Through the Act for the Amendment of Telecommunications Surveillance and Other Measures of Undercover Investigation and for the Implementation of Directive 2006/24/EC, the legislature fundamentally changed the system of the methods of undercover investigation under the law of criminal procedure. In doing so, it proceeded with great care, relying on expert opinions requested by it, on an extensive discussion among legal scholars, and also on empirical reports from the public prosecution authorities and police authorities (see Bill, Bundestag printed paper 16/5846, p. 1). Detailed hearings of experts took place in the parliamentary procedure (see the records of the 73rd and 74th meeting of the German Bundestag’s Committee on Legal Affairs, 16th electoral term, on 19 and 21 September 2007). Moreover, it was intended to implement the Federal Constitutional Court’s case-law existing to date. Finally, the Act was approved by a very broad majority (see Minutes of plenary proceedings of the German Bundestag, 16th electoral term, 124th session on 9 November 2007, p. 13009 (D); see also the speech by Federal Minister of Justice Brigitte Zypries introducing the bill, loc. cit. , Minutes of plenary proceedings pp. 12994-12995). The legislature intended to take new technical developments into consideration because it considered precisely the measures at issue here particularly effective in the investigation especially of crime that is difficult to investigate, of transaction crime, white-collar crime and criminal offences committed using modern communication technologies (see Bill, Bundestag printed paper 16/5846, p. 2). Furthermore, it was [the legislature’s] declared goal to take account of the irrefutable needs of an effective, constitutional administration of criminal justice, whose task it is to achieve justice and legal peace within the limits that are set to it. This goal cannot be achieved unless the facts necessary for the investigation can be ascertained (loc. cit. , p. 22). In this connection, the legislature assumed that telecommunications traffic data above all, because of the technical development towards more flat-rate connections – and unlike in the past, when especially call data regarding telephony were available for many months –are either not stored at all or are deleted before a judge’s order for the issuing of information can be obtained, or even before the information necessary for an application for such an order has been ascertained (loc. cit. , p. 27). Apart from this, it is generally known that criminal offences are committed on and through the Internet itself. Reality in society, which includes the existence of crime, is reflected also in this context in the different branches of telecommunication. If the legislature reacts on this, but if what is necessary according to its assessment is only possible in an efficient manner if the corresponding traffic data are subject to an obligation of storage for a certain period of time which the legislature imposes on the service providers, this is essentially not inappropriate, and it is reasonable for the subjects of fundamental rights whose data are concerned. Such provision exists in other areas of the legal system as well, for example, without this being directly comparable, in the field of the obligations of residents to register or as regards the retention of what is known as master account data by the banks (on this see § 24c of the Banking Act (Kreditwesengesetz – KWG); BVerfGE 118, 168).