The German Federal Association of Criminal Investigators (BDK) is advocating for the increased deployment of AI-powered surveillance systems in railway stations, while simultaneously emphasizing the need for strict legal limitations on facial recognition capabilities. This position emerges amidst ongoing debates regarding safety protocols and the potential for technological overreach within public spaces.
Dirk Peglow, the federal chairman of the BDK, argued that modernizing German train stations necessitates more than just punctuality; it requires a comprehensive approach to security, including enhanced lighting, expanded camera networks and the integration of available technologies. He pointed to the recent implementation of a new generation of surveillance systems in Frankfurt’s main station as a prime example. These systems utilize artificial intelligence to automatically detect potentially concerning anomalies – ranging from unattended luggage to unusual movement patterns and developing hazardous situations.
Peglow stressed that the deployment of AI-driven surveillance constitutes a “location-based and legally embedded application of AI” aligning with emerging European regulatory frameworks, such as the forthcoming AI Act. Critically, he clarified that real-time biometric facial recognition is not currently being utilized. Instead, the application focuses on targeted, legally controlled uses, such as searching for missing persons or preventing terrorist threats. Such practices, he asserted, are justifiable only if they are demonstrably transparent, proportionate and purpose-bound.
The BDK chairman acknowledged the potential for AI to augment police capabilities at train stations by identifying patterns and indicators that might otherwise escape human observation. However, he emphatically cautioned that AI should not be considered a substitute for human judgment and responsibility. “AI must never be viewed as an instrument of blanket surveillance, but must serve targeted risk prevention – in compliance with the rule of law and data protection” Peglow stated. The argument highlights a burgeoning tension between the pursuit of enhanced security and the safeguarding of civil liberties, raising questions about the long-term implications of increasingly sophisticated surveillance technologies within the German public sphere. Concerns persist regarding the potential for mission creep and the erosion of privacy, even with assurances of legal oversight and targeted application.
