Security in Bietigheim: Frustration over video surveillance and debate about violence

Security in Bietigheim: Frustration over video surveillance and debate about violence

At the last municipal council meeting in Bietigheim-Bissingen, the discussion about the introduction of surveillance cameras caused noticeable frustration among those involved. Mayor Jürgen Kessing expressed his outrage at the repeated violent incidents in the city and emphasized that data protection should not become a means of protecting perpetrators. This represented an important point in the debate, which was characterized by citizens' fears about safety in public spaces. However, the video surveillance proposal, which was discussed by various political groups, met with resistance, leading to the rejection of the cameras. Instead, the decision was made to take alternative measures.

Dr. Arno Steilner from the FDP advocated a middle ground between the need for security and the protection of privacy. Albrecht Kurz (GAL) pointed out the high number of victims in road traffic, which also created space for discussions. Axel Westram (CDU) warned that the desired transport turnaround could be jeopardized by people's fears for safety.

Alternative security measures

This working group will meet twice a year to identify problems and countermeasures. Interior Minister Thomas Strobl (CDU) will have the opportunity to discuss the issue at the next horse market and possibly initiate further steps.

Video surveillance in the context of data protection

Despite the rejection of surveillance cameras, the topic of video surveillance remains a critical issue in Germany. The trend towards expanding surveillance systems continues unabated. State institutions are increasingly relying on intelligent surveillance systems that go beyond simple cameras. These include technologies such as license plate recognition and automatic facial recognition, which can be problematic in terms of data protection. Ultimately, high legal requirements must be met to protect fundamental rights, as provided for by the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Federal Data Protection Act (BDSG). However, the GDPR does not contain any special regulations on video surveillance, so previous concepts will continue to be used.

Overall, it turns out that protecting one's own property is often the main reason for using surveillance systems. While the political discussions continue, it remains to be hoped that the measures chosen to improve safety and well-being in Bietigheim-Bissingen can actually be successfully implemented in the community.

For further information about the legal basis of video surveillance and the associated data protection considerations, those interested can visit the website of the Bavarian State Office for Data Protection Supervision.