Berlin, December 7, 2025 – In a move decried by privacy advocates as a “black day for civil liberties,” the Berlin House of Representatives has passed sweeping amendments to the General Security and Public Order Act (ASOG), granting police unprecedented authority to breach the sanctity of private homes under the guise of national security.
This pro-privacy analysis uncovers the exact new powers bestowed upon Berlin’s law enforcement, revealing a dystopian escalation in state surveillance that threatens the core of individual freedoms.The reforms, approved on December 5, 2025, with votes from the CDU, SPD, and controversially the AfD, mark Berlin as the latest German state to normalize invasive digital and physical intrusions into citizens’ lives.
At the heart of this overhaul is the legalization of “state Trojans” – sophisticated malware designed to infiltrate smartphones, laptops, and other devices to intercept encrypted communications, both before and after decryption. But what sets this law apart is not just the hacking; it’s the physical break-ins required to make it happen.
Secret Home Invasions: The New Normal for Trojan Deployment
Under Paragraph 26 of the amended ASOG, Berlin police can now secretly enter and search suspects’ premises to physically install state Trojans when remote hacking proves “technically impossible.” This could involve slipping a USB stick into a device or tampering with hardware during an unannounced nighttime raid – all without the homeowner’s knowledge or consent.
The Berlin Senate’s draft legislation explicitly outlines this power, framing it as a necessary tool for monitoring “encrypted communication” in serious investigations, yet it provides scant safeguards against abuse.
(See Senate Draft: d19-2553.pdf) Compounding this, the law enables source telecommunications surveillance (Quellen-TKÜ) under Paragraphs 26a and 26b, allowing officers to deploy malware that extracts all communication data from infected devices – texts, calls, location history, and more. Privacy experts warn this creates a “frontal attack on the IT security of all citizens,” as Trojans could inadvertently expose innocent family members or neighbors to endless scrutiny.
The Änderungen der Abgeordneten – amendments proposed by House members – further entrenches these intrusions by expanding the scope to include secret online searches for initial access to IT systems, blurring the line between digital espionage and physical violation.
(See Amendments: d19-2786.pdf) These changes, ostensibly to combat terrorism and organized crime, lower the bar for warrants, potentially ensnaring activists, journalists, or everyday Berliners in a web of suspicion.A Cascade of Privacy Nightmares: Beyond Break-Ins
This isn’t isolated digital overreach; the ASOG amendments unleash a barrage of tools that collectively forge a “constitutionally highly questionable density of surveillance.”
Here’s exactly what Berlin police can now do:
| Power | Description | Privacy Impact |
| Bodycam Activation in Homes (Paragraph 24c) | Deploy wearable cameras in private residences or non-public areas if there’s a “concrete indication of danger to life or limb.” | Turns intimate spaces into potential surveillance zones, justified vaguely as “self-protection,” risking audiovisual recordings of vulnerable moments. heise.de |
| Cell Tower Data Harvesting (Paragraph 26e) | Query traffic data from all mobile phones in a targeted area and time to build movement profiles. | Mass-tracks innocent bystanders, creating digital footprints without individualized suspicion and violating data minimization principles. |
| Automated License Plate Recognition (Paragraph 24d) | Scan and cross-reference plates against databases in real-time traffic monitoring. | Enables pervasive vehicle tracking, feeding into broader profiling systems that chill free movement. |
| Biometric Facial/Voice Recognition (Paragraph 28a) | Scour social media and photo platforms for matches using surveillance footage. | Weaponizes public online data against privacy, automating identification without consent and amplifying biases in AI-driven policing. heise.de |
| Drone Hijacking (Paragraph 24h) | Remotely seize control of unmanned aerial vehicles during operations. | Extends state control into personal tech, eroding trust in everyday gadgets. |
| AI Training on Personal Data (Paragraph 42d) | Use real investigative data (photos, videos, texts) to train artificial intelligence models. | Breaches purpose limitation by repurposing sensitive info for opaque AI development, potentially leaking insights back into society. |
| Extended Preventive Detention (Revised Paragraph 33) | Hold suspects up to 5 days (7 for terrorism suspects) without charges. | Prolongs arbitrary confinement, heightening risks of abuse in a system now primed for preemptive surveillance. |
These measures, drawn directly from the Senate draft and parliamentary amendments, transform Berlin into a testing ground for total oversight, where the right to privacy – enshrined in Article 13 of Germany’s Basic Law – hangs by a thread.
Coices of Resistance: A Call to Defend Digital Sanctuaries
Privacy champions are sounding the alarm. Berlin’s Data Protection Officer Meike Kamp lambasts the state Trojan as an “attack on civil society,” arguing it legalizes “state intrusion into private apartments” via mundane methods like USB sticks – a vulnerability that could backfire, exposing police tactics to criminals.
he Alliance NoASOG, a coalition fighting overbroad security laws, condemns the reforms as a direct assault on democratic norms, urging citizens to recognize how such powers erode the very social cohesion they claim to protect.
(Visit NoASOG: buendnis-soziale-sicherheit.de)
Opposition leaders echo this fury: Die Linke’s Niklas Schrader called the vote a “black day,” while the Greens’ Vasili Franco warned of “constitutionally highly risky” oversteps.
The Society for Civil Rights (GFF) is already preparing a constitutional challenge, vowing to haul this surveillance behemoth before the courts.As Berliners awaken to a city where homes are no longer havens and devices are potential traitors, the onus falls on us to resist. Demand transparency in warrant approvals, support lawsuits like GFF’s, and amplify groups like NoASOG. Privacy isn’t a luxury – it’s the bedrock of a free society. Without it, we’re all suspects in waiting.