Germany: "I don't want to be forced to lie", Interview with privacy activist Padeluun
01 April 2010
On the German government's plan to implement the controversial population census in 2011, and thecampaign against it (see http://www.zensus11.de).
A platform of diverse data protection and privacy organisations is planning to put a stop to the 2011 population census with a legal challenge at the Federal Constitutional Court. Privacy activist and artist Padeluun is part of the campaign against "Census 2011", the official name of the government's planned population census. He is chair of the data protection organisation
Foebud (Verein zur Förderung des öffentlichen bewegten und unbewegten Datenverkehrs e. V.), part of the German Working Group against Data Retention and a jury member of the German Big Brother Awards.
In the 1980s, there were hundreds of civil society initiatives against the census in Germany. The Green Party and the former youth wing of the liberal FDP (Freie Demokratische Partei), trade unions, parts of the church and entire cities protested against it at the time. Are protests against the Census 2011 even remotely comparable to those of the 1980s?
That is difficult to determine because protests against the current census are embedded in a broader movement promoting data protection, which has already mobilised against data retention plans. There are not thousands of people whose only issue is the census because the protests are organised by people who are aware of other measures that affect their privacy. They have been joined by an older generation who protested against the population census of the 1980s.
Given the existence of Google and Facebook, or of employers who monitor their employees and question them about private affairs, are there many people who believe that the census will make no difference?
Some people merely shrug their shoulders about the census, but there are also many who see it as a risk, that these numerous little threats to privacy form a bigger picture. The plan for this census is not only to collect data, but rather to merge it with existing data, for example, residency registers and information from the Hartz IV benefits system. This implies the creation of new databanks - for instance on housing - without our knowledge, which makes the whole plan more sinister. Every data collection attempt that can be averted is in itself a success.
In 1983 the census was successfully challenged on constitutional grounds, with the argument that the collected data would not be sufficiently anonymised. The legal challenge you are lodging with Federal Constitutional Court makes the same argument.
Yes, then as now the same mistakes are made. Then it was possible to show that the collected data could be traced back to individuals. Now, the merging of databases leads to the generation of numbers that allow individuals linked to a particular data entry to be identified.
Is it not surprising that the government is risking another failure at the Federal Constitutional Court? Why does the government repeatedly risk legal defeat before the Court? Can you explain this?
When the current population census plans were passed a year ago, the government had not realised that times were changing and thought it still had free reign. The general election showed that it could not do what it wanted because people reacted by turning to "strange" parties such as the pirate party, and because there are intelligent people who fight back against infringements. The example of internet bans, for example, showed that people experience a "well-intended census" nevertheless as a census and protest against it. The political parties are slowly realising that people have woken up to the issue and do not want to share their private data -neither with the state nor with industry. People simply do not want those who have power or money at their disposal to also have power over their private data.
The 2011 census foresees that property owners have to provide details about their property as well as their tenants. Does that mean that my landlord has to provide details about the fact that I rent one or more flats? If his/her information does not match with the information I gave at the local registration authority, what happens then?
We cannot yet say what will happen in those cases, but some regional states could decide to impose fines - there is an attempt to establish a culture of "honest reporting" at the administrative level. The question remains though whether it is possible to enforce such a thing. If people make random statements to the authorities it is possible they will be caught and have to pay fines, most people, however, will escape detection. No one is looking to generate mass legal procedures. We have to realise that such a census - and we should talk about data collection here because people are not simply counted but very personal and diverse data is collected - does not result in any kind of truth. It just leads to a heap of numbers that are analysed with a formula, the results of which are consequently used to justify decisions. The decisions themselves, however, are not guided by sound empirical data.
In addition to data comparison, the questionnaires are also intended to collect intelligence on population percentages. It is possible to refuse to answer these questions or resort to other forms of sabotage. In the 1980s such actions were unlawful, is this the case with the current census also?
It is expected that almost three million people will complete the census. Those who do not will be threatened with fines. Of course, you can fill in any kind of information, but I find this the most uncomfortable option. I do not want to lie. I also do not want to be forced to lie. I would rather say "I won't do it, so sue me", and then hope that there will not be any significant consequences. I lived in Bielefeld and in the 1980s, and people who boycotted the census there were simply ignored, because the authorities were afraid that it would be revealed that Bielefeld had less than 300,000 inhabitants. They somehow supplemented the missing data in the population registers. Bielefeld wanted to remain classified as a major city and continue receiving federal subsidies. The conclusion is: such a census remains a farce. This is why one should not take it too seriously.
In your opinion, what are the most problematic questions in the census questionnaire?
Without a doubt, the questions concerning religious affiliation. I find it unacceptable that, in a country such as Germany, it is once again possible to pose such a question. People do not have to answer this question, but who knows about this right? In a society in which we have far-right parties in regional parliaments, these are surely not the kind of lists we want to have. There are also questions about migration history. These are issues that simply should not be recorded in databases. I would like to mention Denmark and Norway at this point as historical examples -both countries were invaded by the Nazis. In Norway, the Nazis found lists originally created for reasons related to radio broadcasting. Denmark did not have such lists. Around 80 percent of Jews residing in Norway were deported and most of them killed in concentration camps, whilst in Denmark, which did not have the lists, the figure was around 2 percent. They simply did not have registers and the result was that the Nazis were unable to access and use them to identify people and arrest them. This example clearly shows why we have to stop the census. Of course, you could argue: 'But we live in a democracy, this would not happen here'. My reply would be: when collecting data we have to take into account that one day, people with sinister plans and motives could have access to these data. If politicians then say: ‘We have to make sure that our country remains a free country’, I appreciate the idea but also think it's a little naive. If I look at the movement towards the far-right in Italy or the Netherlands I start getting worried, and I would have to say: No, we should refrain from collecting data like this altogether.
Proponents of the population census would probably argue that the state has to know the needs of its population in order to meet them, for example, on integration policy
What do we gain by the state recording the percentage of religious affiliations of the population in a particular region, when it is unwilling to provide the necessary resources to solve integration issues in those regions? Such problems are only solved with the participation of all those affected, not by reducing people to statistics.
According to its webpage, the campaign against the population census 2011 wants to propose "data protection friendly solutions". What would be the preconditions for such a "data protection friendly solution"?
Personally, I have not thought about this question, because I would simply say: Stop the silly counting! But there is not a consensus in the campaign. With alliances such as ours there are always people who shy away from maximum demands. Many assume that we need some data. And in all honesty, that is probably true to a certain extent -if you do not know anything it is impossible to intervene. But we say on our website: any form of state action has to take as its starting point the maximum level of data austerity (the principle that administrative data collected for one purpose should not be linked to data collected for another purpose should not be abolished). The obligation to disclose intimate data, the refusal of which is punishable by law, recalls a dictatorship rather than a democracy.
Should the population census also be rejected on the grounds that states are generally less interested in meeting the needs of those they are collecting data on, then in making them adapt to the needs of the state?
When people ask me why I reject data collection, I always reply that it is not a sign of someone being interested in me, but rather a sign that people are not interested in me as a person but still want me to function, to serve their interests. As a rule that is not in my interest.
This interview appeared in the weekly newspaper Jungle World (No. 26) on 1.7.10 and was conducted by Daniel Steinmaier. It is available at http://jungle-world.com/artikel/2010/26.