"Gamrith" comments in Tagesspiegel, and I think (s)he makes an accurate analysis of judicial behaviour which applies not only to Berlin and not only to Germany.

"Gamrith" comments in Tagesspiegel, and I think (s)he makes an accurate analysis of judicial behaviour which applies not only to Berlin and not only to Germany. The problem lies in the way the judiciary sees itself and its work, and not just in Berlin. Every time you come to the judges and prosecutors with the subject of IT security and the associated user care obligations, they wave the Constitution and refer to the judiciary independence. Every time you point out that old applications have to be replaced, it is pointed out that changes in form and procedures can neither be desired nor tolerated by the employees. IT is not a core competence of the administration, and especially not the judiciary with its absolutely obsolete professional mindset. In particular, one does not really understand that as a part of an integrated system in which the user and the applications work together, they also have duties that they must perform. They always point at the IT or IT service providers, and shy away from responsibility. AULAK is not the only critical specialist procedure in the Berlin judiciary that needs to be renewed. However, the judiciary shies away from the costs and expenses that one would have to invest here. In particular, in such projects, any judges and prosecutors are "voluntarily" ordered as project managers, and staff who have no idea or real interest in the subject would just like to implement existing paper-based processes 1:1 in software. That the IT offers other possibilities is then always dismissed with the reference to the "laws". Smentek and the ITDZ are not collecting any prestige from their role in the process, but the plight of the Supreme Court is homemade and is mainly due to the inability of the judiciary to renew.