Without regard for the right of informational self-determination and the right to be left in peace, for years the GEZ ("fee withdrawal centre") has been regularly and systematically procuring data from registration authorities, public services, address traders and highly questionable other sources, in order to find people who don't pay the licence fee, even if these people aren't in any way interested in using a radio or TV. The GEZ (and fee collectors working directly for the broadcasters) collect excessive data, intrude upon people, burst into homes and under false pretences force people to disclose personal data.

Since 1976 the GEZ are collecting the licence fee from radio and TV owners on behalf of the public broadcasting networks ARD and ZDF. Declaring that it is acting only as an instrument of the broadcasters, the GEZ denies and dodges any legal responsibility. For the citizens concerned the whole practice is absolutely inscrutable.

The GEZ avoid independent data protection control through a trick: They wrongly claim a privilege of the media for themselves, the constitutional right of press freedom. As a consequence, they are not under supervision from public data protection authorities but from the broadcasters' own data protection executives, whose actions are beyond public scrutiny and who are not independent of their networks - an independence regarded as vitally important in the European data protection act.

Practically all of the data collection activity undertaken by the GEZ is based on the false and degrading assumption that all those people in Germany that do not pay the licence fee are actually licence dodgers. In a revision of the Registration Act the GEZ convinced law-makers to give them access to the data of almost all German registration authorities for eight core items, no matter if people who register with the authorities have also correctly registered with the GEZ or if they simply do not own any radio or TV sets. With this kind of data hoarding, a central national registration index is effectively being established at the GEZ. From the beginning this practice has met with constant protests from public data protection authorities, who pointed out that such an index violated the constitutional principle of proportionality. The central computer of the GEZ is already holding accounts for more than 37 million licence fee payers.

When it comes to ferreting out unregistered radio or TV sets, the GEZ prove highly creative. They have been known to ask local car registration authorities to find out which car dealers have temporarily registered cars under their own name on behalf of a customer. The aim is to collect licence fees for the car radios from those dealers - despite the fact, known to the GEZ, that this kind of data acquisition is illegal. Or at times fee collectors attempt to get at lists of second home tax payers from local registration authorities in tourist resorts; again willfully ignoring that the secrecy of tax data is legally protected.

Another form of data acquisition by the GEZ is using private address traders. This leads to children (to whom no fee applies even if they do own a set) being called upon to have their radios and TVs registered. Or, due to some mismatch, registered and dutifully paying TV or radio owners can receive menacing letters, demanding to register their sets. This form of data acquisition is illegal under applicable data protection laws. On the one hand the GEZ collect data, by force if necessary, like a public authority. But if this is not enough to satisfy the GEZ's greed, it acts as if it were a private company that is free to additionally help itself to data on the open market.

There is a similar story when the focus moves from finding fee dodgers to collecting the fee itself. If this is not achieved by means of governmental enforcement, the GEZ again believe they can act like any commercial body. Thus, since the 80s they have taken to chasing debtors by transmitting their data to private debt collecting agencies, which then try to extract owed fees in their own ways.

On the other hand the GEZ behave like a policing authority in their communications with presumed fee dodgers. In letters to people registered as having no set at all or (for a reduced fee) just a radio set, the GEZ try to give the impression that there is an obligation to give account repeatedly about the existence of any further receiving equipment. With every form letter from the GEZ the tone gets rougher. Recipients are systematically - and illegally - left under the impression that they have to respond to these letters in any event and at their own cost.

There are recurring reports of actual assaults by the so-called network representatives. Sometimes they obtain access to homes under false pretences, by acting in a police-like way or simply by threat, in order to check for non-registered radios or TVs.

Those who apply for an exemption from the licence fee on economic grounds, like pensioners, students or unemployed people, will be pushed - mostly through intervention by the social welfare offices - to giving information that in some respects is going far beyond the information required to apply for welfare money. Contrary to the actual wording of the exemption regulations, people are asked to give account of their telephone and mobile phone bills, heating and electricity costs, of cable and internet connection fees, even their expenses for a car. All these have to be proved by receipts. And all this is demanded for a relief of just 17 Euros per month.

It is almost impossible to cancel registration of a radio or TV with the GEZ. Instead of a confirmation former fee payers are sent a letter in which they are urged - again without any legal foundation - to give reasons for getting rid of their set and to name the third party who has taken over the equipment, stating their date of birth and their GEZ registration number. These third parties are never asked for permission. And after correctly cancelling their registration, people keep being included in further mailing campaigns, their data is obviously not getting deleted.

The whole expensive effort of a partially illegal fee and data collection system could be avoided if the obligation to pay was no longer attached to the possession of a radio or a TV set, simply by raising a uniform fee from every adult person. With current technological developments, it is hardly possible any more to differentiate between conventional receiving equipment and other multifunctional communication devices such as Internet PCs, UMTS mobile phones, etc. The chairman of the media commission of the Christian Democrat party (CDU) is quoted as saying that the fee could be reduced by half if the enormous data processing and administration costs of the GEZ were eliminated. If the GEZ assume that every household these days has a radio and a TV anyway, it could just as well take the consequence and charge everyone the same amount, without infringing data protection. But no such development has ever been on the cards until today.

The GEZ remain active in their lifetime quest of harassing the people of Germany, ignoring the illegality of their practices of data accumulation as well as the right to informational self-determination. Even if all this detecting and data processing should not prove profitable for the GEZ, in any case it does deserve our lifetime award.

Congratulations, GEZ.

In their "Future Store", a supermarket of the "Extra" chain in Rheinberg near Duisburg (opened in April 2003 with a well-advertised event featuring Claudia Schiffer), the Metro Group are trialling the use of transponders or so-called RFIDs ("Radio Frequency Identification" devices). These are small chips with an antenna which, when held near a reading device, send out an identification code.

Every yoghurt cup, every wine bottle, and every sweater is given its own ID, which can be read without physical or even line-of-sight contact. With networked reading devices, information related to each identified item can be directly retrieved, such as the price. As customer cards, credit or "loyalty" cards can be fitted with RFIDs as well, we, the customers can be uniquely identified, too. This opens up completely new opportunities.

You may find this incredible in a moment - but each of the following scenarios is either today's reality, or closely following RFID lobbyists' marketing strategy papers.

April 2003

The "Future Store" has opened in Rheinberg near Duisburg. Trial customer Marion Z. is impressed: she can hold her new customer card next to her shopping trolley to receive a personal welcome on a display built into its handle, and she is then shown her own standard shopping list (which she had to supply to be stored earlier). With each shopping trip, the computer will modify the list according to her personal preferences. A "navigation system" on the display leads her to each next item on her list, always choosing an optimal route. Browsing time is eliminated. And: because the RFIDs make theft almost impossible, prices are set to fall, so they say. There is no conveyor belt to place your shopping on, no checkout at all, payment is by card. "Veeery handy!"

May 2003

The first retailers' representatives are given tours of the Future Store, and they are enthusiastic! No more goods selling out, shelf refilling can be coordinated centrally. No more need for price tags on items, as prices are transferred directly from the central computer to the trolley displays. And customers can be addressed individually with commercial spots and adverts, via the displays. As supermarket holder Dietmar K. is beaming into a TV camera: "It's a retail revolution, we are entering a golden age!"

September 2003

Spiegel Online, the web edition of a German weekly and a major provider of German news on the internet, are fooled by Metro's PR activities and publish an article full of nothing but praise of the advantages for the consumer. For example, the new system would enable customers to find out exactly in which country articles were made, via the displays. Shopping would become much more transparent. At Metro's marketing department, the champagne bottles are cracking. "Do they really think we'd be stupid enough to spell out the fact that these coffee beans were picked by 5 year old children??" wonders intern Nina S. After the celebration she continues entering detours into the navigation system of the shopping trolleys server, making it lead the customers past selected products.

October 2003

Marion Z. finds an article in the paper about the Big Brother Award. She is shocked by the surveillance opportunities created by RFIDs. A letter to the editor is giving reassurance: RFIDs are not dangerous at all, they can easily be destroyed in the microwave. Alarmed, she bangs her last Future Store shopping into her microwave. The butter melts, the zipper on the jeans is sparking fireworks. A scream is heard: "Oh sh**, that's the last time I've done that!" Have the chips actually been destroyed? Marion doesn't know.

April 2004

Lars H., second term student of computer science, is developing a small jamming transmitter on behalf of the FoeBuD association in Bielefeld. It can prevent RFIDs from being read. Marion Z. is buying one. Lars H. drops out of university and launches a start-up company for his transmitters. He donates parts of the profits to FoeBuD.

June 2004

Gerd J., supermarket assistant, is excited about the new technology. That nuisance of sitting at the checkout is a thing of the past, it's easier to refill the shelves, warehouses are used more effectively. Coming home from work, he finds a letter from the executive with a caution. It says he's been to the toilet nine times a day, spending about 72 minutes there on average. This is 27 minutes above the target, an amount that will be deducted from his working time in the future. Shocked, he searchers his supermarket coat and finds an RFID in the collar.

September 2004

RFID prices have dropped to 1 Cent per chip, and there is now an common, accepted technical standard. This makes their overall introduction a close reality.

October 2004

Feta maker Karsten P. has now received 10 faxes from the major retail chains. If he is not going to integrate RFIDs into all his packaging in the next three months, his supply contracts will be cancelled. Karsten P. has resisted this new technology so far, but thinking of his 75 employees, he is now giving in.

November 2004

Marion Z. is sent a caution from the Duisburg authorities with a fine. The wrapping paper of a Mars bar she has bought was found in the town park, floating in the duck pond. After some pondering, Marion Z. remembers that she gave the sweet to a young carol singer. Grinding her teeth, she pays the 10 Euro fine.

January 2005

Start-up entrepreneur Lars H. is sick, staying at home. He asks his neighbour Nina S. to go shopping for him. As she returns with the bill, he is puzzled to find that Nina S. is paying twice the usual amount for some products. They confirm that sanitary products are more expensive for her than for him. Comparing with friends, they verify that all women are paying more for sanitaries, that families are paying more for videos than singles and so on. A call to the consumers' association establishes that competition laws have been changed months ago on the back of some bill extending shopping hours. This "price discrimination", as the technical term goes, can no longer be challenged.

April 2005

Supermarket assistant Gerd J., now out of work because he hasn't got his toilet times under control, is at the filling station. As the RFID in the chewing gum package in his jacket has not been destroyed at the supermarket, he is identified as a chewing gum user, and while he is waiting for his car to be filled he is shown a video advertising other chewing gum brands.

July 2005

Start-up boss Lars H. is buying a new intelligent fridge. Reading product RFIDs, it knows what it is storing, which yoghurt is nearing its sell-by date, and what will have to be restocked with the next shopping. The fridge can order missing items automatically through the internet or add them to the shopping list on the supermarket trolley display. And via a display in its door it can suggest recipes. At night, Lars is dreaming that the fridge is autonomously ordering a Pizza Tonno for itself and eating it together with the toaster. He wakes up in a sweat. Hung over, he finds a warning by his health insurance in the post. His food is too rich in colours and preservatives, it says. If he isn't going to change his diet, his insurance premium will be raised next year.

August 2005

As Marion Z. is approaching her supermarket, the door is not opening. The store manager's first question is: "Could it be that you're carrying one of those jamming transmitters in your pocket? Oh no, you won't get in then." This experience is repeated at almost every supermarket in the area. From now on she will leave her "jammer" at home. In the evening, she glances across a newspaper article from November 2003 in her paper recycling bin: "Privacy activists are chasing ghosts - Metro Group calls dire predictions 'absolutely unrealistic'."

We repeat: The above scenarios are closely following RFID lobbyists' concrete plans, some of which are already being tested in pilot projects. There are confidential marketing strategy papers that have been found and published on the web by CASPIAN, an American consumer protection organisation. These papers explicitly state dispersing consumers' fears about their privacy as one of the main objectives. Such a goal should make us especially suspicious.

We demand that RFIDs, which are undeniably practical for warehouse logistics, must be destroyed at the time the goods are passed into the hands of consumers. This can be achieved by simple technological means.

We are calling for laws to give consumers the right to know if RFIDs are being used, what data is stored on them and when, where, by whom and for what purpose the RFIDs surrounding us are being read.

The law regulating fair competition is currently under revision. Until now it would only regulate company-to-company relations. The new law is now going to explicitly protect consumers' rights as well. This is a good opportunity to include the new issue of RFIDs and the resulting scenarios, such as price discrimination.

RFIDs lead to a whole new definition of "consumption terror" - especially when an international technological standard will be established. Through snooping and collecting customer profiles, a new dimension of advertising and targeted manipulation will become possible, which is threatening the right to a self-determined life. And no one will be able to escape.

The Future Store is a research station for many, but by far not all conceivable scenarios. For its instigation and the related marketing concepts, the Metro Group is receiving an exemplary and future-oriented Big Brother Award. It's a pity that the company is not going to face this discussion here today. The more it is down to customers, consumer protection initiatives and politicians not to let this development - which will be able to change our lives so profoundly - lie in the hands of the companies.

Congratulations, dear Metro Group!

The Big Brother Award in the Politics Category goes to the governments (interior ministers) of the German federal states of Bavaria, Lower Saxony, Rhineland-Palatinate and Thuringia for their efforts, riding on the issue of fighting terrorism, to tighten their states' police laws, allowing for drastic restrictions of elementary basic rights and liberties affecting a large number of unsuspicious people. Especially threatened is the principle of privacy of correspondence and telecommunications, the basic right of informational self-determination and thus the freedom of communication without fear of repression.

The Big Brother Award in the Politics Category goes to the governments (interior ministers) of the German federal states of Bavaria, Lower Saxony, Rhineland-Palatinate and Thuringia, for their efforts, riding on the issue of fighting terrorism, to tighten their states' police laws, allowing for drastic restrictions of elementary basic rights and liberties affecting a large number of unsuspicious people. Especially threatened is the principle of privacy of correspondence and telecommunications, the basic right of informational self-determination and thus the protection of privacy. Here are some of the gravest restrictions:

1.
In all four states the preventive monitoring of telecommunications is to be legalised - that is eavesdropping on telephones, mobiles, reading faxes, text messages and emails, without the precondition of a criminal investigation or even an initial suspicion. The reasoning given is that suspicion of a crime being planned might of course be found during observation, and the crime could then be prevented. Just vague indications will suffice to snoop on potential suspects "to defend against a current danger to health, life or freedom of a person or substantial material assets", or to observe people "where actual evidence justifies the assumption that they will commit serious crimes in the future" (the wording varies in the drafts in the different states).

Such powers, which for now have only been made legal in Thuringia, enable police to observe telecommunications of "pre-suspect" people long before an initial suspicion is established - even completely innocent and incidental communication partners such as relatives, neighbours, colleagues and other acquaintances can be affected by eavesdropping. And in some cases even communication with unsuspicious and trusted contacts, such as lawyers, doctors, therapists, counsellors, or journalists, can be monitored - without regard of the specific obligation of silence that these professions must follow. The right of these professions to refuse testimony, secured by law, is circumvented, as well as vital aspects of the freedom of the press: the protection of journalistic sources. Independent journalistic research would no longer be guaranteed under these rules.

The rule that a judicial order would be required for these measures does not offer sufficient protection, as demonstrated by the surge in telephone observation orders. Until today the judiciary has no role in the process of investigation and thus there is no judicial control of the progress and eventual success or failure of these observations. In this area of spying, Germany is already among the world leaders with over 15,000 observed telephone numbers per year and millions of people affected - a depressing record that led the former Constitutional Court judge Jürgen Kühling to write off the principle of privacy of correspondence and telecommunications as a "total loss" (Grundrechte-Report 2003, p. 15). The right to free communication without fear of monitoring and repression is no longer safeguarded.

2.
The preventive monitoring of telecommunication includes the content as well as "external" aspects - "communication link" data is collected and stored. All institutions involved in providing telecommunications, in whatever (even auxiliary) way, will be obliged to enable police monitoring and recording. This requires laying the necessary technical foundations to capture vast amounts of link data, and indeed capturing it just in case it is going to be requested for later. Providers will have to give the police information at any time about previous, current and future occurrences of telecommunication: who has contacted whom, when and for how long, from where to where, by telephone or in writing, what SMS and internet connections have been used.

3.
Plans also exist to locate of mobile phones using so-called IMSI catchers. These shoebox-sized devices, for one thing, can find out the individual ID or device number of a mobile phone. With that information the police can then request link data for that mobile phone user from the respective telecom provider. But IMSI catchers can also electronically locate mobile phones, even phones switched into standby mode. This enables police to collect movement profiles of mobile phone users - to pursue not only criminals, but also those they find capable of committing crimes in the future, i.e. to pursue people that in principle are innocent and under no particular suspicion.

In July this year, the civic rights organisation "Humanistische Union" (Humanist Union) asked the Federal Constitutional Court ("Bundesverfassungsgericht", Germany's highest court, established to safeguard the constitution, can repeal laws) to review the use of IMSI catchers for criminal investigation, as legalised in the law governing criminal court proceedings in early 2003. They argue in their complaint that the use of IMSI catchers leads to people being monitored regardless of the presence or absence of suspicion and thus violates the principle of telecommunications privacy safeguarded in Article 10 of the German constitution, sacrificing it to indiscriminate ways of investigation.

4.
The state of Rhineland-Palatinate is planning to introduce electronic bugging and video cameras for preventive use in the so-called "major listening and observing attack", a measure already legalised in the states of Thuringia and Baden-Württemberg. To install the spying devices, police will be authorised to enter the investigated home in disguise. Thus the constitutional right of the inviolability of the home is unhinged, affecting owners, tenants, cohabitants and visitors.

The judicial order required for such measures is to be renewed every three months, without a limit to the length of the investigation. In the event of "immediate danger" a simple permission by the head of the police authority is to suffice - despite the severity of the intrusion. The professional secrets of people authorised to refuse testimony are anything but sufficiently protected.

Now that people aren't even safe from eavesdropping in their own homes, says former Constitutional Court judge Jürgen Kühling, a "loss of civilisation that will change the shape of our democracy" is looming (Grundrechte-Report 2003, p. 20).

5.
The state of Bavaria is planning to automatically record vehicle numbers and compare these with police records (investigative as well as other records). If a suspicion results, the affected vehicle will be followed. The Bavarian police are already testing such systems, without any legal basis. Whether this mass screening will record and use only vehicle numbers or extend further, e.g. to biometric data for face recognition, is unclear - as well as the question what the recorded data will be used for, for example to construct movement and travelling profiles.

The automatic recording of vehicle numbers is to be used at the Bavarian border as well as in so-called endangered places (such as airports, railway stations and military installations), but also to monitor streets, motorways, shopping centres or parking spaces. And these methods are intended for use in the run-up to demonstrations to filter out "known trouble-makers".

To conclude: such preventive measures in effect tend to break any barriers, can hardly be controlled and thus are inappropriate. This concept of prevention is leaning towards the insatiable, will make more and more unsuspicious persons "known to police" and make them a subject of investigation. The numerous people affected will normally not notice anything of the deep intrusion into their privacy.

Where prevention becomes the dominating police "logic", the relationship between citizen and state is quickly turned around: one of the most important aspects of the rule of law, the presumption of innocence, is covertly losing its power-limiting function. The human being is mutated into a potential threat - a generalised vote of non-confidence, as already expressed in "veiled" and "patterned" investigations or in the increasing video surveillance in public spaces, in which all passers-by are involved without knowing what the recordings will be used for in the future.

These new instruments pay homage to a preventive supervision state - a security state where trust and the rule of law are gradually getting lost, where uncertainty and fear are flourishing. In view of such a development, the former president of the Constitutional Court, Jutta Limbach is warning: "a democratic political culture vitally depends on an eagerness of expression, on the civic engagement of all citizens. These will gradually get lost if the state starts to biometrically measure and informationally muster its citizens and electronically pursue their movements of life."

The Christian-Democrat (CDU) governed state of Thuringia has already legalised this frontal attack on elementary liberties in June 2002. The government of Thuringia is therefore receiving this Big Brother Award for its past actions. This pilot project is now to be followed by the states of Bavaria (CSU), Lower Saxony (CDU/FDP) and Rhineland-Palatinate (SPD/FDP). These governments are receiving their award as a preventive measure.

Congratulations to the governments and interior ministers of Bavaria, Lower Saxony, Rhineland-Palatinate and Thuringia.

The BigBrotherAward in the category "Work" goes to the Deutsche Post AG representing its subsidiary company "Deutsche Post-Shop GmbH".

The reason for this are their new employment contracts that the Deutsche Post-Shop GmbH wants to press upon certain licencees. In these contracts the licenced employees are urged to give unconditional consent to dispensing doctors that have been selected by the Deutsche Post-Shop GmbH from their duty of confidentiality when the employees report sick for longer than two weeks.

Background: For years the German post has been retiring from the rural areas and the suburbs and closing down the classic post-offices. In many places the provision of postal functions have been taken over by so called post-shops, i.e. acting agents like grocery shops, petrol stations, and retailers of all kinds , who offer postal services in addition to their regular offerings. Now the German post wants to lay hands on the logistic network of the Quelle AG, a German mail order shop that also has stores in a number of towns, and offers people who run a "Quelle-Shop" to take on postal services as an addition to their regular offers - in the form of a part-time job.

In article 5, section 4, of the contracts that operators of a Quelle-Shop are supposed to sign it says: "In case of illness of more than 2 weeks the employee will have himself examined by a doctor chosen by the employer [the Deutsche Post-Shop GmbH] ... The employee hereby releases this doctor from his duty of confidentiality in so far as is necessary for the assessment of the employees inability to work. "

The concluding sentence "... in so far as is necessary for the assessment of the employees inability to work" was supplemented only after massive protests from the Postagenturnehmer-Verband Deutschland e.V. (i.e. the association of takers of postal agency licences} and the Interessenverband Quelle-Shops e.V. (i.e. the association of operators of Quelle-Shops}. This supplement does not solve the problem, however, but shows that the Post-Shop GmbH obviously has not occupied itself with the legal regulations about medical examinations with respect to the working world. Never and nowhere in Germany is it necessary that an employer gets confidential information from a doctor in order to assess an employee's ability to work . This assessment is left to the doctors alone. The reasons for this assessment are no concern of the employer. The above article therefore constitutes a massive infringement of patients' and employees' rights.

It can be assumed that the German post, as a former state office, designs its employment contracts along the lines of the Bundesangestellten-Tarifvertrag, BAT, i.e. the official wage agreement for public clerks and employees. Thus, the jury of the German Big Brother Award has meanwhile got quite a number of letters arguing that this regulation were common practice, especially mentioned in article 7 of the BAT, which is concerned with medical examinations of employees. But neither in that article itself nor in the commentaries have we found any mention of a release of doctors from their obligation to secrecy. Also, lawyers from the trade union "ver.di" specialising in labour legislatoin, as well as the independent solicitor Dr. Hartmut Stracke confirm that the BAT does not state anything of the kind. And yet even the former trade union leader Monika Wulf-Matthies, meanwhile on the pay list of the Deutsche Post AG, insists that this regulation could be found in the BAT. She of all people should know the BAT, and as intimately as almost nobody else - this is just impertinent!

But now for the beef: An employee, according to the BAT, does have to prove his fitness for a specific job through examination by a doctor that is appointed by the employer. Granted.

It is a matter of course, howerver, that the doctor is bound to his obligation to secrecy, that means he is allowed only to state whether there are any medical reasons why the person in question is fit to fill a certain position or not. He must not disclose any particulars about his assessment or diagnosis. He is even bound to take care that he doesn't accidentally or indirectly open ways to inferences about his diagnosis. Therefore the part of the respective form letter that the employer gets does not show a diagnosis. Furthermore an employer can demand that an employee be examined by a doctor appointed by the health insurance company. But again the employer will not get any information about the actual diagnosis. In all, it is clear that employees are expressly protected through the doctor's obligation to secrecy.

The Deutsche Post AG wants to undermine this with a sweeping signature under its employment contract. It demands to have this signature from small licence takers who work only a few hours per day as post agents in their "Quelle Shops" on the basis of a part time job. The jury of the Big Brother Award thinks that this is utterly impertinent and inproportionate.

In a letter to the jury the Deutsche Post AG argues that a detailed assessment of the unfitness of the employees were necessary for the post, in order to fulfill its legal obligation to provide blanket services. This seems downright cynical, looking at the above mentioned policy that the Deutsche Post AG has been following during the past years. For years it has been closing down post offices. The general services to the general public have steadily been growing worse. Letter boxes have been decimated by and by. The Deutsche Post AG calls this "letter box optimation" - this euphemism has already been shortlisted for the "Unwort des Jahres" award 2003, the annual award for spin-doctoring and other kinds of language abuse.

The Deutsche Post AG wants to fulfill its legal obligation with the help of Quelle-Shops? This will hardly be feasible, for according to information from the Quelle licence takers their contracts to run a Quelle-Shop have been sweepingly cancelled in the meantime. This means that the future of postal services to the public is endangered by its dependence on decisions of the Quelle Corporation. And having postal services in all their extensiveness being carried out by people who work part time is not really proof of the Deutsche Post AG taking its obligation all too seriously.

The management consulting firm McKinsey has declared efficiency the top principle - that means making as much money as possible with the least possible effort. That, in turn, means that everything is regulated by cost. But quality of life, a basic claim for maintenance, environmental protection, workers rights, and also data protection are a nuisance and cost money. Are, therefore, not efficient.

5 out of 8 members of the board of directors of the Deutsche Post AG are former McKinseyans.

Congratulations, Deutsche Post AG