As France prepares to host the 2024 Olympic Games, the government's decision to deploy AI-powered video surveillance has sparked a heated debate about the balance between security and privacy rights.
The upcoming 2024 Olympic Games in Paris have thrust the issue of AI-driven surveillance into the global spotlight. In a move that has drawn both praise and criticism, the French government has passed legislation permitting the use of AI video surveillance technology during the Games to detect abnormal events or suspicious behaviour. While proponents argue that this measure is crucial for ensuring the safety of athletes and spectators, civil liberties advocates warn of the potential risks to fundamental rights and freedoms.
The French government's decision to test AI-powered video surveillance at a Depeche Mode concert, which they deemed a success, has paved the way for its use during the Games.
However, the implementation of AI surveillance raises valid concerns about its impact on civil liberties. As highlighted in an open letter signed by 37 civil society organisations, the proposed measures may violate international human rights law by contravening the principles of necessity and proportionality. The letter argues that the mere presence of untargeted algorithmic video surveillance in public spaces can have a chilling effect on fundamental civic freedoms, such as the right to freedom of assembly, association, and expression.
Moreover, the expansion of surveillance justifications, to include situations like begging or stationary assemblies as "atypical" behaviour, risks stigmatising and discriminating against marginalised communities. This underscores the need for robust legal and technical safeguards to prevent mission creep and protect individual privacy.
While the desire to prevent incidents like the 1996 Atlanta bombing or the 2016 Nice truck attack is understandable, it is crucial to ensure that the measures employed do not infringe upon fundamental human rights.
Whether to fix an existing or possible perceived issue for the metropolis, whether it be crime rate, loss of life and or combined with reputational damage; Cities will, going forward, regardless of location, some with caution and hesitation, others with glee and abandon, use technology to enhance surveillance, thereby enhancing security.
The all seeing ‘eye in the sky’ could become a reality, almost all of the technology exists for the surveillance nightmares of late night sci fi movies. If you don't believe me google Predpol-LAPD(inactive), Domain Awareness System-NYPD or the SSL of the Chicago PD(inactive).
Do we focus on the positives of feeling safer in the knowledge that everyone is being watched and analysed?
Or do we worry about the invasiveness in the knowledge that everyone is being watched and analysed?