Chancellor of Justice: If control over power disappears, the rise of lies and violence is inevitable.

If a media house wants to offer Urmas Reinsalu his own online show, then according to Chancellor of Justice Ülle Madise, this is part of freedom of the press, not prohibited political advertising.

Should people fear the Estonian state?

I hope not. A decent person does not need to fear the state if there are no mass databases or total surveillance, and if freedom of expression—including press freedom—is real. If it is allowed to question and criticize all rules, politicians, and officials. A decent person has nothing to fear if the courts are independent. But if a surveillance society develops, independent institutions unfortunately begin to disintegrate, and freedom of expression and press freedom disappear. When control over power is lost, the rise of falsehood and violence is inevitable.

What is a surveillance society?

In its most extreme form, it can probably be seen in Chinese megacities, where public spaces are filled with cameras and sensors enabling the state to determine where someone is, what they’re doing, how they’re moving. AI systems can already, with some probability, predict what a person might be thinking or planning by analyzing facial expressions and movements. In such a society, the individual loses the ability to be free, to take responsibility, to question norms. Today's technology allows for even worse societal control than in East Germany or the Soviet Union. A surveillance society should be feared by every decent person. In such a system, virtually every aspect of human life—movement, thoughts, behavior—is stored in data repositories. If a machine detects something strange in your purchases, health data, tax records, or movements, you’ll have to explain yourself. But society doesn’t work in such a way that complete control brings about ideal behavior. In the end, it’s wise not to corner people.

What are you specifically talking about?

A few years ago, the Data Protection Inspectorate discovered that without public discussion or a clear decision by the Riigikogu, dozens of data warehouses or “super-databases” had been created. Previously, registries like population, tax, and health were kept separate. Now, with data warehouses, information about a person is figuratively placed in one box. This is dangerous both because officials might be tempted to analyze people “just in case,” and because criminals could hack the databases. When health data was stolen from the Asper Biogene lab, extortionists appeared. Currently, a super-database is being created for the anti-money laundering office. Initially, they wanted to include data on all Estonian individuals and legal entities. That scope has been slightly narrowed, but the plan still is to combine data and let machines look for “anomalies.” A decent person who has done nothing wrong will still have to justify their life choices to the state. This is exactly what the Constitution does not allow.

People carry phones with location tracking and 20 apps sending data who knows where?

There’s a big difference between having massive personal data in the hands of the state—collected coercively and analyzed by AI—and people voluntarily giving data to competing private companies. The state forces data collection; companies do not, although they often create pressure. But you can choose not to participate: leave your smartphone at home, use a dumbphone, don’t use loyalty cards, don’t pay with your bank card. During COVID, even in democracies, tracking people via phones was avoided because tech giants, fearing user backlash, refused to cooperate.

Are there real-life examples where a robot analyzes data, and someone has to prove they’re not a criminal?

A few years ago in Germany, algorithms rated a customer’s trustworthiness—wrong school for your kids, wrong address, and you were essentially blacklisted, denied services like a gas station card. In some refugee camps, AI analyzes facial expressions to calculate the likelihood of wrongdoing. You’re seen as suspicious before doing anything wrong. This kind of control creeps in step by step. In Estonia, there are even ideas to ban cash or monitor every small vendor. Two particularly alarming cases: the health data theft at Asper Biogene, and the theft of ID-card photos—both huge security failures by the state. Data is hard and expensive to protect, which is why the state should only collect what it truly needs and keep it separate.

Estonians trust the police. Why don’t you?

I do trust the police. Where did you get the idea that I don’t?

But you say they shouldn’t have access to certain data?

The police must absolutely have access to necessary data.

Should average speed cameras be allowed?

If the Riigikogu debates and passes the law, the Supreme Court could review its constitutionality—whether the goal justifies the means. In some countries, such systems are used and considered constitutional.

Do people have the right to die?

Yes, the Supreme Court recently confirmed this. The Riigikogu passed legislation on end-of-life directives. All treatment must be based on the patient’s consent. The law allows people to pre-decide—e.g., whether they want to be resuscitated or not.

What do you think of the Political Parties Supervision Committee ruling that participation in media shows is illegal donation?

The blanket ban on donations from legal entities restricts political expression in civil society. Even a folk dance group can't sell t-shirts with a logo to support a candidate—it’s deemed an illegal donation. It also limits press freedom. If a private media outlet gives a popular opposition leader space for a show, it’s part of press freedom—not advertising. But under current law, it could be considered illegal support.

How to stop Tallinn City Government from spending hundreds of thousands on promo videos featuring the mayor and deputies?

We’ve always criticized those so-called info leaflets where photos of ruling politicians appear on every page—be it a kindergarten party or a fair. I believe taxpayer money should not be used for political advertising. This principle is widely accepted and should remain in place.