c) Nor is the provision disproportionate in the present state of technological development and practice on the grounds that – depending on the interpretation of the concept of a line identification number in § 111.1 TKG – in certain circumstances it
makes it possible to identify static IP addresses. For at present, no static IP addresses are allocated to private users as individual customers as a general rule, and consequently these private users are at all events not affected. On the contrary, individual customers are normally allocated IP addresses only for the current session, that
is, as dynamic IP addresses. However, the concept of line identification number of
§ 111 TKG does not cover dynamic IP addresses, and therefore § 112 does not enable these to be de-anonymised. The allocation of static IP addresses, whose attribution is at present in any case publicly accessibly in practice, is essentially restricted to
institutions and large-scale users. The possibility of retrieving such numbers has little
weight in these circumstances.
160
However, § 112 TKG may acquire substantially greater weight of encroachment if
static IP addresses in future – for example on the basis of Internet Protocol Version 6
– should become more widely used as the basis of internet communication. For the
question of the weight of encroachment of the identification of an IP address does not
primarily depend – even if a number of fundamental rights apply in this case – on
whether an IP address is technically dynamic or static, but on the actual significance
of the creation of a duty of information in this connection. But if in practice static IP addresses are allocated to a great extent to private persons too, this may possibly mean
that the identities of internet users are broadly or at least largely determined and that
communications events in the internet are de-anonymised not only for a limited period of time, but permanently. Such a far-reaching possibility of de-anonymisation of
communication in the internet goes beyond the effect of a traditional telephone number register. Admittedly, the information on the allocation of an IP address to a subscriber does have a certain similarity to the identification of a telephone number. Here
too possible further information content – going beyond the mere allocation of the IP
address – cannot be derived from the information itself, but only transpire in connection with knowledge which the authority has already obtained elsewhere or may in future obtain through its own legal activities. Nevertheless, the weight for the person affected of the attribution of an IP address to a subscriber may not be equated to that of
the identification of a telephone number, because the former makes it possible to access information whose scope and content are substantially more far-reaching (see
BVerfGE 125, 260 <342>). In view of this increased information potential, the general
possibility of the identification of IP addresses would only be constitutionally permissible subject to narrower limits (see BVerfGE 125, 260 <343-344, 356 ff.>). The legislature has a duty to observe and where appropriate to make corrections in this connection.
161
d) § 112 TKG is also not disproportionate or indefinite merely because it imposes no
further requirements for the retrieval provisions of non-constitutional law to be more
specific.
162
35/45