The Rise of AI in Surveillance

Governments worldwide are increasingly deploying artificial intelligence technologies to enhance surveillance capabilities. While these advancements aim to bolster security and efficiency, they also raise significant privacy and ethical concerns. Below are notable examples of governmental use of AI in surveillance:

Governmental Use of AI in Surveillance

Governments worldwide are increasingly deploying AI technologies for surveillance purposes. While these advancements promise improved operational efficiency and crime prevention, they also raise serious concerns about privacy and misuse of power. Emerging laws and regulations, such as the European Union’s AI Act, seek to create a balance between technological innovation and safeguarding individual rights. However, these frameworks remain a double-edged sword, as they can either mitigate or exacerbate the risks associated with AI-driven surveillance.

China's Comprehensive AI Surveillance System

China has developed one of the most extensive AI-driven surveillance networks globally. The government employs facial recognition, biometric data collection, and AI algorithms to monitor its population extensively. In regions like Xinjiang, these technologies are used to track and control ethnic minorities, leading to widespread human rights criticisms.

United States' AI Surveillance Initiatives

In the United States, agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have expanded their surveillance arsenals by integrating AI technologies. This includes the use of spyware tools capable of hacking encrypted messaging apps, raising concerns about privacy and civil liberties. Learn more.

European Union's AI Surveillance Regulations

The European Union has implemented the Artificial Intelligence Act, the first comprehensive legal framework on AI, which entered into force on August 1, 2024. This legislation aims to foster the development and uptake of safe and trustworthy AI systems across the EU, ensuring respect for fundamental rights and safety.

The AI Act categorizes AI systems based on their risk levels and imposes corresponding obligations. High-risk AI systems, including certain surveillance applications, are subject to strict requirements to ensure transparency, accountability, and human oversight. However, the Act has faced criticism for not imposing a blanket ban on public mass surveillance, leading to concerns about potential privacy infringements.

France's AI Surveillance During the Paris 2024 Olympics

In preparation for the Paris 2024 Olympics, France tested AI-led video surveillance systems to enhance security. These systems utilized smart cameras to detect predefined movements, such as abandoned luggage and crowd movements, alerting operators for action. While proponents argued that this technology could improve safety, critics raised concerns about privacy and the potential normalization of such surveillance measures beyond the event.

Corporate Adoption of AI Monitoring

Corporations are increasingly adopting AI technologies to monitor employees and consumers, aiming to enhance security, optimize operations, and improve customer experiences. However, these practices have sparked debates over privacy, ethics, and the potential for misuse. Below are notable examples of corporate AI monitoring:

Bunnings' Facial Recognition Implementation

Bunnings, a prominent Australian retailer, collaborated with Victoria Police to develop a facial recognition system intended to enhance security and prevent crime in its stores. This initiative aimed to identify individuals with a history of theft or other offenses. However, the program faced criticism over privacy concerns and the potential for misuse of biometric data. Source.

Amazon's AI-Powered Employee Monitoring

Amazon has implemented AI-driven surveillance tools to monitor warehouse employees' productivity and adherence to safety protocols. These systems track workers' movements and performance metrics in real time, allowing for immediate feedback and corrective actions. Critics argue that such monitoring can lead to excessive pressure on employees and raise concerns about workplace privacy. Source.

Network Rail's Emotion Detection Trial

Network Rail, the owner and infrastructure manager of most of the railway network in Great Britain, conducted a trial using AI-powered cameras to analyze passengers' emotions and demographics at major stations. The system aimed to assess customer satisfaction and optimize services. However, the trial faced backlash for being conducted without passengers' knowledge, raising significant privacy and ethical concerns. Source.

Colliers' Office Space Utilization Analysis

In Melbourne, the commercial real estate firm Colliers implemented AI technology to track and analyze office movements of employees by assessing Wi-Fi usage. This technology helps determine if businesses can reduce their office space based on how employees use the office. The data collected is anonymous, focusing on team movements rather than individuals. This innovative use of AI aims to optimize office space, especially post-Covid, where fluctuating occupancy rates are common. Source.

How is the Legal and Regulatory Landscape Responding?

As AI becomes increasingly integrated into surveillance practices, governments and international bodies are developing legal frameworks to address the associated ethical and privacy concerns. Take for example the current approaches of the European Union and the United States.

European Union's AI Act

The European Union (EU) Artificial Intelligence Act is a comprehensive regulatory framework that entered into force on August 1, 2024. This legislation aims to foster the development and uptake of safe and trustworthy AI systems across the EU, ensuring respect for fundamental rights and safety.

The AI Act categorizes AI systems based on their risk levels and imposes corresponding obligations:

• Minimal Risk: AI systems such as spam filters and AI-enabled video games face no obligations under the AI Act, but companies can voluntarily adopt additional codes of conduct.


• Specific Transparency Risk: Systems like chatbots must clearly inform users that they are interacting with a machine, while certain AI-generated content must be labeled as such.


• High Risk: AI systems such as AI-based medical software or AI systems used for recruitment must comply with strict requirements, including risk-mitigation systems, high-quality data sets, clear user information, and human oversight.


• Unacceptable Risk: AI systems that allow "social scoring" by governments or companies are considered a clear threat to people's fundamental rights and are therefore banned.

The AI Act also introduces limitations on real-time biometric surveillance by governments, permitting it only under specific circumstances such as a real and present or foreseeable threat of terrorist attack.

United States' Approach to AI Governance

In the United States, AI governance is evolving through a combination of executive actions, agency guidelines, and legislative proposals. On October 30, 2023, President Biden issued an Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence, outlining key principles and priorities for governing AI in the United States.

The policy emphasizes eight guiding principles and priorities:

• Safety and Security: AI systems must be safe, secure, and undergo robust evaluations before deployment.


• Transparency and Accountability: AI companies should provide transparency about how their models work. Standards for labeling AI-generated content will be established.

Additionally, various federal agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), have issued guidelines and frameworks to promote ethical AI development and protect consumer rights. For instance, NIST's AI Risk Management Framework provides voluntary guidance to help organizations manage risks associated with AI.

Final Thoughts

AI-driven surveillance is a double-edged sword—while it promises enhanced security and operational efficiency, it also poses significant threats to privacy and civil liberties. Governments and corporations alike must prioritize ethical considerations and transparency to ensure these technologies serve the public good rather than infringe on individual rights.

The current regulatory landscape shows promise, but it falls short in addressing all the risks. Robust protections and stricter accountability measures are essential to prevent the misuse of AI in surveillance. At the end of the day, we must ask ourselves: how much of our privacy are we willing to trade for convenience and security?

If you’re passionate about staying informed on how AI is transforming our world—both its promises and its perils—subscribe to our newsletter. Get more in-depth analysis, expert opinions, and actionable insights delivered straight to your inbox.