The police will gain the right to request photo and video files from people. In what situations would they actually start doing this or in what situations is it intended to be used?

The current Law Enforcement Act states that the police may request documents for an investigation, which could mean, for example, a stamped paper showing that you are allowed to build this house. That wording really dates back to a very different era. We are broadening it because nowadays, in the context of an investigation, a document could also be footage from a home security camera recording the street. Whether a person chooses to hand it over to the police is a separate question, but at least we are making it clear that the police may ask for it.

The police may ask for it if they suspect a public order violation and, for example, I happened to film that violation — then the police can ask me to hand over the video?

Exactly. But I want to stress again that people can weigh their own considerations there and decide how they want to proceed. Of course, I would encourage people to cooperate with investigative authorities so that crimes can be solved quickly. In practice, the current wording has indeed caused problems because it dates from a time before mobile phones and similar devices. Today, in addition to paper documents, recorded information exists in many other forms as well.

Let's make this clear — can the police ask for it or can they demand it?

They can demand it, but as with all legal proceedings, people have their own rights. Figuratively speaking — and I am not encouraging this, but I want to stress it — in a state governed by the rule of law, people have the right to hire a lawyer and proceed according to their attorney's advice.

The use of drones in state supervision will also be regulated. The draft bill emphasizes that drones may only be used for recording images and the law does not allow audio recording in order to prevent covert eavesdropping. Let's be honest — there is not much you can really eavesdrop on with drones anyway. Could drones also start being used for traffic monitoring, for example to catch speeding drivers or other traffic offenders?

First, we have to acknowledge that drones have become technologically advanced enough that they are no longer all loud and buzzing. They come in different sizes, with different noise levels and there are also drones that move very quietly. That is precisely the main reason why we are stipulating that drones may not be used to record audio.

Let me give an example: if the Labor Inspectorate wants to check whether workers on higher floors are wearing helmets, today the inspector has to physically climb up there, but that could be replaced with a drone. However, the drone does not need to record what the construction workers are saying to one another at the same time.

As for the broader use of drones, more specific rules on where, how and for what purposes they may be used will have to be laid out in special legislation. The general principle is that a drone may be used in situations where a person could carry out the same task.

For example, a Labor Inspectorate official climbs to the sixth floor to see whether workers are wearing helmets there. If a drone simply makes it easier to do something a person would otherwise do, then it may be used. If a drone starts identifying entirely new things that a person would not have been able to detect, then it may only be used if the Riigikogu has granted additional authorization. That issue is set out in separate legislation.

In Tallinn, many vehicles use public transport lanes in violation of traffic rules. In principle, it would be possible to send a drone up along Paldiski maantee, Narva maantee or some of these more complicated streets to record those violations, right?

The rules governing the use of cameras are general, regardless of whether the camera is attached to a building or a drone. A camera may only be used when there is a clear legal basis for it. If a police officer is standing at an intersection watching whether cars are passing through correctly, then that officer can also be supplemented with a camera.

Or, for example, if there is a risk assessment at a public event suggesting that a fight has broken out somewhere, then ordinarily a police officer would go there and check the situation, but in practice it could also be monitored using a drone. Situations must not arise where drones create entirely new forms of surveillance that a person could not carry out themselves. We are talking about making activities already performed by people somewhat easier, not about opening up entirely new areas of surveillance.

But the police themselves have in fact monitored whether passenger cars are driving in public transport lanes or not. So in the future, would the law allow drones to be used for that purpose?

If that activity is currently being carried out by a person, then the person can also be replaced by a camera feed. If people have not been carrying out that activity, then it would require entirely new legal grounds and a new debate in the Riigikogu. In cases of doubt, I would recommend contacting the Data Protection Inspectorate in each specific case to determine whether the activity is in line with existing practice or whether it constitutes an entirely new activity.

We are talking about cameras more broadly here. If a person is standing on a street corner, watching passing cars and writing down all the license plate numbers, then in principle that can also be done with a camera.

Since we do not have thousands of police officers standing at every intersection writing down the license plate numbers of every car, that task cannot simply be assigned to cameras either. A person can only be replaced to the extent that they have previously been carrying out the work with their own eyes.

Drones may also be used to identify threats at public meetings and events and to address public order violations. If an incident occurs during EKRE's torchlight procession on February 24, then in principle, after the law is adopted, could the police monitor the entire route with a drone in order to respond if necessary?

No, it cannot work like that. First of all, the threat situation itself has to arise — there has to be an actual threat present.

The draft bill states that the use of drones "just in case," meaning for the prevention of abstract threats, is prohibited and that there must be a specific suspicion of danger. But if it is known that there have been counterprotesters near Niguliste Church for several years, then surely it would make sense to send a drone there just in case?

Precisely as you just read out — drones may not be used "just in case." There has to be some kind of concrete suspicion of danger. For example, someone walking by might see that another person's clothes have already caught fire. That could spread very quickly and endanger people's lives. Or if a fight is already taking place.

At that point, sending a drone there is already fairly pointless and too late, isn't it?

No, it is not. Take the Song Festival, for example. A signal comes in that a fight has broken out somewhere among 100,000 people. Right now, police officers would have to search for it on foot. What we are enabling now is that once a threat situation has emerged, a drone can quickly identify the location and direct police officers to where they need to run.

The rules for organizing public gatherings are changing and event organizers will no longer have to apply for permission from local governments. Will they still have to register with the police?

That depends on the type of event, how large it is and so on. For example, in certain cases an event must still be coordinated with the Rescue Board under the Fire Safety Act. Nothing is changing with regard to event safety. All approvals required for safely organizing an event under various laws must still be obtained. What we are removing is simply the general permit requirement from local governments. Organizers will only need to obtain permits specifically related to ensuring the event is conducted safely.

Let me give the example of Helsinki where the Finnish police face major difficulties. On December 6, Finland's Independence Day, and also on May 1, downtown Helsinki is filled with demonstrations. The police put in enormous effort to keep groups from fighting each other, although sometimes clashes still happen. How are we supposed to avoid such situations in the future if, in practice, we do not even have information that, for example, three political parties may suddenly end up face-to-face in Freedom Square?

We have freedom of assembly. If three political parties suddenly find themselves in Freedom Square at the same time, then they most likely have not registered it as a public meeting. I think that May Day or Walpurgis Night gatherings where young people come together are also not currently registered meetings for which permits are supposedly requested. Young people gathering in Tammsaare Park are not public meetings either. We should approach this with common sense.

The defining characteristic of a public meeting is the expression of a shared viewpoint. If, for example, there is a planned large-scale demonstration by three political parties in Freedom Square, then the direct safety requirements must still be met. Approval must still be obtained from the Rescue Board. Once attendance reaches a certain level, an ambulance must also be brought in as a precaution and so forth. Those requirements will remain in place; the only thing being removed from the process is the local government's general permit requirement.

One issue that will certainly generate a great deal of public debate — or at least I very much hope it will — is that we are allowing people to organize public meetings starting at age 14. It is very important for young people to practice expressing their views and to recognize that freedom of assembly is one of their fundamental rights. In my view, the current requirement that organizers must be adults is not appropriate.

We have had very positive examples of young people expressing their views on issues such as the environment. It should be possible for young people to decide these things themselves instead of having to look for an adult to handle matters on their behalf.

A few weeks ago, the Viljandi city government prohibited the unfurling of a large rainbow-colored flag or banner. Will this law change the situation so that, in fact, no such permit is needed?

Of course, that was already a foolish decision even under the current rules.

But will this legislative amendment remove the legal possibilities for preventing things like that?

Yes, local governments will lose the ability to restrict the expression of opinions. But please do not confuse the issues — let us take a hypothetical example where people want to hold a demonstration with a huge number of flags and, at the same time, torches. In that case, approval would still have to be obtained from the Rescue Board and the Rescue Board could say that because of the wind it is a dangerous combination and should not be done that way.

But it would not say whether the flags are rainbow-colored, red, blue, yellow or any other color. Let me stress once again: all requirements related to people's safety and lives will remain in place. What disappears is simply the local government's general approval requirement.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!