The state is preparing a pilot deployment of camera systems with smart analytics in schools to better protect children and shorten response times to incidents. Instead of continuous monitoring, algorithms are meant to flag risky situations and help gain an operational overview. The project is accompanied by a debate about privacy, cost, and the scope of what the cameras are actually supposed to do.
How the system should work in practice
Modern video analytics can search footage for behavioral patterns and alert operators only when something unusual is happening—for example, a group scuffle, a fall, or the presence of an object resembling a dangerous tool. That saves human resources, because prolonged staring at monitors leads to missing key details. During a response, it also helps that law enforcement can have a better “operational picture”: where a person is moving, what they look like, and where the most critical spots are.
Experts stress that cameras are only part of the ecosystem: access control systems, sensors, speakers need to be set up, and weak points addressed, such as gymnasiums used by clubs in the evening. The perimeter is especially important—catching a problem already at the fence and after school hours, which a metal detector at the door cannot replace. The experience of one pilot school shows benefits in quickly tracing situations (such as bullying), detecting smoking or vaping via an air quality sensor, and in cases of an unauthorized person entering the premises. Ordinary classrooms and restrooms are not monitored; the focus is most often on entrances and common areas.
Privacy, regulation, and money
Schools can already have cameras today, provided they have the documentation in place, retention rules, and a clear purpose for processing data. Vendors state that storage is encrypted directly in the cameras and offer options to blur faces during routine viewing of footage; detailed identification would only be considered in the event of an incident and for authorized persons. The Interior Ministry repeatedly emphasizes that its aim is protection and improving police response during emergencies, not routine surveillance. The debate about the boundaries of use—for example, for ordinary infractions—is naturally ongoing and will need clear rules.
European regulation of artificial intelligence and the use of biometrics also raise questions; experts are therefore calling for a legally sound setup and transparent communication. The ministry is continuously assessing risk criteria, but not all documents are public. The cost of the technologies is another topic, yet schools point out that hundreds to thousands of people gather in these buildings every day, and the benefits in prevention and response speed can be decisive. Specific device types and the exact model for involving schools are to be decided only after the pilot verification and analysis.
