Non-Subscriber Extract
Intelligence - Teutonic triumph
By Gary Mason
15 January 2008
While the UK's policing community continues to wrestle with the intelligence-sharing implications of the Bichard report into the Soham murders and the establishment of the hugely ambitious IMPACT programme, Britain's largest European policing partner is planning to go even further in terms of making criminal intelligence more widely available at a national and international level.
Wolfgang Schäuble, German interior minister, has proposed a raft of controversial measures for increasing the intelligence-gathering capabilities of police and intelligence agencies in Germany, including allowing online searches of suspects' computer data via police-planted 'Trojan horse' software and the establishment of a single national database that would give agencies access to suspects' internet and telecommunications data traffic.
At an international level, Mr Schäuble has proposed that all 27 EU member states should open up their DNA and fingerprint databases for searches by any other member's policing agency. At a meeting of EU interior ministers in Dresden last year, Mr SchŠ#228;uble said a Europe-wide network of DNA databases would offer "a huge sea of possibilities to recognise and prevent cirme". He added: "Our aim is to create a modern police information network for more effective crime control throughout Europe."
This is consistent with modern German politicians' historical commitment to a more ambitious level of policing intelligence exchange across continental Europe. This commitment can be traced back to former chancellor Helmut Kohl's vision, stated at an EU summit meeting in 1991, of a European equivalent to the FBI allowing federally warranted 'Euro detectives' to mount cross-border inquiries and gather intelligence on criminal activity.
Unfortunately for Kohl, the treaty of Maastricht signed in February 1992 established a much watered down version of that vision. Europol, the transnational policing organisation established by the treaty, is an intelligence-gathering body only. Even within this remit there are a number of limitations. For example, Europol has to request intelligence from EU member policing agencies; it has no mandatory powers to make the release of such information compulsory.
As Europol has struggled for recognition and co-operation among EU members reluctant to share their criminal intelligence, Germany has led the way in terms of what it is willing to do. For example, since the 11 September 2001 terrorism attacks on the US, the German Federal Police has shared its intelligence files as a matter of policy with Europol and with other agencies in the US.
While pan-European co-operation agreements are hard to negotiate and even harder to enforce among all 27 member states, Germany is the main instigator of a multi-lateral treaty that guarantees levels of policing co-operation and intelligence sharing among its geographical neighbours.