Digital World:

Should AI surveillance be restricted for the preservation of human democracy?

In partial completion of Cambridge Lower Secondary Global Perspectives (1129)

Name:

Cambridge ID:

Centre:

Individual Report word count: 1000 words

 Should AI surveillance be restricted for the preservation of human democracy?

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) has seen large strides in its development and integration into modern

society. Its growing capabilities, specifically in the surveillance and public safety sector, has led

to disputes over liberty, privacy, and democracy (Winner, 2020). Concerned with existing

examples and implications on the ethical field, many are calling for restrictions regarding AI use

and development in security. However, some others, predominantly governments (Feldstein,

2019), are adamant on pushing AI usage in surveillance, justifying their stance as to benefit

national security and stability (Vietnamnews.vn, 2019b). As such, stakeholders need to consider

the appropriate solution to balance the benefits of AI in public safety with the preservation of

democracy.

Global

As society develops, so does the complication of threats against its safety, and AI is emerging as

a potential counter to the predicament (Faggella, 2019). According to Carl Ghattas, director of

EY’s government and public cybersecurity sector, “as threats to public safety mutate faster and

faster, AI holds the promise of levelling the playing field for governments” (Atalla, 2020, para

4). Online, programs can scour the internet to locate malicious content. An example of which has

already been developed by the U.K Home Office, reporting 99.995% accuracy in detecting ISIS

propaganda (Vaas, 2018). In a CSG Analysis study, six out of seven surveyed U.S police

agencies stated that ShotSpotter has contributed to the reduction of gun crime in their area

(Selby, et al., 2011). It is evident that when used correctly, AI can help create a safer society

(Atalla, 2020).
As stated above, AI provides control and efficiency over the internet (Atalla, 2020). There is

currently little to prevent these abilities to be misused for political purposes, and threaten

democracy (Kamarck, 2018). The most widely discussed case of this revolves around the 2016

U.S election (Kamarck, 2018). AI’s analytical and data mining capabilities have allowed two

foreign entities, Russian hackers and Cambridge Analytica, to interfere with the election through

social media (Cobbe, 2020). Investigations after revealed illegal access to user information and

the creation of psychological profiles (Kamarck, 2018). As a result, these entities were able to

distribute personalized political messages to voters on social media (Kamarck, 2018). This poses

a major threat to democracy, as it is the manipulation of citizens’ opinion via misinformation,

undermining legitimate news and the people’s own judgment (Kamarck, 2018). Furthermore,

events such as these can sow distrust in the democratic process, compromising the system’s

functionality (Kamarck, 2018).

National

Vietnam’s Deputy Prime Minister Vu Duc Dam stated, “AI aims to make society safe and

civilized. Projects like smart cities, traveling assistance, security control and information security

are all to serve the country” (Vietnamnews.vn, 2019b, para 10). More specifically in Vietnam’s

case, these programs can bring advantages to the country’s cybersecurity (Nguyen, 2019). As the

nation is placed second on the cybersecurity firm Kaspersky’s list of most cyber-attacked

countries, online AI systems are certainly in need to mitigate the severe issue (Vietnamnews.vn,

2019b). By combating digital threats and further securing the cyberspace for the government and

its citizens, AI surveillance online would contribute to a more secure Vietnam (Nguyen, 2019).
While this online presence can benefit the country in certain aspects, concerns on implications

regarding citizens’ privacy and liberties, have been raised on the topic (Sherman, 2019). In 2019,

Freedom House, a non – profit organization advocating for democracy, has listed Vietnam’s

cyberspace as extremely restricted towards its people and political rights (Sherman, 2019).

Strategies such as excessive censorship of information flow or continuous tracking of dissidents

are within reach of AI technologies, and are likely to be employed in a repressive political

environment (Feldstein, 2019). Consequently, citizens’ privacy, liberties, and human rights

would be threatened (Feldstein, 2019).

Possible Solution

To reach the optimal solution to the issue, there must be a balance between utilizing the benefits

of AI surveillance systems and the protection of liberty, privacy, and democracy. Foremost, a

committee under global assemblies, such as the U.N, needs to be established. The council would

formulate international laws regarding AI surveillance usage and oversee countries and

organizations’ compliance with them. This is so that countries like Vietnam can gradually

formulate solutions and policies on the subject, thus adapting better with the rules. The first

stage’s set of regulations should focus on protecting basic human rights. Starting off the

integration of these laws in a basic manner will encourage compliance and lay the foundation for

intensive regulations. The second set would target AI surveillance abuse for political purposes

and bring in annual inspections. The third stage would aim at preserving citizens’ privacy

concerning AI surveillance. The committee’s regional offices would also need to be established,

tasked with strengthening the council’s presence and collecting input from citizens to better

grasp the state of each country’s AI usage and development.

Reflection

Before the report, I had brief knowledge of AI surveillance and its effects on democracy. While I

have heard about some negative instances of the technology, my understanding of its connection

to social, political issues was limited. However, as I go through the research phase, I read more

about past cases such as the Cambridge Analytica scandal, resulting in a more comprehensive

perspective of exactly how and where AI can be used to undermine democracy, such as on social

media through exaggerated political advertisement (Kamarck, 2018).

Source Evaluation

One of my sources was from Brookings. The article discussed AI's role in the 2016 U.S election

scandal using evidence from the Mueller investigation. There may be bias, as the Brookings is an

outlet with a left-center stance, and the discussed topic is political. However, the particular

article has still given objective valuable facts. Another source was published by the U.S National

Institute of Justice. The data presented were collected in 1997, which renders it outdated.

Nonetheless, it has provided a viewpoint on the topic, as well as data for comparison with more

recent tests of ShotSpotter.

 References

Atalla, G. (2020, January 31). How AI is establishing itself as the newest public safety

officer.

https://www.ey.com/en_gl/consulting/how-ai-is-establishing-itself-as-the-newest-public-
safety-officer.

Cobbe, J. (2020, October 15). Behind Cambridge Analytica lay a bigger threat to our

democracy: Facebook | Jennifer Cobbe. The Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/commentisfree/2020/oct/15/cambridge-
analytica-threat-democracy-facebook-big-tech.

Faggella, D. (2019, February 2). AI for Crime Prevention and Detection - 5 Current

Applications. Emerj.

https://emerj.com/ai-sector-overviews/ai-crime-prevention-5-current-applications/.

Feldstein, S. (2019, October 21). How artificial intelligence systems could threaten democracy.

https://theconversation.com/how-artificial-intelligence-systems-could-threaten-
democracy-109698.

Grant, K. (2020, September 22). ShotSpotter Sensors Send SDPD Officers to False Alarms More

Often Than Advertised. Voice of San Diego.

https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/public-safety/shotspotter-sensors-send-sdpd-
officers-to-false-alarms-more-often-than-advertised/.

Kamarck, E. (2018, November 29). Malevolent soft power, AI, and the threat to democracy.

Brookings.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/malevolent-soft-power-ai-and-the-threat-to-
democracy/.

Selby, N., Henderson, D., & Tayyabkhan, T. (2011). Shot Spotter Gunshot Location System

Efficacy Study. CSG Analysis.

 https://njdc.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Shot-Spotter-Gunshot-Location-System-
Efficacy-Study.pdf

Sherman, J. (2019, December 11). Vietnam's Internet Control: Following in China's Footsteps?

https://thediplomat.com/2019/12/vietnams-internet-control-following-in-chinas-footsteps/

Travis, J. (1998, June). Using Gunshot Detection Technology in High-Crime Areas. Cincinnati;

National Institute of Justice.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/fs000201.pdf

Vaas, L. (2018, February 14). New AI technology used by UK government to fight extremist

content. Naked Security.

https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2018/02/14/new-ai-technology-used-by-uk-
government-to-fight-extremist-content/.

Nguyen, X. (2019, August 15). Artificial Intelligence can help Vietnam tackle cyber attacks

better: expert. VietNamNet.

https://e.vnexpress.net/news/news/artificial-intelligence-can-help-vietnam-tackle-cyber-
attacks-better-expert-3968030.html

Vietnamnews.vn. (2019b, September 4). Việt Nam puts priority on artificial intelligence

development.

https://vietnamnews.vn/society/534918/viet-nam-puts-priority-on-artificial-intelligence-
development.html.

Winner, O. (2020, May). Is Artificial Intelligence a threat to democracy? ResearchGate.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
341781257_IS_ARTIFICIAL_INTELLIGENCE_A_THREAT_TO_DEMOCRACY