The law is generally concerned with intent, not technicalities, so that likely wouldn't satisfy what they were asking. > In 2016, a local court came to Posteo

The law is generally concerned with intent, not technicalities, so that likely wouldn't satisfy what they were asking. > In 2016, a local court came to Posteo with a warrant, demanding all existing and future data relating to the suspect's email account. Posteo implemented surveillance of the account but told the cops that, as it doesn't log traffic data, there was nothing on that front to share. > Prosecutors complained that Posteo had the IP addresses and was discarding them [...] > The local court told Posteo to collect all future IP addresses. [...] > Posteo's lack of users' IP addresses is not the result of "a lack of available data", the court ruled, but rather because of its "decision to hide this data from its internal system and to refrain from recording it due to data-protection concerns". "Thus, the situation at hand was created solely by the business and system model that was deliberately chosen by the complainant," the court said. So basically, they had a warrant to monitor all data on an account, but the court found they deliberately were not complying with the warrant by not logging some of the data they had. They are not being asked to always log IP addresses, but rather to comply with the warrant. > "To put it bluntly, we will not start logging the IP addresses of our respectable customers," the post read. It went on to say [...] Posteo would only gather IP addresses in relation to a mailbox that is subject to a surveillance warrant. > So would what Posteo is proposing satisfy the courts? According to Carlo Piltz, an information privacy lawyer with Reusch Law in Berlin, it probably would. It seems to me this is very different than being required to always log IP addresses of every account.