Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court has ruled that police and security services may only deploy telecommunications surveillance software in the investigation of particularly serious crimes, marking a significant restriction on the use of so-called “state trojan” technology.
The ruling, published Thursday, stipulates that such intrusive tools which can be secretly installed on phones and computers to bypass encryption and monitor communications should only be used in cases where a conviction would result in prison sentences exceeding three years. Judges emphasised that this form of surveillance constitutes a major intrusion into personal privacy and must therefore be reserved for the gravest offences.
Currently, investigators have used the software to access encrypted messaging services and track suspects’ online activities. The court acknowledged the “extraordinary reach” of such surveillance in the digital era, where vast aspects of daily life and interpersonal communication can be traced. Until lawmakers amend the relevant legislation, the existing rules will remain in force.
The case was initiated by the data privacy advocacy group Digitalcourage, supported by journalists and lawyers. While the organisation had sought even stricter limits, it welcomed the decision as a step towards safeguarding civil liberties. “Anyone who attacks our freedom must expect resistance,” the group declared.
Not all reactions were positive. The German Journalists’ Association expressed disappointment, arguing that the court had “clearly prioritised criminal prosecution over informant protection.” It warned that the ruling could make it harder for journalists to safeguard confidential sources — a cornerstone of press freedom.
Conversely, the German police union praised the decision for balancing public safety with individual rights. Union chairman Rainer Wendt stated, “In times of terrorist threats, investigative authorities need effective tools for threat prevention and prosecution. The court’s ruling ensures that the rule of law can protect the population from the dangers of terrorism while simultaneously safeguarding fundamental rights.”
The judgment underscores Germany’s ongoing struggle to reconcile digital-age policing with constitutional protections. While the court has drawn a clearer line around the use of powerful surveillance tools, the debate over how to protect both security and privacy in an era of rapidly advancing technology is far from over.
