Streetlight Muzzle, Stun Gun, Algorithms - Backlash against Police Amendment Bill Proposals
- *
Police Proposal Sparks Controversy with Mention of Ankle Bracelets, Tasers, and Artificial Intelligence - Police Law Plans Face Criticism Over Incorporation of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Response, Taser Use, and AI Technology
Thuringia's Interior Minister Georg Maier (SPD) aims to beef up the police force and thus enhance victim protection. However, the plans are met with criticism. In the future, should police officers decide whether an individual gets an ankle bracelet instead of a judge? Is suspicion of criminal activity enough? And which data can artificial intelligence (AI) evaluate, and which data should it avoid? A preliminary version of the new police duties law has already cleared the cabinet. The state parliament still needs to pass the law, which means changes are still possible. The state government's victory depends on the opposition's voting behavior.
Why does the state government want to amend the Police Duties Law?
Minister Maier seeks modernization. The AI's use aims to help law enforcement officers in catching criminals. Additionally, the coalition government of CDU, SPD, and BSW is fulfilling promises from their coalition agreement—for instance, by implementing electronic ankle bracelets. Potential victims of domestic violence could benefit from better protection, and perhaps crimes could be prevented. The interior spokesperson of the CDU faction, Jonas Urbach, endorses the plans. "Protecting victims is our top priority," he asserts.
What is planned to change?
The draft suggests implementing electronic ankle bracelets to better protect victims of domestic violence. The police could then decide who wears such a bracelet, even if there is only a suspicion that the person may commit a specific crime. Furthermore, the draft allows police officers flexibility to employ AI in investigations. The officers will receive a new tool for field operations: A stun gun grants law enforcement officers the ability to temporarily incapacitate suspects in critical situations. However, the use of stun guns is also contentious.
Opposition claims the draft on electronic ankle bracelets goes too far. Why?
"We see numerous instances in this draft where fundamental rights are infringed upon, which we cannot accept under any circumstances," asserts the Left Party's interior politician Ronald Hande. He points to the use of electronic ankle bracelets for potential offenders "without any judicial decision" as an example. He understands the intention of improving victim protection, but the provisions as proposed are excessive. "Without a judicial decision, simply as a suspicion, that is a violation of fundamental rights for us," Hande explains. Urbach from the CDU believes the regulations are a suitable means of ensuring women, for instance, better protection from domestic violence. Nevertheless, the largest opposition faction in Thuringia's state parliament, the AfD, also views the plans skeptically. Based on available information, it appears they cannot support the changes as presented.
What does the opposition think of stun guns?
"We consider these devices to be extremely dangerous," asserts Left Party interior politician Hande. Cases in the U.S., where stun guns have been employed for some time, have reported injuries—even deaths. "With a revolver, I can also shoot into the leg in an emergency," he argues. When using a stun gun, the law enforcement officer does not always know if the individual's underlying conditions could aggravate health complications. "The risk is too high for us." The Left Party faction also worries that law enforcement officers may use stun guns more casually. "The threshold for using firearms is suitably high," said Hande. AfD politician Mühlmann advocates for stun guns' introduction. The police need a non-lethal means to control people in certain situations. In his opinion, the stun gun is suitable for this purpose.
Are the plans for using Algorithms in Investigations problematic?
Extremely questionable. Green Party politician Madeleine Henfling warns, for example, against matching biometric data—such as faces and voices—with internet data using automated applications in the draft. "Who ensures that the data I found on the internet is genuine, not fake?" she inquires. If the draft is enacted as is, it would be a significant instrument, "because we can no longer control in today's day and age whether things about us are on the web." She supplies an example: "You're on vacation and someone takes a photo where you happen to be in it, and suddenly it can be matched and an automated AI can find your image on the web. I find that a serious invasion of privacy rights." The Greens are no longer represented in parliament.
Mühlmann fears political manipulation if an automated data match is permitted.
What are the odds of the draft passing?
CDU, BSW, and SPD form the government in Thuringia, but they do not have a majority in parliament. A stalemate exists with the opposition. Should the coalition fail to get at least one vote from the opposition, it cannot pass the law. Both the Left Party and the AfD factions have already indicated that they will not support the draft in its current form. Although BSW is part of the coalition, the BSW faction in the state parliament still sees room for improvement and advocates for "a careful balance of state authorities and citizens' liberties."
The proposed changes in the Police Duties Law, which includes the use of electronic ankle bracelets and stun guns by police officers, have sparked controversy among EC countries, with criticisms raised about potential infringements on fundamental rights. Some oppose the use of artificial intelligence in investigations, questioning the data it can evaluate and its ability to avoid sensitive information. The Left Party's Ronald Hande, for instance, voices concerns about the use of electronic ankle bracelets without a judicial decision, arguing it is a violation of privacy rights. On the other hand, the growing influence of technology, such as algorithms, in everyday life, including law enforcement, might provoke debates about privacy, data protection, and the role of AI in decision-making processes, raising questions about accountability and transparency.
