Summary

The modern preventive currents that substitute the archaic climate of criminal policy based predominantly on the doctrine of revenge have brought along a massive increase of interferences of fundamental rights under the pretext on ensuring security. Understandably, in a chaotic border situation, security may become the ultimate value. At that, apologists of the security-based concept forget to inform us of the fact that we, in our daily lives, even with the current set of significant dangers, presently do not find ourselves in such a border situation, and should also not be guided by this in our discussions about ensuring security. Thus, we must currently also resolve our issues of security while being guided by the established rules for legitimising the infringement of fundamental rights. However, the reality of deliberating (financing) security measures is rather so that supporters of the increasingly all-encompassing security empire do not even bother to go down to the level of fundamental rights in their efforts.

The author provides an overview of the origin story of surveillance rules in force today, which he calls unconstitutional-like birth traumas. The author also lists some more important proposals for the legislative authority to amend the current surveillance rules, providing justifications that are as concise as possible.