Secret case: Jenni and Menni could be affected!

Image parPete Linforth de Pixabay

there are certain parallels between the cashier and the SREL affair. However, there are differences too. The bad luck for Minister Bausch is that he is not allowed to act as plaintiff, but stands in public as a “prosecutor”, meaning, as minister, who must stand ready for the cuddle muddle. Just as in the SREL affair, it turns out that some laws are only valid for a certain period of time and must be adapted from time to time; this seems to be especially true for the data protection that plays a much more important role in society today than it did 30 years ago. I became this kind of Casier attribute “secret” because no one knew about it until half of last April; some may have heard of this one or the other times, but nobody knew that this “unofficial” case was used so regularly!


the big difference, however, lies in the fact that in the case of the cashier, each of us can actually be affected. We remember, as it was 7 years ago, that the National Secret Service also cared for people from civil society, especially those from political circles, from parties, unions. Counseling back then of 4000 files! The public was horrified, but the 4,000 dozen were peanuts compared to what is now available to us. There we hear of performance talks,

Image parJonny Lindner de Pixabay

where at the end (s) the candidate (s) submitted tax deductions that the person concerned “collected” over the course of their life. Somehow shocking! Many of us will say, “I’m a quiet citizen, we haven’t been blamed, but I managed to get an AT, too. So what ?!” Such conceptual talks primarily concern the public function. The law for state officials is effective very strictly: persons who work for the public function (will) must, in fact, be honest, but refusing a candidate because of a banal taxisation is in the overriding sense equivalent to the professional death penalty. It is also heard by other introductory discussions where the person at the end of the page had dozens of pages left out of their files. Scratchy, right? If an AT is sufficient to access the archive of the file, then almost all of us will be affected! AND I!


it seems more and more that this “secret” cashier has had no legal basis for exactly one year. Why wasn’t that noticed? It also begs the question, whether the “archive” of that file ever had a legal basis? This is why it would be good if a broad political debate could be launched: if the policy were to read and study all the texts and regulations, it would make sense if the parties voted in favor of a parliamentary inquiry: why is this file? Why is it a good one? For what purposes can he be used? How long should the data be kept for? What will happen in the future?



ost of all: who has access to this data so far? Because of a banal AT, no one should be ashamed, but there can be other situations, as our example at the beginning of the affair (mid April) showed: Juvenile sins which, as an adult, no longer would necessarily be repeated. And it would be even worse if the police had access to this data everyone. As an older person, I am certainly not one of the mourners involved in data protection; but also I say: there are limits, and if there are none, there must be!

These considerations underline that there must be a commission of inquiry: if one has “ridiculed” the public in one way or another, the public should now also be clarified. To Polish, this is not easy, because it is not a story but a matter of course! But the politicians, especially those from the ranks of the majority must know: it is better to make tabula rasa as soon as possible, than to draw the matter to length!

But beware: there are statements that may be struck down sooner or later: in this context, I refer to the SREL process in November !!




Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here