The judgment could be a lot more concrete; but it is concrete enough to make it clear that the current state police law and previous security legislation is deficient in a lot of ways.
The three main consequences are:
- Differing catch all phrases in legislation are insufficient to justify a violation of basic rights. The conditions that have to be present for surveillance have to be clear, conclusive and verifiable. This should necessitate an audit of all prior security legislation.
- The core of private life will have to be better protected. Meaning there has to be an independent institution that examines and controls and intercepted communication before it becomes available to the security apparatus.
- The security services can't arbitrarily share their findings with domestic authorities and certainly not with foreign agencies. The bar is set particularly high for the transfer to foreign agencies. Before any transfer happens it has to be ascertained the handling suffices basic human and privacy rights by the receiving authority.
All these rules boil down to that there always has be approval and control by independent judges and data protection officers. Further more the federal police has periodically account for its activities.