Video surveillance in crime fighting and other public activities - expanded possibilities and a simpler procedure

Henrik Vinge (SD)

Mr. Speaker! This government, together with the Sweden Democrats, is carrying out a historic initiative against crime. It is a project that has no equal in our country. It is about us implementing hundreds of measures during the mandate period aimed at making it easier to arrest and convict criminals. Those who are convicted shall serve longer prison sentences, and crime victims shall receive redress and support.

I am immensely proud to be part of the machinery that will push through the entire historical program; because it will have an effect. When we have implemented the measures, in a few years we will see that tens of thousands of gang criminals, murderers and rapists will be locked up. If we had not implemented the measures, they would have been out on our streets. We will therefore take criminals from our streets and put them in our prisons. It will make Sweden a safer country.

Today we are here to discuss one of the hundreds of measures. We are therefore going to discuss the proposal that will mean it will be easier for authorities and the police to use surveillance cameras in various ways to prevent and combat crime.

Today, it is far too difficult to get permission to install surveillance cameras. The administration is extensive, and it takes a long time. In practice, this leads to too few surveillance cameras in our society. We need to have more.

Why should we have more surveillance cameras? There are primarily two reasons. To begin with, the footage from a surveillance camera can often be decisive in convicting, for example, a robber, a murderer, or some other type of criminal and being able to lock the person in prison and avoid releasing them because of a lack of evidence.

If one succeeds in filming when the crime itself was committed and if it is possible to identify the perpetrator, one naturally has a very strong piece of evidence. But many times it is actually sufficient to film in such a way that it can be proven that the person was in the vicinity of the crime when it was committed. This can, for example, undermine a false story that the person puts forward in order to be acquitted.

Another important reason why we need more surveillance cameras is that it creates safety. We see that crime often decreases in the vicinity of a surveillance camera when it is installed. Everyone understands what that is due to. It is also clearly noticeable in the first example. One does not want to be filmed when committing a crime, and if one has just been filmed and is aware of it, it reduces the incentive or the risk of committing a crime; one simply will not be able to lie about being somewhere else when the crime was committed.

This is effective, and it is good. The proposal is well-balanced, and it will have an effect. Therefore, we move for approval of the committee's proposal.

There is actually only one big question mark in all of this. Why hasn't this been done earlier? Why have we had to wait until Sweden has become one of Europe's most crime-stricken countries before we introduce such legislation, which might seem quite obvious? How can it be that we had eight years with a Social Democratic government, which promised to turn over every stone but for some reason still did not choose to turn over just this very obvious, popular, cheap, and effective stone?

I have thought about it a bit and I believe I know the answer. I believe the answer is in the report that we are going to handle today. I believe the answer to the question is Vänsterpartiet. Vänsterpartiet, in fact, says no to this proposal. They do not want to proceed at all with these simplifications in order to be able to have many more surveillance cameras in place. Vänsterpartiet is opposed to it because their instincts never seem to be that one should be tough on criminals and simplify for the police, but perhaps even the opposite.

A social democratic government also happens to be dependent on the support of the Left Party. If the Left Party says no, it becomes no, if we have a red-green government. I believe that was exactly why the Social Democrats failed to stop the gangs in time. That was why the gangs during the previous mandate period were allowed to grow and become both larger and stronger than they had ever been.

It scares me to think about what will happen with all those hundreds of measures that we are now taking if it were to become a red-green majority again. Are we to roll them back if the Left Party's instincts are suddenly to govern crime policy again? Are we to take down the surveillance cameras and let the criminals take back streets and squares from the law-abiding people? I mean that we must do exactly everything we can to prevent such a development and to be able to continue with this historical project to stop and push back gang crime in our country.

Fortunately, we still stand on stable ground here. We have a stable, steady majority of the Tidö parties in the Riksdag. This means that today we will say yes to a stricter crime policy that is tougher on the criminals. And we will say no to the Left Party's proposal, which would only benefit the criminals.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! I agree that camera surveillance in certain public environments can be both a necessary and effective tool for preventing and investigating crimes. However, it is important that the camera surveillance is carried out in the correct manner. I mean that the proposed amendments we are now debating are not sufficiently legally secure and well-considered, primarily when it comes to the protection of personal privacy. In the bill, the Government proposes that permit requirements for camera surveillance should be removed from all actors who are currently covered by it.

To completely remove the already significantly relaxed permit requirement is, in my opinion, to go too far. This is a view shared by several major referral bodies, including Civil Rights Defenders, the Institute for Human Rights, and the Faculty of Law at Stockholm University. They advise against or are critical of removing the permit requirement. They argue that removing the permit requirement entails significant risks to personal integrity and that the proposal is not proportionate to the infringement of the right to private and family life and the protection of personal integrity.

They believe there are reasons to question the effectiveness of camera surveillance and that the administrative burden that the permit requirement entails for the actors should be able to be resolved in another way. They also argue that there is a lack of necessary legal certainty guarantees, safeguards, and control mechanisms to guarantee respect for fundamental civil and political rights.

The JO as well as the Bar Association are also critical and point out risks that the proposal does not take sufficient account of privacy protection.

In addition to abolishing the permit requirement, the government proposes, among other things, a significant expansion of the locations where the law enforcement authorities shall be allowed to conduct camera surveillance. Several referral bodies have also objected to that proposal. The objections concern, among other things, that the proposal is not based on research and experience and that it cannot be considered expedient.

I agree with the referral bodies' critical views and therefore consider that the government proposal should be rejected.

Vänsterpartiet would like to see the Riksdag issue a notice to the government regarding what should be done instead of what the government proposes here. We believe that the government should take the initiative to simplify the administrative routines for an application for permission for camera surveillance. Furthermore, the government should allow a new review of the camera surveillance act with a focus on privacy, proportionality, and necessity, based on the starting point that, as a general rule, permission shall be required for camera surveillance.

With that, I move for approval of reservation number 1.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lars Isacsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats move for approval of the proposal in the committee report regarding the bill Camera Surveillance in Crime Prevention and Other Public Activities – Expanded Possibilities and a Simpler Procedure. This is an important step toward strengthening society's ability to combat and prevent crime.

We Social Democrats have championed the issue of modernizing and streamlining the regulatory framework for camera surveillance. Through our committee motion, we have emphasized the need to simplify the permit processes and enable a more flexible and purpose-driven use of camera surveillance for crime-fighting purposes. The bill meets these requirements on several important points, including regarding the abolition of the permit requirement. This ensures that camera surveillance can be deployed faster and more effectively without unnecessary bureaucracy.

Expanded surveillance capabilities for the Swedish Police Authority and other relevant actors enable camera surveillance at strategically important locations, which leads to increased safety and improved crime clearance. Immediate camera surveillance in acute situations gives the police the opportunity to quickly take action during ongoing crimes without being hindered by long decision-making processes. And the use of ANPR technology to identify vehicles used in criminal activity is an important tool for tracking and prosecuting criminal gangs.

These measures constitute a necessary modernization of the rule of law's tools in the fight against organized crime and other forms of criminality. But at the same time, we must be clear that camera surveillance in itself does not solve the crime problem. It is an important tool, but it is only one of several that must be in place.

Several of us debating here in the chamber today were in New York and New Jersey last year. We visited intense centers with an incredible amount of surveillance in New York, which perhaps is one of the Western world's most camera-monitored cities, which is logical at least considering "nine eleven". But when we visited the local police station in Harlem, the police chief's message was: Camera surveillance in all its glory, but it is boots on the ground that matters – a locally anchored police force with personal knowledge, who have trust and receive intelligence.

The same applies in Sweden as well. In Avesta, where I come from, we applied for camera surveillance during the 2010–2014 mandate period, under the Alliance government, and were refused. We applied for camera surveillance at crime-prone locations identified during safety walks during the 2014–2018 mandate period, under a Social Democratic government, and were refused. During the next mandate period, the Social Democratic government then changed the regulations on January 1, 2020, and allowed the police to decide on camera surveillance.

We had this in a district in the municipality called Krylbo, one of two areas in Dalarna that could be described as vulnerable. This was an important part of our work to reverse an incredibly negative development. But it would not have made any difference if the police had not invested in area officers and if the property owners had not taken responsibility for their properties and renovated them, secured basements and installed door locks. Then the municipality could do what was our responsibility: invest in the school, build a youth center, create safer outdoor environments, remove derelict cars regardless of who owned them, lay a synthetic grass pitch for football, invest in lighting and open a service office.

When the police, the municipality and the property owners do their part, the local business community also believes in the development, and civil society gets the power it needs. Today, Krylbo does not have higher crime than any other part of the municipality. The cameras have played an important but in context small part in this.

To seriously work on crime prevention and be a nation-builder costs money, and then this needs to be prioritized instead of tax cuts for those who have the most.

Mr. Speaker! What we consider still missing even in this bill is the issue of expanded camera surveillance and biometric real-time surveillance, which we raised in previous supplementary motions. We believe that the police must be able to use camera surveillance and facial recognition in a sufficiently effective manner. The police should also be granted greater access to traffic cameras, cameras used for congestion charges and the like, even in real-time. Through such surveillance of, for example, known locations for the recruitment of young people, open drug scenes, airports, and train stations, more criminals can be identified, arrested, and prosecuted. We believe that the government needs to take measures to launch a new order where the police and the security police can apply for permits for biometric remote identification in real-time.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said earlier, we think that the proposal on the table today is good. We move for approval and will return with what we believe would strengthen the police and increase safety.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! The serious development of serious organized crime in recent years has meant that law enforcement and also other authorities need more effective tools to combat crime and maintain public order and safety. The government's proposal for expanded possibilities for camera surveillance is a step in this work that we in Centerpartiet welcome and stand behind.

The main features of the proposal are that the permit requirement for camera surveillance shall be completely abolished for municipalities, regions, and state authorities, in line with what already applies for private actors, while simultaneously introducing expanded possibilities for camera surveillance in crime fighting and for the maintenance of public order. The current permit process has long been criticized for its inefficiency due to long processing times, which have meant that, in the worst cases, the purpose of the camera surveillance no longer exists when decisions have been made in the case. The administrative burden that the application procedure entails also justifies an abolition of the permit requirement.

All this is agreed upon by the Centre Party. The ability to protect life and property against crime is part of the state's fundamental mission – a mission that must be able to be adapted in step with a changing reality.

But not infrequently, this – as is now the case with introducing camera surveillance with sound and image – entails a risk of restrictions and intrusions into individuals' lives. Therefore, legal certainty guarantees are an equally central part of the fundamental state mandate, all to ensure that the state's exercise of power does not infringe upon fundamental freedoms and rights without legal basis or in a disproportionate manner.

We must remember that every sword is double-edged. This does not mean that we should not introduce this, but it is important that we do it in the best way possible. It is clearly evident from the underlying investigation that the abolition of the permit requirement entails an increased risk of intrusion into personal privacy and that the proposal will de facto lead to more widespread camera surveillance. A number of referral bodies also highlight the risk that unauthorized camera surveillance may increase. Therefore, supervision, follow-up, and evaluation are important. The Center Party therefore considers that the new order, where one makes decisions about camera surveillance oneself, needs to be supplemented with an obligation to report to the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection to ensure a lawful application.

It is reasonable to question our proposal on the notification requirement by referring to the fact that we, as an advantage of removing the permit requirement, cite a reduced administrative burden but now want to introduce other seemingly unnecessary administration. But one must know that every decision that a municipality, region or authority is to make must be justified and documented, and there must be requirements for a list of every decision and permit, which shall be kept for five years. This is the meaning of the government's proposal.

So, there will be a large amount of records that provide a complete overview and the possibility for supervision and follow-up, but which the supervisory authority will not have access to unless it requests it itself. Being able to access this overview would facilitate effective supervision. Without these data, there is a risk that the supervisory mandate will only become a chimera, and with such an arrangement, there is a risk of infringements on personal integrity and legal certainty that are not acceptable. A reporting obligation would balance these risks and also give the supervisory authorities better conditions to conduct effective supervision. Ultimately, this would ensure that the actors plan and carry out the camera surveillance in a legally secure manner.

The debate can almost give the impression that once this law is passed, one can set up cameras however they please, but that is not the case. A qualified assessment is still required, but it is now made by the person who sets up the camera themselves – it will therefore not become a lawless land.

Mr. Speaker! The Government should return with a bill that entails the introduction of a reporting obligation for those who conduct camera surveillance. We also believe that a decision on camera surveillance should be made available in connection with the camera's placement, for example through a QR code linking to the decision, so that the public becomes aware of and knowledgeable about the surveillance taking place. This, of course, does not refer to secret coercive measures in cases of suspected crime or similar, but to the general surveillance.

We from Centerpartiet also consider it necessary to ensure already now that the new legislation is evaluated – we propose after three years – to ensure that the balance of interests between, on the one hand, the public interests and, on the other hand, the individual's civil and civil rights is made in a correct manner.

Centerpartiet considers, as stated, that this is fundamentally a good and welcome proposal, but we believe it could be improved by ensuring the long-term quality of the legislation and facilitating the permit process in the short term. We stand behind both of our reservations but move for approval only of reservation number 2.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Charlotte Nordström (M)

Mr. Speaker! Now we can finally remove the requirement for permits for camera surveillance. Municipalities, regions and authorities will no longer need to apply for permits to install cameras. Now, there will be an opportunity to act quickly and effectively to install cameras in places where they are needed most. It is a self-evident and necessary measure to strengthen safety in our entire country.

In the proposition, amendments to the camera surveillance act are proposed to make the rules more usable and adapted to today's needs. Crime trends and the security situation require these more effective measures.

Camera surveillance is a completely central tool for pushing back the development of crime. The proposals are part of the government's camera offensive, where we are significantly moving the positions forward. It is about restoring safety step by step. Camera surveillance is a good tool for preventing and investigating crimes and increasing safety on streets and squares.

The proposal that one will no longer need to apply for permission from the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection (Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten) to conduct camera surveillance implies a significant simplification for several actors. The demand for these changes is very large, as today's permit requirements have resulted in a large administrative burden and delay the installation of cameras. It creates an unacceptable risk that acute needs for camera surveillance cannot be met in a reasonable time.

To those of you who advocate for a notification requirement or simplified licensing, I want to say: It is precisely such bureaucracy that hinders the municipalities' safety work. Rapid access to camera surveillance can be the difference between solving a crime or not solving it. We choose to trust our law enforcement authorities and want to facilitate their work – not complicate it with unnecessary bureaucracy, which a notification requirement could entail.

Let me also briefly share a personal experience as a former municipal council colleague. In February 2017, when I was not a municipal councilor, a colleague and I introduced a motion in Skara municipal council to identify unsafe places and apply for camera surveillance there. In February 2018, the inventory was first approved, but the Social Democratic leadership rejected the proposal to apply for permission on the grounds that the legislation clearly did not allow cameras. In that municipality, there was a reluctance to even try. The inventory was then carried out in April 2019. Then a new leadership arrived and gave a new assignment in 2020. An application was submitted for a camera at a location that had been identified where residents felt unsafe and where the police considered it necessary. Permission was granted, and the camera was finally installed in 2022, five years after the original motion and the intention to make it safer.

At approximately the same time that we received permission, the neighboring town of Skövde was denied its application to install a camera at a specific location for surveillance, which the police also considered necessary. It took a good while before they had a new application approved.

These are examples that demonstrate the obstacles and protracted processes that sabotage the safety work. It is not legally sound. It is bureaucratic and political impotence!

The municipalities now have a statutory responsibility for crime prevention work. To succeed, a well-designed local policy is required that prevents, hinders, and combats crime. In that case, all tools must be available quickly and smoothly and without bureaucratic complications.

I note that the government's proposal to remove the permit requirement is in accordance with the investigation and that a clear majority of the referral bodies have approved or have not objected to the proposal. But our privacy, what happens to that? According to the proposal, the person who installs a camera themselves shall assess whether the interest of the surveillance outweighs the individual's privacy interest. This corresponds to the assessment that the permit authorities perform today. I know that municipalities and regions have the ability to make such trade-offs. The assessment shall be documented, and the actors shall keep a record of ongoing surveillance, which also simplifies the supervision and makes it more efficient and ensures continued legal certainty.

Mr. Speaker! The Government has made a careful balancing between the effectiveness of crime fighting and the protection of personal privacy. I share the Government's overall assessment that a sufficiently strong protection of the individual's personal privacy can be maintained even without a permit requirement. The proposal in the bill is necessary, proportionate, and justified by the serious developments in crime. The Government is prepared to follow the developments and, if necessary, make adjustments to ensure that the law fulfills its purpose without unnecessary privacy infringements.

But the bill also provides proposals for further important steps regarding camera surveillance. It shall become easier for the police to monitor more strategically important areas, even places where no immediate risk is yet seen. It increases the possibility to prevent and solve crimes. The police and Säpo shall also be able to use technology that automatically recognizes registration numbers to a greater extent and be able to install cameras along the roads. This too is long-awaited.

When I hear opposition to this, I sometimes think of what Erik Nord, police chief in police region West, has told the media about an English colleague. The English police chief was completely baffled that we in Sweden could not use the congestion tax cameras for ongoing checks of vehicles. He is said to have said: You register citizens to collect tax but not to prevent murder! Sweden clearly stands out in comparison with other countries with more flexible handling of camera surveillance.

Mr. Speaker! By reducing red tape and providing better tools for municipalities, regions, and the police, we make Sweden safer. It is important that this new law enters into force as soon as possible. I therefore move for the rejection of all motion proposals and for the approval of the committee's proposal to approve the bill in substance and that the legislative change shall enter into force on 1 April 2025.

(Applause)

In this speech, Gustaf Göthberg and Magnus Resare (both M) concurred.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Video surveillance is an effective tool for preventing, deterring, and investigating crimes. In several cases, it has contributed to securing important evidence and led to convictions.

At the same time, it is of the utmost importance that camera surveillance is used responsibly and with clear rules to protect the individual's privacy. The surveillance must have a clear and justified purpose and be proportionate to the need. This is because there are significant risks that camera surveillance can be an infringement of privacy. People can feel watched and restricted in their daily lives, especially in places where many expect to be able to have a higher degree of privacy, such as parks, hospitals, school areas, and other public places. The experience of being constantly filmed can affect people's behavior and create a sense of discomfort or anxiety regarding how the collected information is used and stored.

The more general feeling of a surveillance society can also reduce people's trust in authorities and institutions – if the camera surveillance is perceived as too extensive or intrusive. Camera surveillance must therefore be seen as part of a larger work of creating safety. To combat crime, more than technical surveillance is required. Preventive measures, such as creating a more equal society where all children are given the same opportunities, as well as targeted support measures for families in risk zones, are crucial for long-term results.

It is therefore always required to have a careful balance between crime fighting and the protection of personal privacy. A legally anchored and well-considered regulation is necessary so that camera surveillance can be used in a way that benefits security without creating a social climate where people feel constantly monitored.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to improving the efficiency of camera surveillance, it is good that the permit requirement is abolished for municipalities and regions. It can reduce bureaucracy and accelerate criminal investigations. Today's permit requirement is bureaucratic and delays the possibility of quickly installing cameras where they are deemed necessary. At the same time, it is important that everyone who conducts camera surveillance continues to follow the requirements set out in the camera surveillance act.

Just as the bill highlights, the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection has a role that is central to ensuring that video surveillance is carried out in a way that does not violate personal privacy. The Government must ensure that the authority is given sufficient resources to fulfill the mission of monitoring the actors who carry out video surveillance, so that they comply with the Video Surveillance Act and other relevant provisions that protect the individual's privacy.

As an additional security measure, Miljöpartiet proposes that the government should introduce a reporting obligation for those who conduct camera surveillance. Such an obligation would mean that actors who wish to conduct camera surveillance shall report the surveillance to a responsible authority, for example, precisely the Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten, instead of applying for a permit. It would provide increased transparency and the possibility of supervision without creating unnecessary obstacles for those who wish to use camera surveillance to increase safety. By requiring that the camera surveillance be reported and documented, one can still ensure that it is carried out in accordance with laws and ethical guidelines while the process becomes smoother and more flexible.

In the bill, the government has made the assessment that the permit requirement for camera surveillance should not be replaced with a notification requirement, referring to the fact that the benefit of a notification requirement would not be significant from a privacy protection perspective.

In line with several of the referral bodies, we therefore have a different opinion on that issue. A reporting obligation would balance the risks to personal integrity that a removed permit requirement entails by providing the supervisory authority with better conditions to conduct effective supervision. Through the reports, the supervisory authority would obtain an overview of which camera surveillance is ongoing. If a reported surveillance appears questionable, the supervisory authority could quickly initiate a supervisory case, investigate the surveillance more closely, and take the measures that are justified. To facilitate the public's ability to assess whether a report has been made, this should also be made available in some way in close proximity to the camera's location.

Mr. Speaker! The government has, during recent years, commissioned a large number of inquiries and implemented legislation that affects both secrecy and personal privacy. The Green Party therefore welcomes the inquiry that was recently commissioned with, among other things, the mandate to conduct an analysis of the collective regulation's consequences for personal privacy.

In this context, we want to point out that it is also important moving forward not to push through new proposals too quickly, but instead to allow time to carefully review and evaluate the measures that have already been implemented or are to be implemented. Therefore, the bill that we are debating here today should be followed up by an evaluation that the government already schedules now. Such a follow-up ensures that the new rules achieve the intended effect and that the balance between crime fighting and personal integrity is made in a responsible manner.

I stand behind all our reservations, but I move for approval only of reservation 5, which concerns precisely the evaluation.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Let me begin by declaring that I like camera surveillance. Cameras have become an invaluable tool in society's endeavor to create a safer and more secure existence for honest and law-abiding citizens. Surveillance cameras can be safety-creating and crime-preventing, but above all, they have come to be a more or less necessary tool in investigative work. Numerous crimes are solved with images and videos from strategically placed cameras. With the photographic evidence, crime investigators can not only identify perpetrators. They can also, in many cases, obtain evidence of a sequence of events in serious crimes.

As a matter of chance, I followed the police's outer command on Södermalm. Now, while I sat here waiting for my turn, a small notice popped up, which I thought I would refer to. It says: A man threatened his former partner with a knife and assaulted her, then fled in a car. Thanks to our cameras, his getaway car could be tracked, and he was stopped on the other side of the city. He was also intoxicated by alcohol.

It is a daily and practical example of how the cameras can be used in crime-fighting activities.

All of us who have seen the TV program Efterlyst can certainly testify that cameras have an importance, not least when it comes to identifying perpetrators. In short, surveillance cameras make life a little harder for criminals. The risk of detection and prosecution increases significantly.

Mr. Speaker! The now proposed legislation allows for a simpler and smoother decision-making process for both the law enforcement authorities and our municipalities, which now have a crime prevention responsibility according to law. The reporting obligation ceases, but the requirement for documentation and needs assessment remains. Likewise, there is an obligation to provide information in places where camera surveillance takes place.

It is given that cameras constitute an important component when it comes to preventing and limiting crimes of various kinds. It can, for example, involve property damage and theft. The knowledge that an area or a building is under camera surveillance constitutes in itself a deterrent factor for potential perpetrators. On the other hand, I believe it is more questionable whether it prevents a drunken brawl in a pub queue, where one has sort of lost their judgment a little bit. There, it perhaps does not have the same preventive effect.

The best effect is obviously achieved if the camera surveillance can take place in real time. It is something that increases the possibility of preventing or stopping public order disturbances or ongoing crime.

Mr. Speaker! New technology enables better and more efficient surveillance and monitoring. ANPR, which was mentioned here earlier, stands for automatic number plate recognition. It is a technology that is both efficient and resource-saving. Briefly, this means that registration numbers of stolen or other pursued vehicles are entered into the system, and the camera signals when the car is detected.

ANPR cameras can be either fixed or mobile and are used, among other places, at border crossings. But now it is also being opened up so that police cars can be equipped with ANPR, which naturally increases the possibility for more effective surveillance and investigation and, with that, also an increased crime clearance rate. ANPR is also a method that makes life harder for criminals.

I also want to highlight the police's use of drones. Malmöpolisen and Region Syd, where I have worked previously, have developed a concept with deployed drones that are activated during specific incidents. The drones can quickly be at a crime scene and send images to the operator, who can follow fleeing perpetrators and, from their position, direct police in cars heading to the scene, who in turn can apprehend the perpetrators. It is incredibly effective.

From different sides, including from the rostrum here, concerns have been expressed that camera surveillance would constitute a serious infringement of personal privacy. I find it somewhat difficult to understand the objections.

Video surveillance takes place in public places. Here in Stockholm, there has been video surveillance in several locations for a long time. There is video surveillance in public transport without anyone feeling significantly bothered by it. In everyday life, I don't even think we reflect on the fact that we are captured in a camera lens. Generally, I actually think that it is perceived as a safety factor.

Hundreds of thousands of people pass these cameras daily, and there is no interest at all in, or even a possibility to, monitor all of these. The information is completely uninteresting as long as no public order disturbance of any kind occurs.

I also do not think that the opposition, in their reviews, have elaborated to what extent and in what way it would constitute an improper intrusion. What is it that people do in public that can be regarded as private or be of interest for crime prevention? I think that such thoughts must be raised. It becomes a bit sweeping to say that it is an intrusion into personal integrity. In what way?

With this said, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of the proposal in the committee report.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! I agree with my colleague from the Christian Democrats. I have never heard of anyone who has in any way been negatively affected by being filmed at a gas station, in a grocery store, on a train platform, in a taxi, in a shopping center, on a bus, or on streets and squares by a surveillance camera installed by a city, a municipality, or the state.

Therefore, one can ask why it is so dangerous to have surveillance cameras that can prevent, investigate, or even solve crimes. I think we must stop being afraid of cameras. Personal privacy is important – very important – and we shall continue to safeguard that. But again: I do not know of any person who has ever been affected by the fact that there are surveillance cameras up there.

With that said, I am glad that the government is now finally making an improvement to the camera surveillance law so that it becomes easier for authorities and municipalities to install cameras. I am also glad that we can hopefully vote through this proposal later this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker! Since we are debating cameras now, I would like to talk a bit about the future, namely about drones. Today, there is a pilot project, or a trial project, within the police. It is being carried out in Malmö city, where the police have access to drones that are stationed at strategic locations on various roofs. From the regional command center, one can then maneuver the drones so that they can take off in a few seconds and proceed to a crime scene or an accident site.

This has proven to be very effective in crime fighting. The commanders at the regional command centers, which are the locations from which police operations are managed minute-by-minute, can, through the images that the drones send, quickly get a good overview of, for example, an accident site and in that way assess how many resources are needed and what type of resources are needed. The drones are thus both time-efficient and resource-efficient – and therefore also cost-effective.

In this pilot project, it has been shown that in more than half of the cases where they have been deployed, the drones were on site before the police cars. On several occasions when the drones were deployed, the perpetrators could also be detected from the air. The perpetrators probably would not have been found if the drones had not been used.

The pilot project has been ongoing for just over a year, and unfortunately, it has an end date. I hope that there is someone high up in the police force who has the mandate to say yes to extending, or perhaps even making permanent, the operations with the drones – and then not just in Malmö but preferably in all of Sweden. I am thinking in particular of rural areas, where a drone could be on site perhaps 20–30 minutes before a police car. It should also be known that the drones' images can also be sent directly to the police officers who are on their way to the scene of the accident or the crime scene.

I was in Los Angeles last week and, among other things, saw how the police there are expanding their drone operations. You can see that this is the future. In some neighborhoods, it is even drones patrolling the streets.

There are also several cases here in Sweden where drones have been used in criminal investigations in connection with surveillance, with very good results. Unfortunately, there are obstacles in the laws here, and if those obstacles were removed, the drones could have been even more effective. For tactical reasons, I do not want to go into what it is about, but I can say this: The best thing would be if the drones could be equated with helicopters in the legislation regarding filming from the air.

Mr. Speaker! Now, I am not in a position to influence the budget to the extent that I might have wished, but a little earmarked money for the police to expand drone operations – and perhaps even make them permanent – would not be wrong. Furthermore, I just want to point out that it is about small change in this context.

Since I am on the subject of the USA, I can mention that I rode with a police patrol on Saturday night. At one point, the officers in the car received a message on their mobile phones – an SMS. It turned out to contain a registration number and a picture of a car, which was photographed from behind. The car was stolen and had just passed an intersection.

The message caused all police in the area to immediately begin searching for the car, and indeed: ten minutes later it was located, although empty and parked. The police told me that these cars are stolen and most often used in connection with crimes – that one drives around and commits burglaries or robberies. It is therefore not entirely impossible that crimes were prevented by the car being detected by cameras and then found by the police in the field.

In Sweden, we do not have such fixed cameras, but with the new legislation, the police now have the right to set up temporary cameras with this function. It is called ANPR and is a type of automatic recognition technology for license plates. You enter which car you are looking for – in this case, the wanted car – and as soon as it passes the camera, information is sent to the police. It is not a day too early that this is being put into use, and it is good that it becomes less complicated for the police to also use this as the permit requirement is removed.

Video surveillance in crime fighting and other public activities – expanded possibilities and a simpler procedure

Mr. Speaker! I would, just as my colleague from the Christian Democrats said here earlier, like to see that fixed cameras with the ANPR function were installed in strategic locations all around our cities. I believe that it would give crime fighting a significant boost forward. And as we also heard from the Christian Democrats earlier: The technology with ANPR is developed today. The cameras are in our police cars. The technology exists, as said, and it has also been tested in Sweden. But somewhere there is someone – or if it is a law, or whatever it is – who prevents it from being used.

What is it that prevents these cameras from being put into use so that police officers sitting in their patrol cars receive an indication that the car in front of them is stolen and can thus stop it and arrest the perpetrator? What is it that stops this? I have been thinking about this for ten years. The technology has existed for twenty years, but in Sweden we are still standing and wondering whether it should be used or not.

I want to send this puck over the Strömmen to Strömmer. Now we know where that puck, or the ball, is located – it is with the Ministry of Justice. I want to see that this is done – preferably yesterday!

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 12.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)