[ad_1]
Democracy is now on the edge of the abyss. The constitutional state is likely to soon shake to its foundations. Anyone looking towards the canton of Solothurn must fear that. People there adopted a controversial police law over the weekend. The most ardent opponents had conjured the totalitarian state beforehand for this case. The canton only allows its police, and even more cautiously, what has already happened in most cantons: from Aargau via Basel-Land to Zug or St. Gallen, the police forces have received, or are receiving , more surveillance options.
Among them are new technical possibilities, which are in fact severely restricted by restrictive data protection regulations. Technically, however, they would allow for more complete surveillance, reminding opponents of “Big Brother.” Both freedom of assembly and privacy are affected (see examples below).
Nadja Capus criticizes the development of the federal government and the cantons. The professor of criminal law at the University of Neuchâtel warns:
There would be the prevention area, for example. As a criminal defense attorney, she’s used to having an act dealt with after it happened, says Capus. However, the police are becoming increasingly active beforehand. “An attempt is made to extend the criminal investigation to the time before an act to prevent an act of which it is not known if it could occur,” says the lawyer. The number of data collected during the investigation is growing, while at the same time judicial control is being restricted.
The problem with all this: at the same time, criminal law is also changing. Act behavior is increasingly punished, says Capus. Y:
In other words: “In the liberal state it was clear: I have the freedom to imagine that I was killing someone.” Drop this certainty. For example, as part of the anti-terrorism legislation, the federal government criminalized everyday activities, such as travel, if this trip is made with a specific intention. “You verify an attitude,” says Capus.
The problem for the criminal law professor is that evidence problems are inevitable. This in turn has the consequence that the desire for vigilance increases. And this ultimately affects the life of everyone who travels, uses the Internet, visits certain buildings: there is uncertainty about whether this action is enough to be suspected and therefore have to endure coercive measures. Capus also fears that there may be court scandals in the future:
For the lawyer, the general development is difficult to explain, be it the operation of the rule of law that makes the country extremely stable and secure.
Changes to federal law go far beyond the cantons. In the Anti-Terrorism Act, Parliament recently decided, contrary to warnings from international organizations, that a person can be placed under house arrest for up to six months. It is enough to suspect that you may commit an act. And it is also planned at the federal level that in the future it will be monitored with shackles if someone is complying with a rayon ban after domestic violence or stalking.
© KEYSTONE / DPA / Susann Prautsch
Secretary General: Police must keep up with technological advances
Daniel Bohne, general secretary of the Cantonal Police Commanders Conference, defends the measures in the cantons. He says: It is not about looking over the shoulder of the citizen.
Bohne emphasizes: “In all police laws great importance is attached to establishing what the measures are necessary for and when they can be applied. The handling and use of the data collected is also clearly regulated. “And while on the one hand the police possibilities are criticized, it is the other way around:
It is equally important that the police can, to some extent, keep up with technical developments. Police do not want to stand in front of closed virtual doors: if they are allowed to stop a man on the street who is addressing a child, why shouldn’t they also be able to find out in a chat room if men are addressing minors ? Or why shouldn’t you be able to see which alleys it gets narrow and dangerous during a demonstration, while the protesters can quickly organize via social channels?
Meanwhile, the Federal Supreme Court has intervened when the laws went too far, for example with the Berne Police Law. There the police wanted to be able to attach GPS transmitters to the vehicles for a month without judicial control if there were indications of a crime or lack. Only the Lausanne judges stopped the project, which seriously invaded privacy. The referendum passed the Berne law with 76 percent approval. The Solothurners said yes Sunday with almost equal approval. Despite all the warnings.
Where the police have received more powers: the examples
1. How demos can be expensive
If demonstrations are damaged or riots break out, costs can be passed on to protesters or organizers in various cantons. Depending on the canton, it is up to 30,000 francs. Critics of the move fear that this will deter people from even demonstrating.
2. The threat is enough to register in the registry.
If someone has threatened the authorities or other people, their data is recorded in what is known as threat management. The police use specific programs, partly computer-aided, to determine how high the risk of someone committing an act of violence is high. For those affected, this intervention can certainly result in restrictions without having committed an act.
3. The police are also filming, and the people of Graubünden can even use facial recognition software.
Various police forces can use drones and make film recordings during the demonstrations. Police officers in various cantons also carry body cameras and video cameras during sensitive operations or demonstrations. The way that recordings can be used is now mainly regulated by restrictive data protection regulations.
Opponents fear, however, that the transparent citizen could become a reality with some legislative amendments. Graubünden goes further. The canton has explicitly created the legal basis for using facial recognition programs, which is not yet available. There must be a suspicion that a crime has been committed. But the question is in the room: Could the state at some point in the future find out who was at a rally?
4. Customs scans Swiss motorists with 300 cameras.
Highway scanners record the license plates of all passing cars and compare them to databases. The large amount of data helps the police: What car owner drove without having an ID? Has a foreign traveler not previously paid a fine?
Data protection obstacles are high in many cantons, data records are removed immediately. But the canton of Thurgau made headlines. He collected the data for a long time without a legal basis. The Federal Supreme Court, which later prevented it, warned of the dangers of the scanner: “In particular, the combination with data collected elsewhere and a corresponding extension of the system can form the basis of personality or movement profiles.” Furthermore, such a violation of fundamental rights could have a dissuasive effect: “The possibility of subsequent (secret) use by the authorities and the accompanying feeling of vigilance can significantly inhibit self-determination.”
The customs administration makes extensive use of these scanners: it now has 300 cameras in Switzerland with which it scans license plates, mainly near the border. In 2015 there were only 200. Where exactly the customs administration has installed fixed scanners, it does not mean “for tactical reasons”. Data protection regulations are more lenient than in the cantons: as a general rule, recordings are kept for a month, longer if criminal proceedings could be opened.
5. Where the police officer does not have to identify himself
Investigators can go to non-public rooms, such as private clubs or chat forums, and target potential perpetrators without any preliminary investigation being carried out against an individual. You are allowed to give a false name and false information about your profession. In the first month, no judge has to order the undercover search.
6. Not everyone can meet privately in Schwyz.
In the canton of Schwyz, the new police law provides for the prohibition of events for extremist groups such as neo-Nazis. This even explicitly applies to private property. Schwyzer’s senior vice president expressed concern that this would restrict freedom of expression.
