Often a wise idea to fail because they reasons, allegedly for privacy is not feasible. Whether in the discussion on the health card, on new forms to increase donations of organs, Autonomous Driving, innovative training concepts, or the digitization of the administration: the Supposed privacy advocates point out that in Germany and Europe, innovative business models or creative ideas with the protection of informational self-determination are compatible. These views fall in conflict with entrepreneurship and digitization of euphoria.

However, on closer Inspection, the question of whether the data protection and privacy, in certain circumstances, to increase the efficiency of certain processes actually get in the way. Too often the data protection serves as the idiots argument of those who want to change nothing. One example is the electronic Transmission of the data of the employee and its wage tax to the tax office, the state has the essential data needed to Submit a tax Declaration. How easy life could be, if the tax office would send every worker once in a year, a pre-filled tax Declaration would be taken into account in addition to the wage tax, already the usual allowances and lump-sum, or even the distance to work? In many cases, the employee would have to confirm the pre-filled tax Declaration only with his signature. The annual Register of the same taxation characteristics could also be omitted, such as the extension of deadlines. In Sweden, a similar model is already being practiced.

But privacy is not an obstacle? The answer is: if the citizen grants the state the appropriate consent. It is not a Problem, data to increase the efficiency of certain processes, such as those in public administration can be used, if citizens are in agreement with this procedure. It is not a Problem, if the state obtains a consent of the citizen, in order to use the data for a pre-filled tax return, if the citizens can revoke such consent. The existence of a consent to data processing is not the opposite of privacy. It is just an expression of data protection and the expression of a growing data sovereignty of the citizen if the citizen has been authorised by a consent of the state to make operations more efficient.

The bräsige administration is to blame

the same as for the Transmission of data in the relation from the state to the citizen applies to the Transmission of data between state Agencies. Why must someone who has already deposited substantial parts of its data to the tax office to submit this at the registration of the private sector, again in a form? Many a citizen has already asked the question at the trades licensing office and get a response: “The privacy”. Far from it! It is up to the project thus became the process of Digitalization of the public administration in Germany.

daily mirror Background of digitalization & KI

try it Now for free!

If it would be possible to put to the Treasury for a consent, the Transmission of relevant data to the trade licensing office or the trade Supervisory office is allowed, should also not be transmitted to the data again. The granting of a consent to disclosure of personal data in the relation from the state to the citizens or to the relationship between state Agencies is not to each other is only likely to increase the efficiency of the public administration. It also increases the transparency about what data the government has stored already from the citizens.

If it is adjacent to the granting of a consent, moreover, even would be possible – for example, in the case of a move to keep the message in case of a single authority, the own data up to date, so would have not only won a great deal of life time. It would also ensure that no one authority more, the wrong data are stored.

What this has to do with privacy, when the citizens ‘ registration office in case of relocation, both in the pension insurance, health insurance, in addition to the inhabitants, as well as the tax office, and then also in many other Places, the data change must show? That does not work in Germany, is not the fault of data protection. It is due to the inertia in the Reform of the administration.
In times of growing use of digital business models and large amounts of data, it is right to keep the privacy high. We do, however, neither the privacy and the informational self-determination a Favor, if we need a permanent data protection as an excuse for their own laziness in the introduction of creative digital solutions for the management miss.

More about

criticism of the Ministry of health, Green want to data sovereignty for patients

Rainer Woratschka

Christian Dürr, Deputy Chairman of the FDP parliamentary group in the German Bundestag. Konstantin Kuhle is their spokesman.