The German Bundestag has approved a new law significantly expanding the powers of the federal police, allowing the use of drones, artificial intelligence, and enhanced telecommunications surveillance. The law also makes it easier to detain immigrants awaiting deportation.

The government argues the law, the first new federal police law since 1994, is essential to keep up with technological developments and evolving threats to public safety. Critics, however, warn that the rollout of mass surveillance will allow technologies previously used only by state police or individual operations to be deployed nationwide.

Human rights and digital privacy advocates say the law poses significant risks to democratic freedoms and is likely to be challenged before Germany's Constitutional Court. Legal challenges could take years, during which the law will remain in effect.

A key element of the law is the authorization of AI-powered facial recognition surveillance in public spaces under federal police jurisdiction, including airports, intercity railway stations, and near borders. The police may also use "behavior recognition" on surveillance footage, an AI system designed to assess whether a person in a crowd is acting threateningly or suspiciously.

Clara Bünger of the socialist Left Party criticized the measure during the Bundestag debate: "Imagine this: Your train is two hours late... and you're angry, pacing back and forth on the platform. To the AI, this is 'suspicious lingering behavior.' It thinks you're a pickpocket."

Police unions have welcomed the measure, partly because it could relieve pressure on manpower. Digital rights activists, however, say it creates the infrastructure for mass surveillance. Michael Kolain, head of policy at the Berlin-based Center for Digital Rights and Democracy, told DW: "That's a real breach of the dam, because it more or less suspends anonymity in public spaces. These are measures that we know from China, Iran, Russia, but which are extremely unusual for German circumstances."

Markus Thiel, professor of public law at the German Police University in Münster, said he could understand such concerns but added: "Whenever police powers are extended, there are always certain organizations and groups who are very critical of it. They have some justification, because especially these AI-supported measures always include the possibility of serious breaches of basic rights."

Activists are also concerned that the new law gives police more scope to use surveillance software on end-user devices for "preventative surveillance." Kolain said: "That, of course, brings the danger that sensitive data is suddenly in the hands of the security forces. That's like they can read your diary, in the worst-case scenario."

The law also regulates when and how the federal police may use drones. Drones can be deployed at particularly busy times in train stations and near borders. If an unmanned aerial vehicle is deemed a threat, police may use signal blockers, electromagnetic pulses, and even firearms as a last resort.

Human rights groups, including Amnesty International, are concerned that the law gives federal police more powers to detain immigrants due for deportation and carry out random searches, which, according to Amnesty, "provide a gateway for racial profiling." Amnesty's secretary general in Germany, Julia Duchrow, said: "We are observing a growing and dangerous imbalance: While federal and state police agencies are being granted ever-greater powers of control and surveillance, mechanisms for transparency, accountability, and data protection are not being expanded."

Experts note a pattern where the government strengthens police powers and lets courts sort out legal challenges over years. Kolain said: "It's a never-ending story that we've seen for 30 years. My main criticism is that it's really the parliament's job to make sure the basic right guarantees are in place. But far too often, the parliamentary parties just wave through what the government writes."

In this case, there was no public parliamentary hearing on the question of real-time AI surveillance, as that part was added by the governing parties just days before the vote. "The parliamentary groups just went and wrote it into the law, without consulting experts or even asking the data protection commissioner — and a legislative process should not work like that," Kolain said.

Source: www.dw.com