Illegal trade in personal data of German residents flourishes – despite tighter laws
The incursion into the forbidden zone was carried out as part of a journalistic investigation. And it proved: virtual trade in personal data in Germany continues, despite any amendments to the current legislation. About two million files were offered to 'buyers' by an anonymous seller, found through a simple search engine query. The seller himself, the owner of a decent 'library', supposedly resides in Tunisia. Another (from somewhere in Eastern Europe) was unable to enter into a transaction with the journalists – he responded a bit later than his 'colleague' and asked for more money.
How many people in Germany regularly become victims of illegal data trade is hard to say. In Berlin alone, according to the Consumer Protection Association, up to 700 cases of anonymous use of bank details passed on to fraudsters by bookmaking offices, advertising call centers and even insurance funds are registered annually. This is, of course, less than the number of targets of legal eavesdropping and surveillance by the Federal Criminal Police Office, but it has far more serious consequences.
A virus planted by intelligence services into a computer (more than 60 thousand cases per year) will only allow them to familiarize themselves with the contents of your correspondence – which is, of course, unpleasant and, generally speaking, ethically unacceptable. On the other hand, access to your data – exposed online or disclosed by phone for one reason or another – by 'businessmen' can lighten your current account by a certain amount. A small one, as a rule: fraudsters rarely withdraw more than 50 euros at a time, so that an unexpected 'minus' does not catch the eye when receiving a bank statement.
In June, the Bundestag, followed by the Bundesrat, approved amendments to the Law on the Protection of Personal Data. This legal act coincided in time with the conclusion of the case of sending a CD to the address of the Consumer Protection Association of Schleswig-Holstein, on which 17 thousand personal files were recorded, stolen from the computer database of the South German Lottery (SKL), and simultaneously with the 'Telekom' scandal: it was then that it emerged that Germany's largest telephone provider (apparently not entirely free of charge) provided information about its clients to the Federal Criminal Police Office. The amendments to the law come into force on September 1, but have already been in the so-called testing phase for six months. Enterprises participating in the experiment voluntarily assume obligations to 'transfer personal data of clients to third parties only with the consent of the latter'. Henceforth, this condition will be mandatory.
But the question remains open: is the consumer, when placing an order online, ready to give up a desired purchase if among the mandatory conditions it is stated: 'The supplier retains information about the buyer in its database for marketing research'? Didn't check the box – buy in the store, that is, more expensive. Did check it – you yourself signed permission to transfer your information somewhere far, far away.
'Not at all surprised' by the current scandal provoked by NDR journalists, says the Federal Commissioner for Data Protection, Peter Schaar. According to him, 'it is extremely difficult to combat illegal information trade' because his office lacks 'both human and material resources'. Taking the opportunity, Schaar calls on citizens to be extra vigilant in the face of fraudsters. 'Are we always careful when answering questions online or on the phone, do we not say too much?' he asks.
Schaar's opponents from the government opposition are outraged. The leader of the Greens, Claudia Roth, considers the 'red-black' cabinet incapable of 'patching holes in the trade of personal data', while Left Party domestic policy expert Petra Pau emphasizes that 'for all the novelty of the scandal, the problem is old'. This outrage is cheap: the amendments to the law provide for mandatory consent to data transfer to third parties only when there is an 'exceptional risk of intrusion into the private sphere'.
As practice shows, the degree of exceptionality is already stipulated for persons who, 'for legal reasons, do not publicize their addresses, phone numbers and bank accounts' – for politicians, public and religious figures, top managers and show business stars. And the rest, sorry, need to be more careful.
Elena OBODOVSKAYA,
«Russkaya Germaniya»