Police law in Schleswig-Holstein: Directly from the novel 1984

The Schleswig-Holstein government, composed of the Social Democrats and the Greens, has proposed a police law that critics say mirrors the surveillance state depicted in George Orwell’s 1984. The legislation would grant the regional police extensive powers, including the use of AI-driven monitoring tools, and has sparked alarm among privacy advocates. According to a detailed analysis by the group Freiheitsfoo, a collective of privacy-focused activists, the law represents a dangerous expansion of state control over citizens' lives. The draft law passed its first reading in the state parliament and was later intensified through a government amendment. Current negotiations are taking place within the Interior Committee, where representatives from five political parties have requested feedback from 58 groups and individuals, including the author of this article. Freiheitsfoo submitted their critique voluntarily, sending it not only to netzpolitik.org but also directly to all committee members reachable via email. They warn that the law could lead to severe consequences. Freiheitsfoo argues that the law threatens fundamental freedoms by enabling the police to detain individuals for up to two months under the threat of danger. This provision, they claim, creates a wide margin for abuse, reducing personal freedom to a subject of predictive algorithms. The group warns that such measures allow punishment without a criminal act, effectively undermining due process. The law also expands the ability of authorities to track individuals using electronic ankle bracelets. Since 2020, when this technology became available to the local police, there have been two major expansions. Initially used only against terrorism threats, the tool was later extended to protect individuals from specific dangers. Now, the new law would allow tracking even without proof of imminent danger. Furthermore, the proposal permits video surveillance in areas where serious offenses are likely to occur, including disturbances of peace during nighttime hours. A software system would analyze the behavior of those being filmed, according to the draft. Freiheitsfoo criticizes this as creating pressure for conformity, arguing that a vibrant society requires diversity and nonconformity. They note that people who feel watched tend to alter their behavior, potentially stifling free expression and dissent. The law also allows for two forms of biometric remote identification. One involves searching for specific faces in live camera feeds, while the other enables identifying individuals based on biometric traits found online. Freiheitsfoo describes this as an attempt to make everything legally permissible possible, suggesting a troubling trend toward unchecked surveillance. Critics argue that these provisions enable the police to identify anyone in public spaces at any time through video monitoring. This capability, they warn, resembles authoritarian regimes of the past. With these expanded powers, the police would have unprecedented authority to monitor and control public life, raising concerns about civil liberties and democratic norms.