Cantons reprimanded: Confederation purchases controversial surveillance software

class=”sc-29f61514-0 kHgAwW”>

Millions of cameras monitor public spaces in China. If a person attracts negative attention, he will be caught within seven minutes, the BBC reported in 2017. How is it in Switzerland, asks the “observer”.

In various cantons, the police are using the achievements of digitization to solve crimes – but also to prevent them. Now the federal police is also getting ready. The Fingerprint and Palmprint Matching System (AFIS) will be updated and a face matching module will be added.

In the future, recordings from surveillance cameras can be automatically compared with an existing Afis database and the images stored therein by the identification service, the Federal Police Service (Fedpol) writes in a statement. According to the NZZ, this database already contains more than a million facial images of almost 400,000 people.

However, the use of the new software is – at least for the time being – limited: other sources such as photos from ID cards or from social networks may not be used for the comparison. “The facial image of wanted persons is also not automatically compared in real time with surveillance cameras,” continues Fedpol. So there is no surveillance using facial recognition. “There is no legal basis for this in Switzerland.”

Facial recognition supervision? Fedpol refuses

Such monitoring would be technically possible without any problems. Intelligent video systems with high-resolution cameras that scan license plates of passing cars are already being used in several cantons. If the police are looking for a vehicle – and it drives past one of the cameras – its location is automatically passed on to the control room.

For example, the drivers are also “automatically optically registered”, according to the Lucerne police law, which the cantonal council passed last year. That means nothing but biometric identification, such as facial recognition. Mind you, without proof that the person behind the wheel was guilty of anything.

In theory, these images could be run through the Afis database in the future and compared to images of, say, a bank robbery. Many a criminologist should have clear eyes with such possibilities. But such a system is not only a huge invasion of privacy, it is also error-prone.

The consequences can be dramatic.

In March, the New York Times reported a case in which a man spent a week in jail after a facial recognition system falsely linked him to a robbery. In reality, he was several hundred miles from the crime scene at the time of the crime.

Federal court questions proportionality

As early as 2019, the Federal Supreme Court ruled that the use of police data from automatic vehicle searches constitutes a “serious” violation of fundamental rights. It is theoretically possible, but only if there is an explicit legal basis for it that defines where the boundaries are. And that is still lacking today.

It was only last winter that the Federal Supreme Court published a ruling that made this clear. The canton of Solothurn had wanted to create a corresponding legal basis for the use of automatic vehicle monitoring, but was recalled. The Federal Supreme Court wrote in its decision that the recording of images of the occupants of vehicles is not allowed under the Solothurn Act of the Cantonal Police.

A particular problem with automatic vehicle monitoring is that – unlike speed cameras – all drivers are systematically registered. The cameras don’t just kick in when the system detects a traffic violation. According to the Federal Supreme Court, the fact that innocent vehicle occupants are photographed is disproportionate. It certainly wouldn’t be the automatic comparison with the Afis database.

Lucerne police law under scrutiny

The federal Supreme Court will soon have to scrutinize Lucerne’s police practice. As the online magazine “Zentralplus” reported, individuals from the ranks of the SP/Juso and Greens/JG have filed a lawsuit against Lucerne’s new police law in the Federal Supreme Court. “Data protection is not an end in itself,” said Lucerne cantonal councilor Laura Spring (Greens) when asked. “The federal constitution says: “Everyone has the right to protection against misuse of their personal data.” We want a better law. Because as it is now, it does not sufficiently protect the inhabitants of Lucerne against data misuse and serious violations of fundamental rights.” The case is currently pending.

For St. Gallen criminal lawyer Monika Simmler, it’s clear: Before the new Fedpol software can be used, the Code of Criminal Procedure would have to regulate exactly which data should be biometrically analyzed and against which databases they should be automatically compared, as she says in the NZZ. In addition, the existing legal basis does not regulate whether and how the photos already stored can be used retroactively. “The use of automated facial recognition by cantonal police forces is certainly illegal, and it is very likely that Fedpol is also illegal.”

Source:Blick