This binding supervision does not compensate
As a counter-measure, the amendment gives the oversight committee binding powers in reviewing the annual renewal. We welcome binding oversight. It is just unfortunate that the proposal does set the bar for reviewing the extension of the retention period very low, and the oversight committee will review based on that bar.
In the proposal, the test seems to be limited to necessity only. This means that the infringement on your rights and freedoms that takes place with the retention of your data, and whether it is proportionate to the purpose, is not considered at all in the question of whether the data may be retained longer.
In addition, the necessity criteria is based on the number of times the secret services have queried the data set. That usage says nothing about the value of a set for the secret services' investigation is evident from our complaint procedure, among others. Indeed, it gives a perverse incentive to process data more often so that it does not have to be destroyed. Whether that processing contributes to anything or not. Then your data is not only kept longer, but also viewed more often.