How critical infrastructure could really be protected: hidden cables or hidden scandals?

The debate about the safety of critical infrastructure (KRITIS) will be held across Germany at the latest after the destruction of a cable bridge in Berlin by the so-called volcano group in January 2026. CDU-led state governments in particular are using this debate to attack freedom of information. Under the pretext of wanting to better protect critical infrastructure, the Freedom of Information Act was restricted in Berlin – in Schleswig-Holstein and Thuringia that could happen too. At the federal level, the leaders of the Union and SPD also announced a so-called reform of the Freedom of Information Act in July, which would effectively abolish freedom of information equals. Safety arguments are also cited here, among other things.

But when transparency is pitted against security, one thing in particular suffers: public control of politics. In the future, the state governments not only want to hide critical infrastructure from the public, but also their own scandals such as the funding scandal in Berlin.

There are extensive exceptions in all freedom of information and transparency lawswhich already protect sensitive security information so that it does not have to be released if there are justified security concerns. Apparently the attacks on transparency are intended to distract from the real problem: that critical infrastructure has not yet been effectively protected.

Smoke candles instead of real protection

As a result of the new blanket exclusion of KRITIS from the freedom of information, authorities in Berlin have to reject inquiries about energy, transport or health – without checking whether the release of the specific information could actually lead to a risk. The fact that the facility in question is part of the critical infrastructure is sufficient to reject a request. “This reverses the burden of proof: lack of transparency becomes the legal norm, information becomes the absolute exception,” explains Renate Gensch from ver.di.

The Berlin Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information, Meike Kamp, also criticized the changes to the Berlin Freedom of Information Act and the Berlin Data Protection Act. The change in the law that has now been passed undermines the state government’s own transparency goals.

How critical infrastructure can really be protected

One thing is clear: KRITIS is currently not resilient. But this is not due to too much transparency. There is not a single case known in which a freedom of information request has ever posed a concrete threat to KRITIS. Instead, there are a large number of systemic risks such as global warming, extreme weather events, biodiversity loss, cybercrime or disinformation and geopolitical conflicts.

The actual risks for KRITIS do not lie in the availability of information, but rather in inadequate physical and digital protective measures on site as well as a lack of political will to act in dealing with systemic risks. The power outage in Berlin was also unrelated to freedom of information requests; the cable bridge was visible from afar and physically unprotected.

These challenges are also reflected in the KRITIS umbrella law which came into force at the federal level on March 17, 2026. It obliges operators of critical systems to, among other things, register the critical system, carry out risk analysis and assessment and take resilience measures. The aim is to prevent or respond effectively to incidents, ensure adequate physical protection and ensure rapid recovery. Resilience measures include emergency preparedness, emergency power supply and appropriate security management. The law shows that the state has recognized the importance of resilience and protection of critical infrastructure. But at the same time, Germany is not yet adequately prepared for crises such as cyber attacks or sabotage in the areas of disaster control and emergency care, as, for example, an analysis by the ARD political magazine REPORT MAINZ shows.

According to the assessment of AG KRITISan independent specialist network in the area of ​​critical infrastructure, neither monitoring nor secrecy protects against failures. Technical resilience alone really makes sense. That is why supply facilities should be protected by invisible or non-destructible structural and technical measures and secured by replacement systems. The KRITIS umbrella law takes up some of these approaches. It calls for adequate physical protection of critical facilities to be ensured through “proportionate, technical, security and organizational measures”. In addition to resilience measures, these can also include structural and technical protective measures, monitoring instruments, detection devices or access controls.

Climate protection is CRITIS protection

All of these measures have so far neglected a major risk factor for KRITIS, namely long-term crises such as climate change or biodiversity loss. The energy, transport, food and water sectors in particular are increasingly at risk from global warming and the associated extreme weather events. Storms and floods can damage or destroy power lines, roads, railway lines and bridges. Railway tracks can warp at sustained high temperatures. A lack of water can lead to problems with cooling in thermal power plants or the operation of hydroelectric power plants. Extreme weather events such as droughts or storms pose a long-term threat to the food sector. A key prevention measure for KRITIS is missing from the list: effective climate protection.

In view of risks such as the climate crisis, weather extremes and the biodiversity crisis, the current definition of KRITIS should also be broader. Also natural or “green infrastructure” – i.e. moors, forests, river floodplains and urban green spaces – must be protected. They ensure flood protection, drinking water supply and climate regulation. If they are damaged, like other critical infrastructure, this can lead to supply bottlenecks and a threat to public safety. A current draft law to strengthen the “natural infrastructure” from the Federal Environment Ministry already underlines the importance of functioning ecosystems for social resilience. The goal: natural and technical infrastructure should be treated equally become.

Protective structures of civil society: Help for self-help

In addition to physical dangers, according to the “Foresight” project report, The Federal Ministry of Research, Technology and Space (BMFTR) also recognizes systemic risks such as disinformation, concentration of power and social polarization. This is where transparency can be an important countermeasure: it strengthens social resilience, enables informed public debates and democratic participation, and counteracts the spread of false information. Transparency is also a central prerequisite for democratic control.

For the protection of critical infrastructure, this means: Only if it is publicly known how well KRITIS are positioned to deal with various risks can government actions and political decisions in this context be reviewed and improved. And citizens have a legitimate interest in knowing how the critical infrastructure that affects us all – hospitals, power grids, railway lines – is protected and what we have to prepare for in the event of a crisis.

Last but not least, the arson attack on the electricity supply showed how vulnerable state structures are to crises – and how quickly this gap is bridged by civil society. While the coalition hit the net in the first hours of the blackout in a game against time, people in the neighborhood helped each other. And the following applies: the more transparent information is available, the easier it is to help yourself.

More transparency is therefore not a security risk, but rather an important component for protecting critical infrastructure. A comprehensive transparency law could therefore sustainably improve both the resilience of CRITIS and democratic control.