CDU candidate demands more surveillance for dangerous individuals

Berlin's CDU candidate Stefan Evers is pushing for stricter surveillance measures against individuals deemed dangerous, advocating for the expanded use of electronic monitoring and AI-powered observation.

“

The handling of dangerous individuals must be put to the test across the board. We have new possibilities that are not yet being sufficiently utilized.

"The handling of dangerous individuals must be put to the test across the board. We have new possibilities that are not yet being sufficiently utilized," Evers, who is also the finance and culture senator, told the "Berliner Morgenpost." He specifically called for lowering the hurdles for using electronic ankle monitors, stating, "Dangerous individuals must be monitored around the clock with the most modern means."

Evers suggested that AI-driven analysis of location data could be instrumental in this surveillance. He dismissed data privacy concerns, pointing to practices in other countries. "Privacy concerns do not convince me. After all, it is possible in other countries," the leading candidate for the September parliamentary election stated. He recounted a conversation in Berlin's Regenbogenkiez where someone claimed to feel safer in São Paulo's gay district due to its comprehensive AI-based video surveillance, which reportedly led to an 80% reduction in assaults.

“

Dangerous individuals must be monitored around the clock with the most modern means.

"We should not shy away from using modern technological possibilities. Data protection must not become perpetrator protection," Evers declared. He indicated a willingness to further tighten Berlin's already revised police law, suggesting that coalition partner disagreements might be re-evaluated. Evers criticized the planned legal challenge by left-wing and Green parties against the new police law, framing the upcoming election as a choice between utilizing all necessary tools for a secure coexistence in Berlin and succumbing to privacy concerns.

“

Privacy concerns do not convince me. After all, it is possible in other countries.

Regarding electronic monitoring, Evers noted that even after the police law reform, the requirements for imposing an ankle monitor remain extremely high, typically requiring a judge's decision based on an urgent threat. "I find that classification as a dangerous person must be sufficient. The use of an ankle monitor must also be possible over longer periods," he argued, reflecting concerns from security authorities about the difficulty of proving such urgent threats.

“

We should not shy away from using modern technological possibilities. Data protection must not become perpetrator protection.