 Okay, dann ist es mir jetzt eine ganz besonderes... ...Hand is no... ...head of some European Academy for Data Protection. Hallo, my dear hackers, sirs and madams. I liked to come here. It's not the first time I talk on the cause of communication in Congress. The first time must have happened like 30 years ago. Back in the Burger House, sterling in Hamburg, that was completely different. Especially much fewer people were here and it was significantly less professional. It wasn't a critic, but in every beginning there is some magic. So I'm really happy that the community does not just continue to exist, but grew this explosively and continues to grow. Because it's all about you when we talk about how the future is going to be. And if you don't participate, you can't complain about the results. Many people in Great Britain noticed this when they woke up one morning after an election, where it happened, where it turned out like it turned out. But not in the way many people wanted it or expected it. But in such a way that unfortunately for Great Britain the exit from the European Union is coming, that does not need to happen. And we hope that we don't say the same in Germany, like it shouldn't have happened that way. Because there are many ways to change something. And I'm talking about security here. And what does this image I'm projecting here to do with security? It's the title book of a really famous book. It's a book from 1651. It's called the Levitian by Thomas Hobbes. And this title image is interesting because of many reasons. One of them is there is a man up there, a being, that rises up about the landscape. What does this person want to say us? What does this person mean? Hobbes is the inventor or one of the large discussors of absolute government. We have absolute governments. This creature does not only carry a scepter, but also a sword. And below in the bottom of the image you can see all the insignias of power. And if you look at it more closely, you see that the torso of this person, we don't see. From many elements. And if you look at it really closely, you see humans there. That turn to this leader, to this governor, who submits to his power. And the important part of this figure is that it is not only powerful, but also protects. Or it is recognized as a power of protection, which ensures the safety of those below him. And to ensure the safety, the person that demonstrates the absolute state has taken up all the weapons and all the measures of violence. Everybody who does not accept that, well in the worst case will be killed. And this perfect power is not ledgerment by elections, but it was selected by God, as it was said at that time. And above there is a Latin saying that it does not say, there is no equal power to me, the state having the monopoly of violence. And that was 1651, when that was reasonably close to the end of the Thirty Years War. And here the peace is restored, but not a peace from the peoples, but from the governors, from the kings. Whoever governs this people, or whoever governs me, I will have to follow his religion, which is part of the saying or part of the laws or regulations that were constituted at that time. And those governing persons or the governing bodies accept that, because that what they left behind this Thirty Years War, especially in Germany, is something nobody wished upon themselves. I live in 2017 and the year 2017 is the year a reasonably important German politician said, who said, you can call me a tough dog, defined general rules for a state, a strong state in hard times. In these rules on the website of the Interior Minister, Interior Ministry, he has a quite large number of requests. I will talk about later on, but the security and the safety is the most important subject, not only for the German Minister for Interior, but also for others. Part of that is that we live in a very frightened society and if you look at this overview by and it is a fright index all over Germany, you will notice that at the very highest top of the fright of Germany, Germans is to be a victim of a terror attack. Quite a large, more than half of Germans are afraid of becoming a victim of a terror attack. We had terror attacks, we had quite a few victims, like 10 to 15. It's not that certain in the last year, before that there were very few, the 10 years before, there were less than one year per person, but still 71% of the German nationals are afraid of being a victim of a terror attack. All the other subjects of the fright, the political extremism increases, more people come into the country and they destabilise our society and apparently our society is really frightened. That wasn't like that for all the time. If you look at the time and look at the index over time, especially about terroristic situation, you notice that there are significant changes throughout the years. Of course, part of that is that there were frightful attacks, especially in 2001, but even since then quite a few more, but at the same time we noticed that the fright does not jump up, but only grows slowly with a time like. Where does this time come from? Of course, we can say the media is part of that, but it also appears to me that it's not only the media, but also those who give information to the media and those who use the media, that lead to more people being afraid. And I put a few of the new rules and new legislation that has been decided upon since 2001 for the interior security that were decided upon in Germany. And there are quite a few, like 35, depending on how you count, maybe some more, maybe some fewer, because many of these laws had a number of regulations and they are not evenly distributed. But it appears that these new anti-terror laws do not appear to reduce the English of the people, but they increase it and maybe there is even a causality there. Whenever we discuss about these new safety laws, the media always talks about these questions and that appears to lead to more frightened people, because everybody discusses again and again why these new security measures are needed, because everything got less secure. Also, this new laws for more security safety does not lead necessarily to more safety, but it also leads to more people being afraid, despite everybody saying, we want to have more safety and we want to increase the feeling of safety in Germany. We can also discuss that the decisions by judges are part of our safety feeling. If they need even stronger laws, then every time there is a decision by the Bundesverfassungsgericht, when these laws are deemed against the German constitution, then actually the feeling for security should change. I have edited these decisions from the Bundesverfassungsgericht. And what do we see? The interesting thing is that with each decision there is relaxation of the security feeling of the Germans. The highest German court, the Bundesverfassungsgericht, says, the parliament has made a law, which is unlawful. For example, keeping data from telcos was unlawful. And other decisions were deemed unlawful as well. And despite what you would think as a security politician, it doesn't make people insecure, but there is more trust. This means, in that moment where the society is in a large discussion, which is not only dominated by security stuff, but also by basic rights, human rights, then humans feel more secure. I think this is a very important message, which is overlooked every time. This doesn't stop some people to declare security as a very important super basic human right. This person was once the Minister of the Interior, Hans-Peter Friedrich von der CSU. Later on he was the boss of the CSU local group in the parliament. He said that security is a super basic right, which dominates every other law. Besides that security isn't some sort of basic right, it is important that we want to live in secure circumstances. But security is not based on surveillance, registering people, repression and oppression. But security has a very broad character. And when we talk about security, then we have to talk about social security. We have to talk about security for war in the environment and other things, which would threaten our existence. But the reduction of the security on some say it's public security, interior security, that is not enough, that is counterproductive. I also added when this was said, this was just after the revelations from it was known. That was very interesting. It doesn't really work. But what happened is that there were several attacks and the reactions to the attacks in Europe, which happened in France, in Belgium and in Berlin. And then of course there were decisions. I also added the security packages, correlate them with the constellation of the government, of the parties in government, that isn't really always the same. The most measures were made by great coalitions. Nur ein Zufall. That likely is just a random occurrence. I don't want to talk about Jamaica too long, because now it's an island again. But it's very interesting that even was said by Mrs. Merkel, the CDU CSU wanted to abolish storing connection and metadata. But it won't happen. They say they are supporting storing this data. You always need a partner for that. And now the last partner is said that opposition is stupid. It's not very correct anymore. We do not know what's going to happen. Maybe there will be another great coalition. Siegmar Gabriela, from the Social Democrats. He is an important person of the Social Democrats. He said what is the position of the Social Democrats. Interesting is that he said he had the memory of the last great coalition. There is too many post-modern, liberal debates. That protection of the environment isn't that important as work. And data protection was more important than interior security. This is really what Siegmar Gabriela said. It wasn't a mistake. Siegmar Gabriela, from the Social Democrats, was a German article in der magazine der Spiegel. This is where the citation is from. And he repeated this statement. Now you ask yourself, is that something an issue of memory? Therefore I checked what did the last great coalition die sie in Parlamente gemacht haben. Es gab sehr verschiedene Regeln oder Lachen, die passen waren. Z.B. die Konnexion und Metadate haben die BND reintroduktiert. Die German-Exterior-Sekret-Service hat das gemacht, was sie vorher gemacht haben. Es war also legitimisiert. Die German-Offensive-Security-Office wurde gebaut, die in Munich gepostet wurde. Sie sollte andere Regeln mit O-Days und Wulens verabschiedet werden. Es gibt viele andere Läume, die die German-Polizei gemacht haben. Sie können die Daten für Polizisten can be used for everything, every aspect of police work. The data from airtravels can be kept from five years. Germany does more than the EU ever asked for. This is very annoying. im Rahmen des Datenschutzwächts jetzt in der Perspektive von Datenprotektion nicht mehr möglich. Jetzt, mein Schatz ist nicht allowed zu sprechen mit den Parlamenten, wenn es Probleme gibt, bei den Secret Services. Ich habe das in 2003 gelassen und heute ist es nicht möglich. Es ist nicht allowed. Es ist unglaublich frustrierend. Ein weiterer Punkt. Es ist ein neues Gesetz für die elektronische Pass. Es ist supposed to be some EID-Funktion in your new ticket pass for citizens. I do not think that is as bad. The annoying thing in this law at the very end means that all security agencies can access the data of all passes, of every issue of such a pass. There is no supposed to be essential registry for biometric data, but now there is a distributed database with these biometric data. This is much better. Also the law to improve video surveillance. That is to be read with other laws. 17 of 35 security packages which have been decreed by parliament are from the last two years of the great coalition ruling. So viel zu Sigmar Gabriels Gedächtnis. So that is all about the memory of Sigmar Gabriel. So we now have to ask ourselves what is still missing. That is not everything that could happen. Just six more ideas. There are many more things politicians requested. I only have limited time. So let's look at presumptive data collection. Not only presumptive data collection is not according to the judging of the highest German cause and the European cause, the European court and a small German parliament already decided that it is not lawful. But that does not change anything that somebody thinks about why the courts decided that it was not lawful. But we will still want to increase these laws and these rules. This is Marzen. He is for consumer protection and he is a good person and he would love to get our IP addresses to work against those who endanger our country. He does not want to know who wants to do what on his computer. But only those who watch videos where people are killed. But how do we notice who watches those videos? Well, that's something the interior secret service can't do that. Bundesnachrichten, the external service but we will still have to collect the data within Germany. So we will need to collect the IP addresses. That's an obvious sign what they want to do in the next great coalition which is a coalition between Germans two largest parties. And they also the Minister for the Interior in Saarland wants to collect all messenger data. And it's just an extension of the already existing laws and everything is useful. So it's an important part of our laws especially the security that are defended by these measurements. Presentative data collection is one of those regulations that help because it's good to increase the amount of the hay heap to find the needle inside. And that is something that finally arrived in Germany. We are so grateful that we are also increasing the hay heap. More intelligent videos surveillance that's something I have to agree with, the hope that video surveillance reduces the amount of people who are surveilled if he has nothing to cover. Who goes with who across the station or somewhere else. It's not just about this one station in Berlin where this more intelligent video surveillance was tested. But the aim is to have face recognition in video surveillance more broadly. And we already knew that majority of Germans want that and the pass and the ID-Fotos are available. But what can we do with that? The Italian company says that we can recognize terrorists just by their face. And I would love to know how detailed they are. That is supposedly not through databases but by general face form. It reminds me to data from the 18th century where they wanted to recognize people, recognize criminals by their face forms. Other things are also clearly recognizable in this case whether a person is gay. And also to recognize people who in danger of the society whether that's feasible. Well, the test phase was recognized well the preliminary results promise a large improvement of the cases. So, the recognition rate is somewhere between 70 and 85% false positive. So, that means those who are not within the file but are still recognized as being within the database and who also make an alarm 0.3% that means 480 mistaken alarms per day. If we think about the 160 persons who just are at Bahnhof Südkreuz where this trial experiment was happening that means there is a misalarm all 3 minutes if you think about 24 hours and that's going to be so enjoyable for the police. It's very useful and practicable. We really think that that's unfair but I still want to do it. I looked into the pilot project in phase recognition in Mainz which is very similar to Südkreuz and the chief of the German federal police the chef of the federal police said I don't want to say that this is good because it's only useful if it's really close to 100% of people being recognized 70 is close enough to 100% so it's great that this will be used all over Germany and we also want to increase the use of DNA analyzes and this also part of the paper from the strong state the other citations from Mr. de Miser the state must keep up with technology progress in the private sector that the state needs the access to the private data they need to have the same status of weapons in a way and the DNA analysis is just part of it and that is very limited by law right now it doesn't work at the moment both things do not work that is based on German basic law or the German Constitution the Verfassungsgericht said that DNA analysis is a very deep dive into privacy so it needs to be a very serious crime and we need to think different we need to think more liberal at the moment we can use it to identify people but only at very serious crimes but in the future justices and minister conferences check that to check DNA analysis by phenotype so to what ethnicity does someone belong doesn't really matter if it's a perpetrator and more and more is added DNA analytics is getting more easy, more professional and of course if you follow this argument of the Miser so it shouldn't be only for serious crime but to look at it more liberal from his perspective traveled data metadata on people traveling that is really dangerous and interesting but most threats come from other people from foreigners and therefore it is very important that when we travel into other countries or if we leave the European Union we should be registered because I do not I have nothing to hide and every travel must be registered even the US didn't do that for everyone leaving the country they try to do it when you travel into the country Donald Trump is also building a nice wall to Mexico in order to track this information not as many illegals travel to the US but what happens if someone is traveling there but he never leaves either there is an error or the person is still there but what does it mean if the person is still there that is a very complex system which is going to be in Europe it has to work 100% you can spend a lot of money on that we remember for Sigma Carbner that is going to give new jobs that are synergy effects another point is to implement backdoors into IT systems I really have to say that the police force has it harder people have security systems at home but we do have a law which allows surveillance this means that bugs can be placed in cars, in rooms can be placed there and someone has to place them of course that's not feasible because there could be an alarm and therefore the alerting system should not be as aggressive maybe there are innovative ways to do it so the police does not have to go into your rooms anymore that's going to be more easier we only have to ask the vendors to create backdoors in their products so that the police can access them and perform surveillance and they also have CTIS is going to provide the exploits for the vulnerabilities in the next step that is only for very specific cases very serious crime there must be control by justice so that it is only the police and the interior secret service me know that no one else is interested in that but I am not very comfortable with that the next measure is hacking back that is a very interesting concept in order to strike back but always provide the other cheek that is very important why shouldn't our security agencies should be able to do that when German data is accessed by foreign powers but it should be only justice ultimarat should be the last measure at the moment they only collect data so there would be very few cases the hackback should be part of the toolkit of our security services ja ich komme schon fast zum Ende ich bin schon am Ende mit einer interessanten Message der Leviathan ist tot oder sternt ich bin nicht wirklich glücklich über den Leviathan der Leviathan hat zu viel geht manchmal schlecht wenn man sich zu viel euh kann es zu viel ist es schon seit einer Weile so es ist schon seit einer Weile so es ist schon seit einer weile so werden die Leverufen white ein wenig Zeit aufgrund der sondern und die Pvd. und der Leviathan die Lever cupcakes und der Leviathan das Leverufen auf der Welt, aber es gibt viele Leviathans auf der Welt, in einer globalisierten Gesellschaft. Denk auf das Service in Malaysia. Die Sicherheitsservice hat einen langen Arm, auch für uns, wie wir wissen. Aber hier haben die Leviathans legitimisiert. Viele Leute glauben nicht mehr. Aber es zeigt uns auf, dass wir alleine auf... Es zeigt uns, dass wir uns nicht nur auf die Leviathans denken, wie ich euch das Bild zeigt. Ein weiteres Mal schauen wir uns die leichte Seite des Bildes an. Was ist auf der anderen Seite? Das ist nicht die Protektion von den gebrochenen Arm. Aber es ist eine Fosse. Und ich bin sehr überwacht. Und es ist nicht nur überwacht. Es sind Drohne. Drohne haben keine Kamera. Drohne, die sich aus unseren Bordern umgehen. Ich habe keine Details. Die Sicherheitsservice ist auch legitimisiert. Und ich denke, dass es alte Weisheiten gibt, dass es alte Informationen gibt, die sehr wichtig sind. Und dass die, die bereit sind, die Freude zu ergeben, um die Sicherheitsservice zu verändern, nicht die Freude oder die Sicherheitsservice zu ergeben. Vielen Dank für Ihre Aufmerksamkeit. Ein paar weitere Informationen von den Translatern. Ein paar Dinge, die zu einer bestimmten Anzahl sind, waren nötig zu sein. Das ist wahrscheinlich lost in der Translation. Sorry about that. Wir haben jetzt noch ungefähr 20 Minuten Zeit für Fragen. D.h. falls ihr Fragen habt, dürft ihr euch einfach an einem der 8-Saal-Mikrofone anstellen. Wenn ihr live hört und keine Fragen habt, und ihr wollt die Fragen fragen, dann benutzt ihr Twitter oder den IRC-Channel. Ihr könnt auch in Englisch fragen und ihr bekommt eine deutsche Translation. Das sollte funktionieren. Lass uns starten, mit der Frage von der Internet-Relation. Es sollten Veränderungen sein und die Bundesdataprotektion-Officer machen. Zuerst muss ich auch die female Dataprotektion-Officer genderen. Aber auch in der Sicherheits-Area müssen die alle Dataprotektion-Officer mehr Reifen brauchen. Sie müssen die alle Dataprotektion-Officer mehr Reifen nehmen. Sie müssen das Recht auf die Qualität dazu haben. Das ist der Erstieg für die Reifen und die Erste, die sie verzerrern können. Es sind nicht nur die Sicherheits-Area, sondern auch die Datenbank. Sie schauen die Datenbanden nicht in die Gesundheitsdatabase, und das ist eine unabhängige Reduktion der Abilities der Dataprotektion-Officer. Danke für den Talkpeter. Danke für den Talkpeter. Was für eine Sicherheitsrhetorik hilft, weil sehr oft Dataprotektion-Officer rarely gewinnt bei Themen wie Hackback oder über Hackback. Sie sehen das als IT-Sicherheit gegen die IT-Sicherheit, weil man die Sicherheitsrhetorik übernimmt. Wenn man das IT-Sicherheit nicht mehr verabschieden will, und wenn man das IT-Sicherheit nicht mehr verabschieden will, dann wird man die Sicherheitsrhetorik übernommen. Natürlich, dass es ein eigenes Beginn ist. Das muss nicht die einzige Idee sein, sondern die einzige Sache, die wir hier reden. Diese Sicherheitsrhetorik erhält sich nicht, sondern die Sicherheitsrhetorik erhält sich nicht. Die Sicherheitsrhetorik ist eine persönliche Reise. Wir können nur als freier Person existieren, wenn wir nicht alle vorbeizueinander registrieren. Wir müssen beide dort sein. Wir haben die Reise für eine verabschiedene Sicherheitsrhetorik, aber auch für die Freiheit und die Sicherung der Menschen. Vielen Dank für das Gespräch. Und deine Arbeit in den letzten Jahren. Ich gehe mit vielen Bakuern, was du sagst, absolut. Bei deiner Einführung hast du über die Terrornummer, die Führung der Terroristen. Ich möchte es vielleicht ein bisschen sensibler behandeln. Man muss nicht sterben, um die Terroristen zu verabschieden. Es gab wesentlich mehr Verletzte. Aber es gab mehr Menschen, die wundest. Ich denke, das ist eine schwierige Art der Argien. Die Wunde ist also sehr großartig. Das ist eine Frage, ob das etwas verändert. Das ist ein Problem. Die Harme ist immer größer als das, was wir physisch hören. Aber auch die Freitagung der Gesellschaft ist viel größer als die verabschiedeten Damage. Es gibt auch viele Verletzte. Das ist das Ziel der Terroristen, dass sie diese verabschiedene Sicherung in eine eigenartige Konstellation reingehen. Es gibt Reports, die sagen, dass die Terroristen, oder zumindest die modernen Terroristen, die Videos für Anschläge anbieten. Das ist ein Videomaterial, und das erhöht die Medienattention. In diesem Fall, dass die Videos nicht gegen Terroristen protecten. Ich möchte nicht über die Verletzten gehen, wie schlecht diese Verletzten getroffen sind, wie insensiv, wie empathisch, dass Ms. Merkel jetzt, die Leute, die sie haben, anbieten, und das zeigt, dass es eine saftere Rhetorik ist. Es ist ein bisschen seltsam. Es gibt Experten, die wir wieder und wieder schauen müssen. Wir wollen mehr Sicherheit. Wenn wir in Deutschland und Berlin schauen, wissen wir nicht, dass, für ein paar Monate, dass in dieser Situation die Polizisten nicht genug wissen, dass sie ziemlich blind waren. Es scheint, dass die Secret Service Agenten in der Region vielleicht extrem konzentriert sind. Die Attacke in Berlin in den Breitscheidplatz ist nicht gebraucht. Die Hygienisten wussten es. Vielleicht auch zu viele, aber sie waren nicht intelligent. Sie haben nicht aktuell ordentliche Dinge gemacht. Wenn wir die Cases entdecken, wo wir wissen, dass sie nicht schauen können, und wenn wir das argue, dass alle von unseren Daten Unsere Privatreise ist reduziert. Das ist wirklich schlecht. Die Summary soll für alle, die dort sind, vorstellt werden. Aber was passiert in den Händen von ihnen, die nicht in der Lage sind, für Fassungsgericht so teilevollständig auszuwerten und umzusetzen? Ich habe mir gedacht, dass die Leute nicht verstehen, die Regeln der Bundesverfassungsgericht. Aber was ist das Verständnis der Menschen, wie Friedrich und Demisir, dass ein Staat ohne Bordern ist, der Massenverwaltbarkeit ist, weil so ein Staat total Italien ist? Ich glaube nicht, dass Herr Friedrich und Demisir die total Italienischen Politik haben. Aber sie benutzen die geheimen Opinien der Menschen. Und sie benutzen das. Und das ist etwas, das in einer Demokratie einfach zu benutzen kann. Die Demokratie, auch wenn viele Leute, die nicht nur für Dateprotekte sind, sondern auch für Polizisten und Secret Service, sie sehen das und haben einen klaren Blick auf das. Sie suggerieren, dass Dinge gemacht werden. Die Law hat nicht die Sicherheit oder die Protection der Menschen erhöht. Was soll Bundesverfassungsgericht machen? Was kann Polizisten machen? Sie haben eine neue Law, das nicht nur in Deutschland, sondern auch in anderen Ländern passiert. Dass die Politiker pressen. Es gibt andere Werte, die mit diesen Situationen arbeiten. Vielleicht schauen wir, dass die Menschen in Scandinavia viel mehr vorsichtig sind. Und die Menschen in Scandinavia fühlen sich besser als die hier in Deutschland. Dann machen wir eine Frage von Nummer 7 und danach 8. Sehr schöner Vortrag. Ich habe auch eine Frage dazu. Eine Frage, regarding our motto do something. What is my issue if you leave this place and you try to convince people to do something, that security regarding to fighting terrorism isn't the highest value, then you talk against windmills. You do not make progress. What do you think, what is the development in China with social credits and stuff like that? And it could help to change people's minds. I was at an organization from Handelsblatt. People were totally shocked. And everyone said, oh, we are in Germany, everything is fine, because we do have data protection. How do I tell people how dangerous this stuff is? It's the 100.000 year question. I like to explain stuff to people and to enlighten people. So we shouldn't make ourselves the most stupid than we are even if people close their ears. But we have to try to reach them and we will have to discuss with them. We will have to ask them the question und tell them the questions that are plainly visible. Part of that is how effective are anti-terror measures, really? Not is it more important than other subjects? Yes, it would have been really important to stop the attack at Brechtatplatz, but it didn't happen. That was not because there was not enough surveillance, but because many things did not happen in the correct way. Part of that is also to talk about the social credit system of the citizens in China, because the methods, the technologies, the algorithms that are used there are not significantly different than algorithms used here in many areas and more and more in the government. Okay, wir haben zwar noch einige Minuten Zeit. Ich muss übrigens um 10 hier scharf, Schluss mal, ich muss noch zur Bahn. Genau, direkt mein Punkt. Die Fragen möglichst kurz und präzise machen, damit wir noch möglichst viele reinkriegen. Bitte Nummer 8. Ja, schönen Dank für den Talk. Du hattest gerade was gesagt von im Vorfeld der Gesetzgebung. Before there is a law, everyone says why we want to have this new law and then the Bundesverfassung comes along and stops the law. Is that a wrong view that politicians then are more quiet or what happens? Yes, they are more quiet for some time, where the preemptive data collection that was stopped first by the German Constitutional law and the European Court of Law, that is not acceptable with the Constitution with the basics laws and then Charlie Hebdobe happened and then Sigma Gabel. It's really sad that I announced him again because it was him back then and he said we need preemptive data collection because we have to protect against things like in Frankfurt and we looked what happened in France. France had preemptive data collection and still this unusable argument has been used to to introduce preemptive data collection in Germany and that is something where people press the stop button but they continue. It is not enough that the Constitutional law in Karlsruhe creates these rulings but we have to learn from that for a long time and this ability to learn does not equal everywhere. Damit die Leute von zu Hause auch zu Wort kommen. Also, da ist a connection because of the keeping data from collecting metadata is there a way to stop this collection forever? No, there is no way to stop preemptive data collection for all time but we might have to bring it in front of the court again and again or maybe even use the political ways. It was discussed again and again and even one of the parties in der CDU und der Union hat auch gesagt, dass wir nicht diese unerwartete Beziehung wollen. Wir wollen eine bessere Beziehung von Menschen, die bereits gesehen sind. Das ist ein möglicher Beziehung. Es war nicht möglich und wir haben es nicht gesehen. Ja, wir können es ändern, wir können es diskutieren und alle Möglichkeiten zu wiederholen. Es ist wichtig, diese Erinnerungen in die Erinnerung der Meinung der Menschen zu halten. Meine Frage ist, es ist ein gewöhnliches Job. Aber wie kann die Industrie unser Data Protection unterminden? Es ist sehr unterschiedlich. Wir können sehen, dass es in der USA ein sehr guter Problem ist auch hier in Deutschland, in dem es in Deutschland eine größere Bedeutung ist. Diese Bedeutung hat eine eigene Bedeutung und eine eigene Bedeutung. Sie haben ihre eigene Bedeutung und ihre eigene Bedeutung. Sie haben uns in der Gesellschaft in dieser Bedeutung und in der anderen Bedeutung. Es ist nicht so klar. Die E-Privacy-Regulations haben wir hier vorhin diskutiert. Es geht auch um die Frage, ob wir auch darüber diskutieren, wie die Souveränität von jeder Person auf einer eigenen Bedeutung ist und zu welchen Bedeutungen sich die Unternehmen ohne die Erinnerung der Menschen ohne die Erinnerung der Menschen zu nutzen. Wie weit können sie die Bedeutung der User-Date und die... In Brüssel haben sie das diskutiert, aber ich hoffe, dass sie ein gutes Ergebnis haben. Die Zusammenhänge, die Sie da gucken können, die die Bedeutung, die Sie da gucken können, ist nicht so leicht zu verstehen. Sind unsere Politiker weder strot angemessen? Oder verfolgen Sie auf der Anzahl der Anzahl? Oder sind unsere Politiker weder strot angemessen? Oder sind unsere Politiker weder strot angemessen? Dann gucken wir doch aus, wie die... Ich bin sehr vorsichtig über diese Fragen, weil es immer ein Secret-Programm betrifft. Ich bin sehr skeptisch über die Theorie, die andere Leute sprechen. Aber es gibt natürlich viele andere Interessen. Und am Ende ist es alles um Influenz und Deportation in der Gesellschaft. Das ist auch sehr gefährlich. Aber es ist etwas anderes, als wenn jemand eine totalitarische Agenda hat. Und die meisten unserer Politiker sehen das nicht so. Man kann eine andere Meinung haben, aber ich bin persönlich optimistisch in dieser Situation. Das bedeutet, dass wir uns auch erreichen können, wenn wir kulturelle Träume und Gefühle ändern. Das sollte auch die Agenda der Politiker ändern. Und das bedeutet, dass der Druck existiert und es notwendig ist. Es könnte ein öffentlicher Druck sein, aber auch über die Konstituzion in Deutschland zu bringen, die Konstituzion, in der wir unsere Freien schützen. Die letzte Frage ist, ich habe die Impression, dass unsere Politiker einfach realistisch sind. Sie schauen an Kosten und Usen. Aber sie schauen nicht an die Ideen mehr. Aber sehr oft, dass die Musterverwaltung sehr hoch ist. Aber die Kosten für die schlechte Dinge müssen wir auch von den Politikern los sein. Ich bin nicht der Meinung, dass die Musterverwaltung sehr hoch ist. Ich bin sehr konträr zu dir. Und das sind die Kosten für die Überraschungen. Es ist nicht wichtig, dass sie unsignifiziert sind. Aber auch die Kosten sind signifizierend. Wenn Sie sehen, wie viele Polizistinnen und Polizisten und wie viele Stunden sie jetzt arbeiten müssen, sind sie sehr groß. Wenn wir nicht auf einen short-term, aber auf einen langen Termin sehen, müssen wir auch sehen, was für eine Gesellschaft wir wollen. Die Gesellschaft ist, dass wir die Freude sehen. Und das muss auch über die politischen Agenda sein. Das ist ein tolles, finishing word. Und mit diesem Dankeschön für die...