FPÖ warns: Video surveillance must protect citizens’ freedom!

FPÖ warns: Video surveillance must protect citizens’ freedom!

FPÖ spokesman for internal affairs, NAbg. Mag. Gernot Darmann, has commented critically on Interior Minister Karner's push for video surveillance. While the FPÖ generally supports video surveillance, Darmann warns of possible totalitarian conditions that could result from it. He emphasizes that video surveillance should not be used across the board, but rather specifically in so-called “crime hotspots”. Darmann only sees sense in using this technology in special situations, for example to support the police in searches.

“It is important that the basic rights and freedoms of uninvolved passers-by are preserved,” said Darmann and criticized that citizens should not be spied on for no reason. This point of view is also supported by discussions about video surveillance in Germany, where thousands upon thousands of cameras record the behavior of millions of people. In Germany, video surveillance is often used by cities, public transport companies, companies and private individuals to protect people and property and to prevent and prosecute crimes, as [bfdi] explains.

Targeted monitoring and legal basis

Darmann also sees the use of video surveillance as part of the “security package” that was initiated under FPÖ Interior Minister Herbert Kickl and the ÖVP. A central element of the package is the “quick freeze” procedure, which enables official use of video surveillance data. The FPÖ is also calling for more police presence and a zero line for immigration in order to counteract the security problems that have arisen, among other things, from cuts in the executive branch and unchecked mass immigration.

On the other hand, video surveillance represents an interference with the fundamental right to informational self-determination, which is clear in the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Strict regulation applies in Germany to ensure that such measures have a legal framework and are not arbitrary. Algorithmic facial recognition technologies, some of which have been tested in pilot projects, also raise ethical questions as they can result in unfounded measures such as arrests and can increase social inequalities.

International comparisons and strategic differences

A study on video surveillance shows extreme differences in the density of cameras worldwide. While Dubai has the highest density with over 8,500 cameras per km², Munich only has 32 cameras per km². London, on the other hand, which has around a million public cameras, uses them almost exclusively to combat crime, counter terrorism and control traffic. However, data protection advocates warn of possible invasions of privacy in each of these cases, and the discussion about expanding video surveillance in Germany often focuses on heavily frequented or crime-ridden places.

In Germany, public opinion is divided. Proponents argue that video surveillance can increase the rate of solving crimes, while critics point out the possible restrictions on civil liberties. Studies show that video surveillance can influence people's behavior, leading to a chilling effect where citizens behave compliantly to avoid possible disadvantages, as mentioned by [all-about-security].

The use of video surveillance technologies continues to be controversial, with the balancing act between security and data protection more in focus than ever.