#SurveillanceNews

[ptitolier]

AI Surveillance in Europe

Exceptions to a general ban

The European Union and AI Surveillance: A Step Forward or a Step into Dystopia?

📅 Based on the article from Journal Mapa, January 24, 2025, by Théophile Fagundes.

Introduction: A New Era of AI Surveillance in Europe

On February 2, 2025, a new European law on artificial intelligence will come into effect, bringing major changes to how law enforcement uses AI-powered surveillance. While the EU had initially positioned itself as a global leader in ethical AI regulation, this latest move raises significant concerns about mass surveillance, civil liberties, and the power of private tech firms in shaping law enforcement.

At the heart of this legislation is a contradiction: the EU officially bans biometric identification and emotion recognition in public spaces but has introduced several key exceptions under pressure from France and its European allies, including Italy, Hungary, and Portugal. These exceptions open the door to real-time facial recognition, predictive policing, and increased corporate involvement in surveillance technology, triggering debates about whether Europe is drifting toward an Orwellian model of governance.

What Does the New Law Change?

Facial Recognition and Protest Surveillance

One of the most controversial aspects of the law is the use of real-time facial recognition technology in public spaces. While EU lawmakers claim this will only be used for investigating serious crimes, activists, journalists, and civil rights organizations argue that it will disproportionately target political activists, climate protesters, and marginalized communities.

In recent years, countries like France and Hungary have pushed for broader surveillance powers, justifying them through concerns over terrorism and public order. The new AI law will allow law enforcement to monitor large gatherings, including protests and demonstrations, under the pretext of "national security."

Predictive Policing: Science or Speculation?

The law also legitimizes the use of predictive policing, a controversial technology that uses AI to analyze past crime data and predict where future crimes might occur. While its proponents argue that it enhances efficiency and crime prevention, critics point to serious biases in these algorithms, which often result in racial profiling and over-policing of specific communities.

Predictive policing has been tested in several European cities, often with mixed results. Studies have shown that these AI models tend to reinforce existing biases in law enforcement rather than provide truly objective predictions. As a result, many experts fear that instead of reducing crime, predictive AI may actually contribute to systemic discrimination.

The Growing Role of Private Companies

Another key issue is the increasing involvement of private technology firms in law enforcement. Under the new law, European governments can outsource AI surveillance technologies to private corporations, raising concerns about data privacy, lack of transparency, and profit-driven motives.

Tech giants and AI startups have lobbied heavily for these provisions, seeing a lucrative market in supplying governments with surveillance tools. However, this raises a fundamental question: should law enforcement responsibilities be handed over to private companies that are not directly accountable to the public?

A Threat to Civil Liberties?

According to Investigate Europe, this new law does not strengthen protections for citizens—instead, it expands the reach of state surveillance.

Critics warn that these measures blur the line between public safety and authoritarian control. Who decides what constitutes a "threat" to national security? Who ensures that AI-powered surveillance is not misused for political repression?

The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) has repeatedly raised concerns about the risks of mass biometric surveillance, arguing that there are no sufficient safeguards to prevent abuse. Yet, despite these warnings, the law has moved forward, supported by governments that prioritize security over privacy.

Are We Entering Orwell’s Future?

The parallels with George Orwell’s 1984 are hard to ignore.

In Orwell’s dystopian vision, constant surveillance was a tool of absolute control, erasing any notion of privacy or personal freedom. While Europe’s AI surveillance is not yet at that level, the current trajectory suggests a slow erosion of democratic safeguards in the name of security.

The argument often used by governments is:

"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."

However, history has repeatedly shown that surveillance measures intended for "security" often end up being weaponized against political opposition, journalists, and activists.

France’s Use of AI Surveillance in the 2024 Olympics

During the 2024 Paris Olympics, France experimented with AI-powered video analysis to detect "suspicious behavior" in real time. The system, initially promoted as a way to prevent terrorist threats, ended up being used to monitor protests and public gatherings. This serves as a real-world case study of how surveillance measures can quickly be expanded beyond their original purpose.

Hungary’s Crackdown on Political Dissent

Hungary has already increased its use of AI surveillance tools to track political dissidents and journalists. The new EU law will give governments even more legal justification to expand these practices, making it harder to challenge surveillance abuses.

Balancing AI and Democracy: Is There a Middle Ground?

Not all AI surveillance is inherently bad. Used correctly, AI can help solve crimes, prevent terrorist attacks, and even protect human rights (e.g., tracking human trafficking networks). However, the concern is that without strict oversight, these tools will be exploited by those in power.

Possible Safeguards:

Strict Judicial Oversight: Courts should have a mandatory role in approving AI-based surveillance requests.

Transparency & Public Accountability: Citizens must be informed when and how AI surveillance is used.

Independent Ethics Committees: AI deployments in law enforcement should be monitored by non-governmental organizations.

Public Debate on Surveillance Laws: Instead of fast-tracking AI regulations, governments should open these discussions to the public.

Is Europe at a Crossroads?

The EU’s AI surveillance law represents a turning point in the balance between security and freedom. While officials present it as a necessary tool for modern policing, critics argue that it undermines fundamental rights and opens the door to widespread surveillance abuse.

Europe has long prided itself on being a champion of digital rights and ethical AI regulation. However, with this new law, it risks drifting toward a model where surveillance is normalized under the guise of public safety.

Are we moving toward an era of AI-powered authoritarianism, or can democratic safeguards still prevent mass surveillance?

Further Reading: Orwell vs. Verne – Is Technological Progress a Promise or a Trap?

To explore this topic further, read my article on Orwell and Verne:

P'tit Tôlier

Essayist & Popularizer. I analyze the world through accessible philosophical essays. Complex ideas, explained simply—to help us think about our times.