(de-news.net) – Thuringia’s domestic intelligence chief, Stephan Kramer, has warned against expanding the powers of Germany’s constitutional protection agencies into a more traditional secret-service model. While acknowledging the need to strengthen cyber defense capabilities, he argued that executive-style powers should remain separated from intelligence functions in order to preserve Germany’s democratic and constitutional framework.
Kramer, President of Thuringia’s Office for the Protection of the Constitution, criticized proposals aimed at expanding the powers of Germany’s domestic constitutional protection agencies, warning that repeated efforts to transform the institution into a more conventional secret service were becoming increasingly troubling. In comments reported by the media, Kramer argued that the constitutional protection authorities had already demonstrated their operational effectiveness and should therefore continue functioning primarily as intelligence and analytical bodies rather than acquiring broader executive authority.
Kramer emphasized that Germany’s domestic security structure was deliberately designed around a long-established institutional separation between intelligence gathering and police enforcement powers. According to his assessment, the Office for the Protection of the Constitution was intended to operate principally as an analytical and early-warning institution rather than as a ‘secret-police’ organization with direct enforcement authority. Responsibility for preventing and responding to violent threats, he maintained, properly remained with conventional law enforcement agencies under the existing constitutional framework.
Cybersecurity reforms ought not redefine intelligence mandates
The debate intensified after Sinan Selen, President of Germany’s Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), had called for substantially expanded preventive-security powers. Media reports have indicated that proposals currently under discussion include allowing security agencies to remotely access computers and mobile phones, while also broadening the use of facial-recognition systems and artificial-intelligence technologies in domestic surveillance and security operations. These proposals have contributed to a wider debate over the appropriate balance between national security powers and constitutional safeguards.
Although Kramer acknowledged the need to strengthen and modernize Germany’s response to cyberattacks and digital threats, he argued that active cyber defense measures should instead be centralized within specialized institutions possessing concentrated expertise, technical capabilities, and operational resources. In his view, granting domestic of the constitutional protection authorities executive-style powers would effectively alter not only their mandate but also Germany’s established conception of a ‘militant democracy,’ which has historically relied on clear institutional limits and divisions of responsibility.
Kramer also expressed skepticism regarding the extent of public support for a significantly expanded domestic intelligence apparatus. He cautioned that ambiguous or poorly defined discussions surrounding surveillance powers and monitoring capabilities could weaken public trust in the constitutional protection agencies, confidence in which, he suggested, had only gradually and painstakingly been rebuilt in recent years.
Audio: TTSFree
