Conference ‘The State of the Union’ – Florence – 7 May 2015

Session “Security, Freedom and Technology in an urban context”

Speech by Leen VERBEEK, Thematic Rapporteur of the Congress on combating radicalisation

Check against delivery

09.05.2015

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Dear friends,

It is a great pleasure for me to address this conference.

 

I would like to thank our hosts, for giving the Congress this opportunity.

I represent the Congress here today as the thematic rapporteur on combating radicalisation at grassroots level.

In my country, the Netherlands, I am King’s Commissioner for the province of Flevoland.

I have also served as Mayor of Purmerend, a suburb of Amsterdam for almost six years between 2003 and 2008.

For those of you who may not know the Congress well, it is useful to reiterate here that the Congress is a unique representative body of more than 200,000 territorial communities in 47 states of Europe. 

For us, as local elected representatives, the safety of our inhabitants is a daily concern.  

The security issue that is most relevant to us is the safety of public and private collective spaces.

The security of streets, parks, parking areas, public transport vehicles such as busses and trains is part of municipal competences.

Today when we speak of security, we think more and more in terms of technology.

Technology can fix many things. 

This is one of the reasons why « video-tranquillity » has so many fans.

In fact, I can say that, based on my experience as a Mayor,

the use of technology has proven to be successful in ensuring the security of the public - both as perceived by the inhabitants and in regards to the actual results.

Having said that, I am also aware of the risks this involves with regard to human rights abuses.

I know of some research results which show that video surveillance is not  effective for all purposes.

Suicide attackers are clearly not deterred by video cameras, although they can help afterwards in identifying perpetrators. 

Also, there is a lack of limits or controls on camera use and it is our duty to make sure that there are proper frameworks to control the use of technology to achieve security in our city, and avoid excesses.

In short, enhancing security through video surveillance is good, provided safeguards are in place such as consultation of citizens, transparency in the aims, proportionality between aims and means and accountability to the public.

In this respect, I would like to recall the EFUS Charter for a democratic use of video-surveillance, which outlines several relevant principles as regards the design, implementation, use and control of this technology.

I would like to look at a few of these principles in the light of my experience as Mayor:

We have two important principles that must be fulfilled: the principles of necessity and proportionality.

Although this is not an easy task, I believe that what counts most is the proportionality issue.

When taking any decision that might possibly jeopardize individual rights vis-à-vis citizens it has to be proportional and justifiable.

When I was mayor of Purmerend, the use of violence became increasingly rampant in the municipality, especially in the nightlife scene.

This led to a broad demand from many citizens to use camera surveillance.

The aim was to enable our police forces to prevent and fight crime and violence in the public realm.

To reassure our citizens that the local authorities were tackling this issue with a swift response.  

Therefore, we decided to install surveillance cameras and we were satisfied with the results. 

I believe that the success was due to the widespread support from citizens themselves.

Seeking citizen acceptance of security projects is crucial.

A different example from my town concerns what was then known as the ‘’Lonsdale youth’’.

After 2000, fans of hardcore music in the Netherlands started to wear the British brand Londsdale’s clothing in their subculture. 

LONSDALE soon became a symbol for racism and xenophobia and became frequently related to Neo Nazi features.

The ages of these youngsters varied from 10 to 20 years.

In the past, a member of this group also killed a black boy named Kerwin Duinmeyer in Amsterdam just because he was black. His murder led to  a widespread shock and disbelief in the Netherlands.

The assailant was an inhabitant of our city Purmerend.

As a mayor, but also our citizens, we were very motivated and determined that this should never happen again.

In tackling this issue in our municipality, the police started with the monitoring of these youngsters by involving their parents and the local community.

In this case, video surveillance was also used.

But working at the grassroots level, the preventive character of the intervention was important since it tackled this issue not only from a security perspective but rather from a broad societal perspective.

I believe that the key for success in both cases was the strong approval and backing we had from citizens.  

Consultation with citizens was carried outthrough the already existing communication channels.

They were always able to contact specific local government officials on their grievances especially through contact forms on our website.

Based on the information citizens shared, we organized public meetings and invited not only citizens but also other stakeholders because the use of cameras in, for example, the nightlife scene in Purmerend did not only concern citizens.

It also concerned the whole hospitality industry and therefore representatives from this industry joined these meetings.

The main goal of these meetings was to emphasize the shared interests.

These meetings took place during the several stages of the decision making process, starting from consultation until implementation and evaluation.

The same modus operandi applied to the monitoring of the so-called ‘’Lonsdale-youth’’

And although I was confronted with a backlash from extreme right-wing organizations - they accused me to abuse my authority to interfere in the individual life of these youngsters.

A large majority of the parents, the schools and the citizens in general supported me openly and was very satisfied with the debate and the results we achieved with our policy.

Within two years the subculture evaporated and has not reemerged  since then.

Today, the use of technology for security purposes is a fact and something we cannot reverse.

Technology is a tool and not an end in itself.

It is the way we use it which determines the outcome.

We must take the trade-off between security and freedom, which comes along with the use of technologies, as a starting point in the debate about this issue.

Where a power is vested in the executive and exercised in secret, the risks of arbitrariness are evident.

It is thus essential that we have clear, detailed rules on the application of measures of surveillance.

Checks and measures should be put in place to maintain the correct functioning of the video-surveillance systems through a process of independent oversight.

On this topic, initiatives that seek to develop an ethical framework for the use of technologies in urban security are very much appreciated: I refer here to as the Project “Citizens, Cities and video-surveillance” of EFUS and the project SURVEILLE.

As local authorities elected representatives, I see our role as threefold with regard to security:

Firstly, although the definition of the security strategy is a national level competence, local authorities can be loyal, faithful partners in developing, implementing and raising awareness of security measures.

Secondly, local and regional authorities can play a crucial role in tackling the dilemma of security versus freedom because of their proximity to citizens and can act as interfaces.

Thirdly, local authorities have to bring and keep together people that are separated by invisible borders.

One way to achieve social cohesion and avoid conflicts exploding into violence is to promote citizen participation and dialogue.

To conclude I would like to say that there is no single solution; there are challenges which require responses. 

The stakes are security, freedoms  and accountability.

The response must be structured as a triangle:

At one end we have technology which is a tool that can be used for the purpose of safety.

We should make full use of it.

At another end we have the citizens who have demands; we should reply to those demands but also seek our citizens’ support.

 

Finally, we have mechanisms of audit guided by an ethical approach to allow for an independent oversight.

We must fully apply safeguards to ensure that fundamental rights are respected.

Local authorities can succeed if and only if they can manage this balance act.

I thank you for your attention.