First, there is a difference between claimed intent, and real or expected practice. In Schäuble's case, that's the difference between his claims to spy on al-Qaida cells (which you may perceive), and widely held fears of spying powers used to spy on a lot more people. There was such a difference for Stasi 1.0, too: the official rhetoric of the dictatorship was about catching spies and saboteurs, but the practice was the surveillance and blackmail of millions.

Second, there is the slippery slope aspect. just as Nazism wasn't bad only after it killed 6 million Jews (and Gypsies and homosexuals and communists) in death camps but already a decade earlier, one shouldn't just look at the end state of Stasi 1.0 as the largest state surveillance bureaucracy ever. The Stasi grew into that over years. So, Schäuble's push for increased use of surveilance with decreased checks and balances can be seen as leading down a path.

I'm sorry if you found my first statement harsh

No, I more found it challenging to a respectful debate :-) I'm just passionate about my opinions.

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}