“This practice violates the right to privacy, has a chilling effect on the right to peaceful assembly and may have discriminatory effects.” Amnesty International calls for the prohibition of mass surveillance tools and for robust safeguards for all camera surveillance during protests.
Amnesty International’s research finds that the police record protesters with an array of digital tools, such as advanced drones and video surveillance cars, a network of municipal cameras in public spaces, bodycams, handheld video cameras, or simply their own mobile phones. In response to questions from Amnesty International, the police held that the aim of the deployment of cameras is to have an adequate overview of the assembly in order to ensure it is “orderly and safe”. The policies and practices of authorities show that they view protests first and foremost as a risk to be managed, rather than as the exercise of a human right which states have a duty to facilitate.
“As per international human rights law, protests should not be seen as opportunities for surveillance for the pursuit of broader law enforcement objectives through the use of digital technologies. The surveillance of protests can impact people’s human rights, including their rights to privacy and the freedom of peaceful assembly. As a result, such surveillance can only be permissible under international human rights law when it is conducted in a lawful manner, for a legitimate aim, and is both necessary and proportionate. Any use of cameras should be subject to oversight and other human rights safeguards.”
“The manner in which police deploy surveillance for protests, does not meet these standards.” Amnesty noted. “The police rely on the broad and generic powers from Article 3 of the Dutch Police Act to decide on surveillance measures. Dutch laws and policies are not formulated with sufficient precision to inform protesters when they may be subject to camera surveillance, and thus cannot be considered clear or detailed enough to guarantee against the risk of abuse and arbitrariness. The police omit to explain to organisers, protesters and the general public the reasons for camera surveillance, such as concrete indications of offences begin committed. The lack of transparency and communication may lead protesters to assume that the cameras are not used for protection reasons, but for general surveillance and intimidation.”
Camera surveillance may discourage people from taking part in assemblies due to fear of surveillance, as it is often the ability to be part of an anonymous crowd that allows many people to participate in peaceful assemblies. In their interviews with Amnesty International, protesters said they feared that their identity could be logged and that this could have negative repercussions.
“Migrants are especially vulnerable when it comes to camera surveillance. In the Netherlands, all people who apply for a residence permit are included in a facial recognition database called ‘Catch Aliens’. All use of facial recognition technology for identification amounts to indiscriminate mass surveillance and therefore violates the rights to privacy and freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly.”
The research finds that the policies and practices underlying the police’s surveillance of protests are often inconsistent with human rights law and standards – including the rights to privacy, peaceful assembly and non-discrimination – and present grave human rights risks.