I think I commented on this before in another context. It is very real.
The history about it is this:
Some police officers with the backing of a judge appointed to an investigation started to secretly check out the contents of copmuters of "suspicious" internet users. The legal argument was that this is similar to a search warrant except that it wasn't used to search a "physical place" but a computer hard drive but the legal basis was the same. And if a search warrent is issued that also allows to seize a suspect's computer and check the harddrive, there is no difference to checking the harddrive by use if the internet.
The supreme court (BGH) was of a different opinion and put a stop to it.
The BGH's essential argument was that a search warrant is "public", that is, the person whose property is searched is informed, shown the warrant and thereby knows why the property is searched and what is being search for. In practice, detectives are encouraged to include third parties as neutral witnesses that the search is conducted in due process and the person whose property is searched may also request that other people are witness to the search and the police has to comply unless these persons are a risk to the search (i.e. hindering the search etc.).
But in contrast to this, searching someone's hard drive without the person even knowing the search is conducted is (obviously) "not public". The person doesnt know his property is searched and why and what for and also has no chance to request witnesses and monitor that the search is done according to due process.
So, the BGH decided that the laws about search warrants cannot be applied to a scanning someone's hard drive by use of the internet.
What the BGH did NOT decide, however was whether the concept of scanning a hard drive was a violation of civil rights. The decision only stated that at the moment there was no law permitting the police to do a search and so it was illegal.
What the current political discussion is about is simply if and how such a law could be included in the criminal procedural code.
I suppose that it will eventually find its way there with the exception that such a search is only legal if it is the only way to investigate serious crimes (organized crime, money laundering, child porn). The courts will have to decide on a case by case basis whether it was really the only way to get results in an investigation. It will certainly not be a "carte blanche" to search just every suspect's computer as that would clearly be against the "concept of relativity" (not sure if I translated that German concept correctly to English).
Whether the law itself will hold if it is reviewed by the constitutional court at one point, remains to be seen.
In theory the constitutional court may decide that such a law is a violation of civil rights. But I doubt that will happen.
Essentially, I am not against such a law if it is applied responsibly, i.e. indeed only used if there is no other means to get the data. That menas putting in some hurdles that prevents its misuse in the daily police work.
