Statement by Sebastian Hornung*

In a recent LinkedIn post, Sebastian Hornung takes a clear stance on the debate surrounding video surveillance in public spaces.

The starting point is a regularly recurring public reaction: as soon as it becomes known that the police or security authorities are using video surveillance at railway stations or other transport hubs to solve crimes, a broad discussion about data protection, surveillance and civil liberties ensues.

Hornung criticises not so much the existence of this debate as its repetitive nature. The arguments are familiar, often emotionally charged and rarely based on facts. His article is therefore an attempt to objectify the discussion and systematically classify the main objections.

Public spaces and privacy

A key argument against video surveillance concerns the protection of privacy. Hornung points out that railway stations are legally and factually public spaces. They are highly frequented places where observation by other people is a given anyway. There is no right to complete anonymity there. He also refers to modern technical and legal standards: purpose limitation, limited storage periods, access restrictions and the exclusion of sensitive areas such as sanitary facilities are now common practice in data protection-compliant systems.

He also highlights a social contradiction: while video surveillance at railway stations is often criticised, other forms of permanent data collection – such as smartphones, navigation services or dashcams – are widely accepted.

Prevention and impact of cameras

Another focus of the position paper is the question of the effectiveness of video surveillance. Studies show that cameras can lead to a decline in the number of cases in certain contexts, such as property offences, vandalism or in specially monitored areas. However, the preventive effect depends heavily on factors such as the visibility of the cameras, the type of offences, the structural environment and integration into a comprehensive security concept.

Hornung emphasises that video surveillance is not a panacea. It should always be understood as part of an overall concept that also includes personnel, lighting, structural measures and organisational processes. In this way, its effectiveness can be significantly increased without placing false expectations on the technology.

Costs, efficiency and long-term perspective

The cost argument is also addressed. Hornung considers it short-sighted, as often only the investment costs are considered, but not the long-term savings from less property damage, faster investigation and reduced follow-up costs. Modern IP-based systems are also scalable, low-maintenance and can often be easily integrated into existing IT infrastructures. Insurance industry assessments also often speak in favour of monitored areas.

Sense of security and social perception

With regard to the frequently cited ‘feeling of total surveillance,’ Hornung refers to surveys according to which the majority of travellers feel safer when cameras are present. The subjective sense of security increases, especially at night or during rush hour. Transparency is crucial here: clear labelling, comprehensible rules and open communication.

Technology and personnel as complementary elements

A recurring theme in the position paper is the rejection of an artificial dichotomy between technology and human personnel. Video surveillance does not replace security personnel, but supports them by providing a better overview, more targeted deployment options and objective documentation. Security is not an either/or proposition, but a combination of technology, organisation and people.

Dealing with risks of abuse

The risk of data abuse is not disputed, but it is classified. Hornung sees it as an organisational and governance issue that can be controlled through clear role and rights concepts, logging, encryption and control. A fundamental potential for abuse does not justify abandoning technology, but rather requires clean processes.

Critical infrastructure and priorities

Finally, the position paper refers to the special role of railway stations as critical infrastructure: transport hubs, workplaces and social spaces with a high need for protection. From this perspective, even a possible shift in crime represents a relief for sensitive areas. In addition, video surveillance enables faster response and better coordination in an emergency.

Conclusion

Sebastian Hornung does not see video surveillance as a symbol of state arbitrariness, but as a purpose-built, regulated and effective tool. He sees the real danger not so much in the technology itself as in a debate that refuses to take a differentiated view of it. His appeal: security policy discussions should be fact-based, transparent and responsible.

Or, as he himself puts it: The greatest power of human beings is the word – and it should be used for arguments, not for reflexes.

Sebastian Hornung has 14 years of experience in technical sales of security and technology solutions. [https://www.linkedin.com/in/sebastian-hornung1]