(de-news.net) – Germany’s proposed intelligence-law overhaul has drawn support from security experts who favor expanded investigative powers, while concerns have been raised about constitutional protections, surveillance, and independent oversight. Officials differed in opinion: while Marc Henrichmann (CDU) argued that the worsening security environment justified bolstering cybersecurity measures, Konstantin von Notz (Greens) cautioned that the proposed powers could allow disproportionate intelligence interventions before tangible threats emerged and called for legal revisions to lower the risk of a constitutional court challenge. Some experts welcomed the draft reform law, while privacy regulators and civil society organizations, in particular, called for stronger legal safeguards governing intelligence operations and the handling of cybersecurity measures.

A Bundestag Interior Committee hearing highlighted the balancing act between strengthening national security and protecting fundamental rights. The government’s draft legislation would, in its initial form, expand the powers of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) and the Federal Intelligence Service (BND), prompting experts to question whether the proposed measures would provide adequate safeguards against disproportionate interference in citizens’ rights.

Henrichmann remarked that the legislation would enter legally untested territory. The Chairman of the Parliamentary Oversight Committee (PKGr) argued, however, that the worsening security environment justified adapting intelligence law and emphasized that both state and private operators of digital infrastructure must take cybersecurity threats seriously. Green Party interior affairs expert and Deputy Chairman of the PKGr von Notz said that the proposed powers could permit intrusive intelligence interventions before threats had materialized. He demanded that the risk of an adverse ruling by the Federal Constitutional Court be reduced public trust maintained.

Henrichmann noted that constitutional court rulings had not yet established the limits of the proposed powers. He nevertheless argued that the deteriorating security environment justified adapting intelligence law and that the threat situation would be relevant if the legislation were challenged before the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe. Against this backdrop, Henrichmann welcomed plans to strengthen the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) in the 2027 budget. He maintained that security agencies needed adequate tools, expertise, and legal authority to keep pace with emerging threats, while emphasizing that private companies and other operators of digital infrastructure also had to take cybersecurity risks seriously.

Legal and constitutional concerns surround intelligence reform

Von Notz argued that prior criticism of Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt’s plans for the BfV was justified. He maintained that the proposed powers could allow a secret service to interfere with citizens’ freedom and property before threats materialized, without sufficient transparency or effective legal remedies. Von Notz called for a fundamental revision of the Federal Constitutional Protection Act to reduce the risk of a defeat in Karlsruhe and preserve public confidence in the agency. He also questioned whether the necessary changes could be completed within the short legislative timetable.

Sonja Eichwede, deputy chair of the SPD parliamentary group, acknowledged the constitutional uncertainty surrounding the legislation, on her part, and called for careful drafting and rigorous intelligence oversight. She stressed that the institutional separation between the police and the BfV must remain intact.

Legal experts debate the scope of domestic intelligence powers

Under the proposed approach, the agency would be permitted to intervene independently only when an exceptionally acute threat required immediate action and there was insufficient time to gather additional intelligence or involve the police. Although experts differed over the extent of the proposed changes, several considered modernization necessary in light of current threats. Jan-Hendrik Dietrich supported expanded intelligence capabilities, while Markus Löffelmann favored reform but cautioned against crossing constitutional boundaries. The debate focused particularly on operational powers and the separation of intelligence services from law enforcement. Luca Manns supported greater authority for the BND, whereas Ulrich Vosgerau identified substantial constitutional concerns.

Legal scholar Matthias Bäcker expressed serious reservations about allowing the BfV to conduct covert operational activities within Germany. He argued that the proposed intervention powers were so broadly defined that they could encompass physical property, information, and social relationships. In his assessment, secret interference with property rights or freedom of action would conflict with the rule of law, particularly if measures could be authorized in response to vague threats long before a specific offense was imminent. Bäcker also questioned the proposed scope of data collection and transfer, as well as the agency’s planned protective measures.

Jan-Hendrik Dietrich, a legal scholar at the Federal University of Applied Administrative Sciences, defended the proposed safeguards against comparisons with a covert police force which he considered exaggerated. He argued that their narrowly defined scope and demanding statutory requirements would constrain their application. Although he acknowledged that the Government’s draft still required stronger guidelines on independent oversight, Dietrich maintained that modern intelligence capabilities were essential to preserve the state’s ability to respond effectively to multiple threats.

Cybersecurity threats reinforce calls for stronger intelligence capabilities

Henrichmann had shortly before warned that a serious vulnerability in the PHP programming language illustrated how artificial intelligence could transform software flaws previously considered difficult to exploit into practical attack vectors. He argued that the incident exposed the risks facing public institutions when critical software contains defects that remain undetected for years. The vulnerability, he maintained, posed a serious threat to global digital infrastructure because criminal organizations and state-backed actors could deliberately exploit such weaknesses.

Franziska Görlitz of the Society for Civil Rights (GFF) questioned the adequacy of oversight over the intelligence services’ possible future cyber capabilities and warned about an expansion of digital mass surveillance. Her concerns reflect a broader debate over whether new investigative powers can be reconciled with effective safeguards for individual privacy.

Privacy regulators warn of the cumulative effects of surveillance

Germany’s Data Protection Conference (DSK), representing federal and state data protection authorities, has meanwhile warned that the combined effects of planned security legislation could undermine fundamental rights. The proposals would expand the powers of the BND and BfV while enabling wider use of artificial intelligence-driven data analysis, facial and voice recognition, biometric comparisons, and access to video surveillance.

The DSK argues that these measures must be assessed collectively because their combined effects could increase reliance on automated decision-making, weaken transparency, and expose large numbers of innocent people to false positives. In theory, relatively low error rates can produce numerous incorrect matches in case millions of records are compared, potentially prompting authorities to take further action on unreliable results.

The conference has also raised concerns about proposed changes to intelligence oversight that could weaken the independence and effectiveness of supervisory bodies. Although the government intends to expand the responsibilities of the Independent Control Council, restrictions on the publication of its reports and the absence of enforceable legal remedies could undermine its ability to scrutinize intelligence activities.

Citing Federal Constitutional Court jurisprudence, the DSK calls for stringent safeguards and a comprehensive assessment of the legislation’s cumulative impact on privacy and fundamental rights. Its central concern is that individually authorized measures could collectively create a disproportionate level of state surveillance.

GFF and Bitkom seek legal protections in cybersecurity

The Society for Civil Rights and digital industry association Bitkom have, in parallel, called for legally binding rules governing how state authorities handle cybersecurity vulnerabilities. In a joint white paper addressing the intelligence-law reform, the organizations warn that expanded cyber capabilities for the BND and BfV must not encourage authorities to leave known security flaws unpatched or delay their remediation. Unresolved vulnerabilities can be exploited not only by intelligence agencies but also by criminal groups and other third parties, potentially endangering citizens, businesses, public institutions, and critical infrastructure. The organizations also identify risks to the fundamental right to the confidentiality and integrity of information technology systems.

The two associations’ white paper proposes three principal safeguards. First, repairing vulnerabilities and disclosing them responsibly should take priority. Second, intelligence agencies should not automatically be permitted to retain or exploit known flaws. Any decision to leave a vulnerability open should require a legally mandated assessment balancing operational benefits against the risks of further exploitation, supported by clear criteria, risk-reduction measures, and effective oversight. Third, information entrusted to the Federal Office for Information Security through its reporting and coordination functions should never be transferred to intelligence services, including through voluntary disclosure.

Bitkom and the GFF argue that these protections are constitutionally necessary and should be incorporated into the current reform. Their proposals seek to ensure that expanded intelligence capabilities do not compromise the state’s responsibility to protect citizens and secure digital infrastructure.

Greens call for a European intelligence network

Von Notz has meanwhile called for closer cooperation among European intelligence services in response to growing threats of espionage and sabotage. He proposed a joint intelligence network provisionally known as Euro-Eyes, arguing that national approaches alone were no longer sufficient to address the evolving security environment.

Von Notz warned that authoritarian states increasingly rely on recruited expendable agents to undermine security, prosperity, and democratic freedoms. Recruitment may take place through loosely regulated online platforms and messaging services, while organized crime networks can also facilitate operations. These developments, he argued, require a fundamental reassessment of how critical infrastructure is protected.

Germany could draw lessons from Baltic and Scandinavian countries that have faced similar threats for years. Their experience underscores the importance of coordinated responses to espionage and sabotage, particularly when operations cross national borders and exploit weaknesses in digital infrastructure. Von Notz’s proposal reflects an effort to strengthen European security cooperation more broadly, as Germany debates how to both achieve expanded intelligence capabilities and constitutional protections as well as effective oversight.