequent court ruling ever could. Thus, intimidation arises without the need for an explicit ban.
Germany continues to have independent courts, a free press, and parliamentary oversight. Yet, these safeguards must not be gradually eroded. A surveillance state emerges when the state knows increasingly more about its citizens while disclosing less and less about itself. Criminal proceedings must target genuine threats rather than stifling political polemics as a preemptive measure. Intelligence agencies require clear boundaries and effective oversight. Above all, the government must not block critical media outlets from accessing its own official records.
Author: Klaus Bastian – Blackout News
Sources: Deutschlandfunk (14.07.26) – NZZ (08.07.26) – Bundesministerium des Inneren (06.07.26) – Tagesspiegel (11.06.26) – Tagesschau (06.07.26) – Legale Tribune Global (06.07.26) – ZDFHeute (02.07.26) – MDR (01.06.26)