Rights activist and eco-farmer Stanislav Penc has won a civil dispute in which he faced a potential fine of up to Kč10 million, because he allegedly processed personal data without the consent of those who were the subject of the information.
In 2009-2010, Stanislav Penc published the Register of Persons of Interest (Evidence zájmových osob – EZO) — a database administered by the former communist secret police, Public Security (StB). Essentially, however, the case was based on a flimsy pretext used by the Personal Data Protection Office (ÚOOÚ) after Penc criticized the management of the Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes (ÚSTR) for being inactive in terms of establishing and understanding the actual past and for causing harm in the areas where it was active. The case was based on a flimsy pretext used by the Personal Data Protection Office (ÚOOÚ) after Penc criticized the management of the Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes (ÚSTR).
Consequently, Penc published the EZO database on his own initiative (the ÚSTR didn’t do so), which contains identification details of people whom the StB was interested in. However, the reason for the StB’s interest in the persons concerned is not stated in the published data.
Only the numbers of case files are assigned to the names, like with a register in book form. The only exception are notes about “blocked individuals” representing a certain “degree of risk,” which is hardly an affront. On the contrary, what wouldn’t any “anti-communist” give to have such a note today? But there is no point crying over spilt milk.
Conceiving information as absolutely valid
It is possible to find the official reason for the StB’s interest in a person, as well as other possible changes in the security services’ attitude to a given individual in archive materials published on the website of the Security Services Archive (Archív bezpečnostních složek, ABS), which operates within the framework of the ÚSTR.
As such, Penc’s register is infinitely more restrained in terms of “sensitive data” than the ÚSTR. It is therefore more than surprising that the ÚOOÚ has not approached the ÚSTR’s activities in this area when it has been so impressively diligent in Penc’s case!
The Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes publishes information instead of simply making it accessible as it is obliged to do according to the law. And state bodies may only do what the law says. What’s even worse is that by publishing such information without commentary the ÚSTR is actually presenting the information in the files as absolute.
StB data was gathered in a certain way for a certain purpose and under certain circumstances, and these cannot be reconstructed in any detail. Consequently, it is only possible to make rough inferences from this data and thus it’s impossible to draw definitive conclusions. However, one tries in vain to explain to many people that, even if they study the relevant file, they may not necessarily find out what actually happened. Here is an example illustrate this.
A spy story
At the end of the summer in 1989, an officer with the standard police force or “Public Security” (VB) wrote to the US embassy telling them that he was willing to cooperate with imperialist secret services. It was in his power (and try to read this a little longer with a serious face) to provide a list of names of VB officers in the District Directorate of the National Security Corps where he served. If he had a lot of luck and courage, he could perhaps also add to the value of the list of names by getting the extension numbers of these people’s staff lines, which could certainly precipitate the fall of communism.
And he gave his place of residence as a return address! He had a key from an unused letterbox, which he cunningly labeled with a fictitious name. We can think what we like about the Americans, but they didn’t jump at this. But this isn’t the main point, as we shall see.
In the autumn of 1989, this spy was arrested without his actually having done any espionage. He spent a while in detention until the revolution in November and then returned home as an important warrior in the fight against communism! And he used his newly acquired position to influence the screening procedures for StB and VB officers in a district which had unique and important significance.
De-politicization is necessary
It is no secret that some former officers of the StB were transferred to the post-1989 intelligence services. The proceedings against Stanislav Penc were launched by the ÚOOÚ on the basis of false informationThey called them “long-serving colleagues.” One of these was the VB officer who was arrested in the autumn of 1989. I would be interested to know whether it can be ruled out that in the couple of weeks he spent in detention, the given officer gained trust that enabled him to “officiate” during screening procedures for StB and VB officers.
In this case, however, counterintelligence officers were not able to get any idea as to whether his arrest was credible when they “uncovered” him. When he was questioned, this “long-serving colleague” scowled instead of providing answers and then got so drunk that he just wheezed and panted. However, if interpreted literally out of context, the StB file on the espionage of this greedy VB officer would make a hero out of him today.
Consequently, it is finally necessary to de-politicize the StB issue and to have it investigated in an expert manner so as to achieve the aim of investigating totalitarian regimes (of which there is more than one), as well as for us to successfully prevent their reoccurrence as soon as the first signs appear. Perhaps this subject is more topical than it seems.
Disinformation
The proceedings against Stanislav Penc were launched by the ÚOOÚ on the basis of false information from the then-director of the ABS Ladislav Bukovszký. He must have known that the EZO database was registered as an archival record in accordance with the law, but he told the ÚOOÚ that it wasn’t! Having been misinformed in this way, the ÚOOÚ started prolonged administrative proceedings against Penc, who was eventually exonerated.
At the very least, the story offers convincing evidence of a complete lack of professionalism on the part of ABS director Ladislav Bukovszký – that is if he wasn’t acting with malicious intent. Despite this, however, the new director of the ÚSTR has ignored requests to set the issue straight. Conversely, he even sent a letter to a number of institutions in which he tried to “repair the good name of Mr Bukovszký.” Apparently, the criticism aimed at Bukovszký in the past was media-driven and was “intended to damage Bukovszký”.
Under these circumstances, the only question that remains is how much more this “Orwellian institution” must be discredited before it can be abolished.
