The police celebrated the arrest of suspected RAF terrorist Daniela Klette in Berlin at the end of February after 30 years in the Kreuzberg “underground” as a “spectacular manhunt success.” But the investigators are also annoyed that it took so long and that they had to rely on “information from the public”. ARD journalists had already located the woman they were looking for a few months earlier, at least online on the website of a Berlin capoeira club, thanks to the support of a Bellingcat reporter after his 30-minute research using the controversial facial recognition software PimEyes. The police union (GdP) also blames the delay on “legal restrictions on the use of such tools” by prosecutors.
Advertisement
The fact that in the age of artificial intelligence (AI), automation and digitization, the police are “not allowed to use such helpful software” is “no longer possible” within their own ranks, criticized GdP chairman Jochen Kopelke on Friday. Biometric facial recognition has already been “successfully tested in hot spots and endangered places”, but has not been implemented into everyday police work to avert danger and law enforcement. The technology has now developed further and has become “even safer and more professional”. Germany is therefore in danger of missing the connection to modern, simple crime fighting. Not least with a view to the upcoming European Championship, the GdP is calling on the federal government to “reactivate as quickly as possible” the former pilot project at Berlin's Südkreuz train station and to use automated facial recognition “at train stations, airports and also football stadiums”.
The Chaos Computer Club (CCC) accused those involved in the Südkreuz test operation of whitewashing. Among other things, the numbers on the false detection rate are doctored. With a number of around 90,000 travelers per day at the station, this means that around 600 passers-by are falsely targeted by the biometric installation every day and the officials are confronted with a flood of false reports. The German Lawyers' Association (DAV) is therefore once again warning against mass surveillance of the population without cause and without discrimination and a “serious attack on the informational self-determination” of citizens. Biometric facial recognition is the “undead of the day” preferred by the investigators.
Fears of false suspicion and intimidation
According to the DAV, there is currently no legal basis that justifies the use of the technology in public places. In view of the high hurdles posed by the Federal Constitutional Court, it is doubtful that such a system could be created: in several decisions, for example on data retention or the automated recording of vehicle license plates, the Karlsruhe judges warned against an unacceptable feeling of being monitored and intimidated. The questions have also remained unanswered to date: “How error-prone is the system? Can misuse and manipulation of the technology be prevented? For how long, by whom and where is biometric data stored?”
Federal Data Protection Commissioner Ulrich Kelber repeatedly emphasizes that “biometric facial recognition in public spaces, but also through apps and devices, endangers the privacy of citizens.” Anyone who fears being identified and saved during demonstrations despite being law-abiding may no longer take to the streets to exercise one of their basic rights. In this country, comparison with the facial recognition system (GES) at the Federal Criminal Police Office is already permitted, for example as part of a court-ordered public search. The new AI regulation also opens wide doors for the use of such technologies by the police. The EU Council also deleted the actually agreed catalog of crimes and the judge's reservation. However, the traffic light coalition does not want to take this course yet.
(mki)