Consequences of lax privacy, security of AI in policing looms large

The rapid integration of AI into law enforcement practices has raised pressing concerns regarding privacy, civil rights, and security. While AI enhances policing efficiency and investigative capabilities, it also introduces profound risks, including the erosion of personal privacy, potential civil liberties violations, and cybersecurity vulnerabilities.

The challenge for policymakers lies in balancing AI’s capabilities with the fundamental rights of individuals, ensuring accountability and mitigating the potential for misuse. As AI rapidly develops, policy aimed at promoting responsible use and education for law enforcement agencies will necessarily have to evolve, as is happening now as federal, state, and local law enforcement are incorporating AI into their work and reviewing state and federal actions that impact its adoption.

“Law enforcement agencies across the country are increasingly encountering and adopting technology equipped with AI. While officers investigate crimes that use AI, they also recognize that incorporating AI can increase efficiency and expand capabilities. AI governance is still in its infancy and law enforcement as well as state and federal policymakers are tasked with balancing the benefits of using AI with constitutional concerns,” the National Conference of State Legislatures said in a new report.

Privacy concerns surrounding AI-driven policing primarily stem from the increased surveillance capabilities that technologies like facial recognition, predictive policing, and automated data analysis afford law enforcement agencies. AI-powered surveillance cameras and computer vision systems enable continuous monitoring of public spaces, leading to fears of an omnipresent surveillance state.

These systems collect vast amounts of biometric and behavioral data, often without the explicit consent or knowledge of individuals. The indiscriminate collection and storage of such data raises alarms about the potential for mass surveillance and the chilling effect it can have on free speech and association.

Facial recognition technology, one of the most controversial AI applications in policing, poses significant threats to privacy and civil liberties. Improper use of the technology has resulted in individuals being misidentified, particularly those from marginalized communities, leading to wrongful arrests and unwarranted police scrutiny.

Several documented cases of wrongful arrests resulting from lax police work underscore the dangers of relying solely on facial recognition technology. Moreover, law enforcement agencies often acquire facial recognition databases from private companies without adequate transparency, leading to concerns about the misuse of personal data and the lack of oversight.

Civil rights organizations have highlighted the racial and gender biases embedded in AI-driven law enforcement tools. Studies have shown that facial recognition algorithms disproportionately misidentify people of color, increasing the likelihood of false accusations and exacerbating existing racial disparities in the criminal justice system.

Predictive policing algorithms, which analyze crime data to anticipate criminal activity, have also been criticized for reinforcing biased policing patterns. If historical data used to train AI systems reflect systemic discrimination, the resulting predictions risk perpetuating unjust practices rather than addressing root causes of crime.

Another major concern is the use of AI-driven risk assessment tools in the judicial process. These algorithms, designed to evaluate an individual’s likelihood of reoffending, are often opaque and unchallengeable, raising due process issues. The lack of transparency in how AI models reach their conclusions makes it difficult for defendants to contest unfavorable assessments. Without proper checks and balances, AI-driven decision-making in law enforcement can lead to unjust outcomes that disproportionately impact marginalized communities.

Beyond privacy and civil rights concerns, the security risks associated with AI in policing cannot be ignored. Law enforcement agencies store massive amounts of sensitive data, including biometric information, surveillance footage, and criminal records. If AI-driven systems are not adequately protected, they become prime targets for cyberattacks. Unauthorized access to facial recognition databases or predictive policing models could enable malicious actors to manipulate investigations, compromise witness protection programs, or even falsify evidence.

The use of drones and autonomous surveillance technologies further complicates the security landscape. Many police departments procure drones and AI-powered security tools from foreign manufacturers, raising concerns about potential espionage and data breaches. The cybersecurity risks posed by these technologies have prompted some states to impose restrictions on law enforcement’s acquisition of AI-driven equipment from certain manufacturers. However, enforcement of such restrictions remains inconsistent and sketchy, leaving critical vulnerabilities unaddressed.

In response to these pressing concerns, in 2024, legislators in at least 30 states introduced over 150 bills addressing government use of AI. These legislative efforts focused on tracking AI use across state agencies, conducting impact assessments, establishing AI usage guidelines, setting procurement standards, and creating government oversight bodies. Some bills apply broadly to state agencies, potentially affecting AI-powered technologies used by law enforcement at both state and local levels. As state legislatures continue to develop AI regulations, many are also introducing laws specifically targeting law enforcement’s use of AI-driven technologies.

Over the past five years, at least 18 states have considered legislation regulating law enforcement’s use of facial recognition technology (FRT). In 2020, Washington became one of the first states to enact comprehensive laws governing AI use by state agencies and law enforcement. Washington’s 2020 S -6280 and Colorado’s 2022 S-113 require government entities to implement accountability reports, data management and security protocols, training procedures, and testing for the use of facial recognition.

These laws also mandate obtaining a warrant or court order before using FRT for ongoing surveillance, real-time identification, or tracking. Similarly, Utah prohibits government entities from utilizing facial recognition on image databases, except for law enforcement agencies, which must adhere to strict requests, notice, data protection, and disclosure requirements.

Several states have opted to restrict or temporarily ban law enforcement’s use of facial recognition. In 2019, California enacted a three-year moratorium on facial recognition in body cameras. Oregon prohibits the use of body-worn facial recognition software, while New Hampshire restricts its use without proper authorization. Illinois has banned law enforcement from using drones equipped with facial recognition, and Vermont’s 2021 law prohibits its use except in cases related to child sexual exploitation. That same year, Maine passed legislation barring the search of facial surveillance systems, with exceptions for serious crimes.

Many states have emphasized that facial recognition alone cannot serve as the sole basis for law enforcement actions. Alabama now prohibits state and local agencies from using FRT as the primary factor in making an arrest or establishing probable cause. In Maryland, law enforcement can use FRT for identification only when supported by additional, independently obtained evidence.

Some states have taken a research-based approach by forming study groups to assess facial recognition policies. In 2022, Kentucky’s legislature established a working group to develop a model policy for law enforcement. That same year, Colorado created the Facial Recognition Task Force to evaluate its use by state and local government agencies.

Despite these legislative efforts, the lack of comprehensive federal regulation addressing AI governance in law enforcement creates further confusion and legal uncertainties. The federal government took steps to address AI-related privacy and security issues under the Biden administration, but the new Trump administration has rescinded Biden-era executive orders with orders that in effect have deemphasized AI’s impact on privacy, civil liberties, and discriminatory practices.

Although reports from agencies like the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security had emphasized the need for robust oversight and safeguards against algorithmic bias, the change in administration has left the trajectory of AI regulation in law enforcement uncertain.

As AI technology continues to advance, the challenge lies in ensuring that its adoption in policing does not come at the expense of fundamental rights. Transparency, accountability, and public oversight are critical to preventing the misuse of AI-driven surveillance and law enforcement tools. Stronger regulations, independent audits, and community engagement can help mitigate privacy risks and protect civil liberties while allowing law enforcement to leverage AI responsibly.

However, if left unchecked and without strong guardrails, AI could become a tool for overreach, disproportionately impacting vulnerable populations and eroding the public’s trust in law enforcement institutions at the local, state and federal levels. Balancing innovation with constitutional safeguards must be the priority as AI continues to shape the future of policing.

Article Topics

biometrics  |  criminal ID  |  facial recognition  |  law enforcement  |  responsible biometrics  |  United States