Europe’s biggest agencies are getting fed up with their own democratic safeguards. With Europol’s deputy director Jürgen Ebner calling for the EU to relax its rules on AI, the question is no longer just about police efficiency – but how fast Europe is moving towards permanent digital surveillance.
According to Ebner, criminals are having the “time of their lives” with AI, while Europol is slowed down by months of legal assessments and data protection checks. His solution would be to create an “emergency procedure” that would allow AI tools to be deployed before data protection legislation, such as the GDPR and the forthcoming EU AI Act, has been passed.
From emergency to permanent practice
The idea sounds practical – if it were to remain genuinely exceptional. But history shows that when emergency exceptions are created for surveillance equipment, the scope of its use expands rapidly. As the “temporary” mandate becomes normalised, the lines between privacy and mass surveillance begin to blur.
Ebner’s statement that processes can take “eight months” is intended to demonstrate the inefficiency of the system. But that very slowness is deliberately built in as a safeguard: it is a brake on democracy, preventing the introduction of automated decision-making systems without accountability and transparency.
Europol grows – and concentrates
In recent years, Europol has significantly expanded its technological capacity. It has invested in massive data analysis and decryption platforms, justified by the fight against cross-border crime. At the same time, they concentrate huge amounts of personal data under the control of a single agency.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has already promised to double Europol’s workforce and make it “the bridgehead between the digital and physical worlds”. A new legislative proposal is planned for 2026 that would further strengthen the agency’s powers. The question is: how much information and decision-making power can one agency be given before it becomes a surveillance infrastructure?
The “harmful delay” of democracy
Ebner’s attitude is disturbingly reminiscent of European Central Bank chief Christine Lagarde’s frustration at the “slowness” of democracy in her push for the digital euro. Both see the checks and balances put in place to protect citizens as obstacles, not safety nets.
When powerful institutions start talking publicly about democratic processes as slowdowns, we are on a dangerous path. It shows that administrative efficiency is superseding the principles on which the whole European rule of law is built.
Technological acceleration without brakes
According to Ebner, “almost all criminal investigations” nowadays involve the internet, and technology has become a “massive cost burden”. He would therefore like to deepen cooperation with private technology companies. But when surveillance is transferred to market players, the accountability of the state becomes even more blurred.
Artificial intelligence, decryption tools and soon quantum computers are expensive – but their real cost is not in euros but in power. Every short-cut around the law increases the risk that decisions about people will be made automatically, without explanation and without accountability.
The result: effective, but for whom?
The parallel acceleration strategies of Europol and the ECB reveal the same core logic: putting technical efficiency before fundamental rights. Dismantling protection mechanisms in the name of “innovation” will not build a safer Europe – but a more controlled one.
If democratic brakes are perceived as an obstacle, it is not the brakes. The problem is that some people no longer want to stop.
📚 Sources
- Reclaim The Net – Europe’s AI Surveillance Race Against the Rules That Protect Privacy
- GDPR.eu – What is GDPR?
- European Commission – European AI Act
- ECB – Christine Lagarde speech at Bank of Finland Conference