Without denying the currently very present principal–agent problem between parliamentarians and the statefunded intelligence community all other claims seem sappy to me.

I bet they earned your trust for a reason. Nevertheless it should be the decision of the specific MP to assign IT responsibilities for the own hardware/software.

The German BSI is not part of the "intelligence community" and is not an intelligence agency, no matter how often you repeat your conspiracy theory. To spare everyone the trip to Wikipedia:

"The Federal Office for Information Security (German: Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik, abbreviated as BSI) is the German Upper-level Federal agency in charge of managing computer and communication security for the German government. Its areas of expertise and responsibility include the security of computer applications, critical infrastructure protection, Internet security, cryptography, counter eavesdropping, certification of security products and the accreditation of security test laboratories."

Pretending the BSI has no connection to the intelligence community is just as disingenuous as pretending they are an intelligence agency themselves. Just going by your quote, many of their tasks are in the domain of counter-intelligence.

Beyond that, they are also responsible for the (quite unenviable) tasks of certifying/auditing the intelligence services IT infrastructure, not just in terms of security but also in terms of whether it stays within the bounds of the laws limiting what can be recorded and shared. From what was revealed in the parliamentary hearings prompted by Edward Snowden's leaks, they didn't do a very thorough job.

I belive you are the only one talking about the BSI, it's about a German secret service.

Ironically you repeated it under every post I made. ..while claiming I repeat mistakes you assume.

We Germans love the "conspiracy"-hammer even for minor contextual differences in our debate.