From anxiety and terrorists

The new desire for video monitoring

After the striking is before the striking – so horns, since the London has held uneasy to the public in the openness of trunken claims for more video monitoring in Germany. The debate about cameras in public space has achieved a new high (explanation by monitoring cameras and connection data). As a result of the Connector of London, for example, Hamburg equips all buses with surveillance cameras. Real and actual new arguments, however, are rare. A comment on the discussion in the press.

From anxiety and terrorists

Bavaria’s Interior Minister Beckstein speaks in an interview from the need to control "Anktauses" with video monitoring. He is concerned with the defense of terror, so therefore, how to prevent the by London here with us. That will, so Beckstein, already operated successfully in Bavaria.

He is concerned that rough crowds, such as festivals or fubball games, are actually not one hundred percent to monitor – from efficiency, and because a flat surveillance is not desirable. Anyway. Beckstein does this, however, with the apparent success of the criminal title for him, to which the aggressive begging and paying the good drug labels. The impression, here two things are mixed together, which do not have much together do not exchanges. It is rather a gearing reasoning.

Fubball World Cup and mosques as reasoning aids

And Beckstein is in good company. Cornelie Sunday-Wolgast from the SPD keep the expansion of "Precaren posts" for useful, but only in the context of more police, which then monitor the monitors also wake up and the suspicious are filtered out. A task, for which our police then seems to be something too good.

From anxiety and terrorists

The same idea also has Uwe Schunemann, CDU, Interior Minister in Lower Saxony. Mass events – and again and again the Fubball World Cup in the next year – are the neuralgian point that it is observed. And of course the mosques. The mosques? Simply that way? And how? Whether with targeted video monitoring will not quite clear. According to Spiegel Online is the Central Council of Muslims Dafur, the Islam Council turns against it. Muslims under general suspicion. What’s next.

Terror or crimetat?

The London Connections were the occasion to return the less discussed topic of video monitoring in recent months to the focus of the security debate. The goal, formulated as a positive side effect, is still the crimetat. And this is definitely more common than a terrorist attack. But which criminality is meant actually. And: how effective video monitoring is actually?

The politicians, transversely to all camps, refer to successes such as in Munchen (see Beckstein) or a report that underscores the thesis of effectiveness with simple numbers.

There is still no truly independent evaluation on the effectiveness of video monitoring for Germany – certainly not the studies that are quoted by the inner experts and police officers. The Urbaneye project in Berlin has carried out a series of video monitoring studies, which, however, do not confirm the effectiveness in this way. And also the rough study of the British Home Office could not determine clear results for the success of video monitoring in criminal title (video monitoring not reduced criminality).

And in terror? London has shown it again: It relieves the enlightenment, but does not prevent the terror. As well as?! The only acknowledgeable criticism of politics on the effectiveness of video monitoring came from Bremen. The experiences made there have led to no empirically assessable results.

The wrong arguments and questions

The hectic bustle around video monitoring is committed, suggesting security and is occupied with empirically asked studies and numbers examples. Talking from anxiety is a street away, without defining in any way what that should be actually and whether the ones present there also see that. For green events, the for the majority of people can not apply. Video monitoring to bring criminal title as a waste product of terrorists again in the discussion is dishonest and bypassing any discussion about the actual benefit.

The call after the restriction of freedom for security is patronized the burgers – the question of how much risk is worth our freedom, at least the appearance creates, it was about it, what we want as well as supervised. The requirement for security is linked to mono-causally with the fear of criminal titat – usually before stain criminalitat, whose taders are at the bottom of the company: beggars, drug-minded, dealer, small criminal. Without justifying these deeds or wearing, one can ever worry about the purpose and purpose and the political calculus behind the case of any expansion of video monitoring. Little reports on the displacement effects in the evaluation of this type of crimetat and storing behavior – as it is not to be amed that these people will fully adjust their activities, but they will only shift them.

Index evaluations of video monitoring measures in Germany are already a few, even though numbers are always thrown into the ring. At all, it is to be doubted that the right questions are placed in this context – the proof of politics and police remain so far guilty. Surveys on which the policy is particularly true, questions exclusively after the desire for "more video monitoring", as a survey of the Forsa shows on behalf of the star. There 72% use an expansion. In the mirror of this week, it is only 55% after Infratest Dimap. Ask if video monitoring is perceived at all, which knowledge people own and how it could affect them personal, missing. This results, so our research in Hamburg has resulted, most contradictions in the settings for video monitoring. And ultimately no one believes that cameras could help in an emergency – so it remains only the desire for a better persecution of the taders and a consequential deterrence of future tatters.

But if the reference to the explanation success in terrorism should already be rearing, and thus a revenue or reputable idea is served, then the reasonable and honest reasoning is no longer sufficient. It is disheveled and conceals completely different problems, but also the actual wishes that will be significant in call for more cameras. Namely the police monitoring of certain, often unpleasant population groups – border groups, which are a striking and thus storing appearance in the cityscape – and thus to be controlled. It seems to be the desire for order here in the foreground and not an actual concept for an active criminal title. This also shows that people are monitored, which in the sense of the law do not commit criminal offenses, but only the general appearance of stals.

Terrorism is something completely different and can be very insufficient with the means of a praventive camera recycling – because the tades do not be deterred in doubt, planning better and rarely commit affect actions. Video monitoring will result in a calculable risk – to achieve a success only with a total monitoring. And this no one wants to speak.

Nils Zusawski is head of the project video monitoring at the Institute for Criminological Social Research, University of Hamburg.

Like this post? Please share to your friends:
Leave a Reply

;-) :| :x :twisted: :smile: :shock: :sad: :roll: :razz: :oops: :o :mrgreen: :lol: :idea: :grin: :evil: :cry: :cool: :arrow: :???: :?: :!: