If you’re tired of censorship, cancel culture, and the erosion of privacy and civil liberties subscribe to Reclaim The Net.
(Reclaim The Net) — In a modern world enamored by the whims of technology, the allure of Artificial Intelligence (AI) holds a special place. It’s akin to the magic wand of our age, swaying over sectors, sprinkling bits of efficiency and innovation. Yet, as with every powerful tool, it has its dark undertones. Among the less glittering facets is the potential empowerment of invasive government surveillance. Unlike the traditional surveillance systems of yore, the AI-empowered surveillance state transcends the visible realm, constructing an invisible yet impenetrable iron cage around society.
Take China’s prowess in surveillance as a case in point. The Middle Kingdom has effectively employed AI to bolster its already extensive surveillance infrastructure. Through the integration of facial recognition technology, the government can now identify and track individuals within vast crowds in real-time. In the city of Rongcheng, for instance, a social credit system has been implemented, where AI analyzes citizens’ behavior and allocates scores which then impact their societal privileges. This technologically-driven panopticon doesn’t merely observe; it judges and sanctions.
READ: FBI creates new threat subcategory to track Trump supporters: report
Similarly, the United States has also dabbled in AI-enabled surveillance albeit under a different guise. Post 9/11, the impetus to fortify national security led to the adoption of AI in analyzing vast swathes of data for potential threats. The NSA’s PRISM program, revealed by Edward Snowden, demonstrated how AI could sift through massive datasets, spotting patterns and connections beyond the grasp of human analysts. This heralds a new era where one’s digital footprints are indelible and meticulously scrutinized by an unseen, unfeeling algorithmic eye.
Across the globe, the narrative repeats in varying shades. In Russia, AI-powered facial recognition was utilized to quell political dissent, identifying and arresting individuals attending unsanctioned protests. Meanwhile, in the United Kingdom, the deployment of AI in public surveillance cameras sparked a nationwide debate on privacy. The common thread weaving through these narratives is the augmentation of governmental control and the erosion of personal privacy.
The herald of AI has, indeed, reshaped the dynamics of surveillance. It’s not merely about bigger, better cameras, or more clandestine wiretaps. It’s about a relentless, omnipresent eye that learns, adapts, and predicts. An eye that’s indifferent to ethical qualms, tirelessly feeding the insatiable appetite of the surveillance state. This isn’t a mere augmentation of the old surveillance apparatus but a metamorphosis into something more pervasive and foreboding.
Moreover, the convergence of AI with other emergent technologies like 5G and the Internet of Things (IoT) amplifies the surveillance capabilities exponentially. A network of connected devices, each a potential informant, knits a web of surveillance that’s intricate and expansive. The data harvested is fodder for AI algorithms which, in turn, refine the accuracy and reach of surveillance.
The sobering reality is that the semblance of control and privacy we once held is quickly dissipating, replaced by a technocratic reality where freedom is traded for a guise of security and efficiency. As we march towards an increasingly digitized reality, the iron cage of surveillance tightens, and the whimsical allure of AI becomes a harbinger of an Orwellian reality.
Take the narrative of governmental data analytics a notch higher, and you stumble upon a realm where the sheer volume of data transcends human comprehension. It’s a domain where patterns lurking in the data shadows are elusive to the human eye, yet glaringly apparent to the algorithmic gaze. AI, with its prowess in data analytics, promises governments the ability to sift through the haystack of information to pinpoint the needles of insight.
Consider the United States’ endeavors in harnessing AI for bolstering national security. By deploying machine learning algorithms, agencies can now trawl through vast oceans of data, identifying patterns and correlations that could signify potential threats. In a world where the digital trail is as telling as the physical one, AI acts as the sleuth decoding the narratives encrypted in data.
Similarly, on the other side of the globe, China’s leap towards a smarter government is emblematic of AI’s allure. By melding AI with Big Data, the government aims to craft a more efficient bureaucracy capable of predictive governance. This isn’t merely about streamlining administrative processes, but envisioning a governance model that preemptively addresses issues before they morph into challenges.
Yet, amidst this narrative of enhanced efficiency and foresight, lurks a more sinister subplot – the erosion of civil liberties. The power to predict is, inherently, the power to control. When governments can predict citizens’ behavior, the fine line between governance and control blurs. Moreover, the ability to link disparate datasets presents a potent tool to construct extensive profiles of individuals, an endeavor replete with privacy invasions.
READ: Federal court orders cybersecurity agency to stop censorship collusion with Big Tech
Moreover, the algorithmic decisions, veiled in a cloak of neutrality, often obscure biases encoded within. When AI is fed data marinated in government biases, it regurgitates decisions that perpetuate these biases. The presumption of objectivity that accompanies algorithmic decisions exacerbates the threat to civil liberties, as contesting such decisions becomes a huge task.
Furthermore, the amalgam of AI and Big Data emboldens a subtle shift from democratic oversight to technocratic governance. As algorithms assume the roles of decision-makers, the human element of governance recedes. This transition, although subtle, has profound implications on the democratic fabric, as it relegates citizens to mere data points in the algorithmic governance model.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has laid out its policy plans for “mastering” artificial intelligence – specifically as it pertains to using AI (highly likely this means just machine learning – for now) as a tool for tracking and surveillance of U.S. citizens.
We obtained a copy of the document for you here.
Previously this year, this federal entity set up what it calls an AI task force, and now, a Policy Working Group is being established to formalize the way AI is used.
The document – Acquisition and Use of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Technologies by DHS Components – signed by the agency’s Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas in early August, states that AI is set to “drastically alter the threat landscape” – but then also “greatly augment the arsenal of tools available to succeed against new and existing threats.”
And the DHS boss wants this “augmenting” to happen “quickly and nimbly.” This is making some observers on the opposite side of the current U.S. administration wonder about the timing of it all – and the reason for the “need for speed” exhibited by DHS, but also some other key agencies, like the Department of Defense.
Is the potential of AI and the feverish need to make use of it ASAP in fact tied to the upcoming presidential election next year, and the hope that it can be used effectively to further a certain political agenda? Only time and serious analysis will tell.
But it’s pretty telling already that time is of the essence, since the newly published DHS document points out that the agency will go everywhere – commercial or internally developed – to make sure the tech is deployed as quickly as possible. And to enable this, logically, the memo wants the procurement process to keep up with the mission.
“We have got to change the procurement capabilities of a government agency to actually move quickly and nimbly,” Mayorkas wrote in a somewhat cryptic, and certainly too broad style, that is sits oddly with any government professing “trustworthiness,” nevermind “transparency.”
How about, just clarity of statement?
Meanwhile, the DHS plan, as detailed in the memo, is to assemble a “world class workforce” which would work on AI applications as per DHS’ priorities.
There’s the inevitable mention of countering the capabilities of “adversaries” and being “trustworthy and responsible.” Rest assured, Mayorkas promises, privacy and civil rights will be preserved – “while avoiding inappropriate biases.”
But what does qualifying protection of privacy and civil liberties in this way even mean?
And, for that matter, what does this mean: “DHS will not collect, use, or disseminate data used in AI activities, or establish AI-enabled systems that make or support decisions based on the inappropriate consideration of race, ethnicity, gender, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, nationality, medical condition, or disability.”
READ: House members reintroduce bill to stop Biden admin from imposing central bank digital currency
That’s another direct quote from the document, and if anything, we can see the word “inappropriate” starting to emerge in the language now used to “explain” and justify policies around more efficient mass surveillance measures – and worryingly so, because it is a very vague term, that can be interpreted to suit pretty much any purpose.
There’s more questions than answers here, it would seem. As for why DHS needs to use such tools and what kind of threats he has in mind, Mayorkas goes on to cite things like improved occupational health and safety, customer service in travel and immigration, and the like.
But opponents say this is yet another political smokescreen meant to obscure the end-goal – tracking, monitoring, and carrying out surveillance of Americans, and given DHS powers, preparing to harness some form of AI to do this at a very large scale.
Then there’s another question: why is the DHS even legally (if not entirely legitimately, critics argue) able to do this and plan for pushing the agenda even further with the use of emerging technologies?
According to some, we’ll have to go all the way back to 2001 and the post 9/11 privacy-trampling frenzy in the U.S. that is embodied in the Patriot Act, which has for the last 20+ years been criticized as taking over powers up until that point contained in the U.S. Constitution, and in particular its first, fourth, and fifth amendments.
The argument makes sense in that, as far as what would be needed to set off at times unbridled domestic surveillance, it was these amendments that had to get effectively “superimposed” by something else. And it was in this time that DHS became one of the pillars of implementing this policy.
With this context in mind, the Mayorkas memo only made public recently is nothing but a policy upgrade to make sure that what has been happening for decades already, continues to “thrive” and make the best of whatever new tool or tech becomes available.
Reprinted with permission from Reclaim The Net.