Human rights in the age of

HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE AGE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
to process data are insufficiently transparent or accountable such that it’s unclear in human terms how 
decisions are reached, the systems violate key elements of the right to data protection.
Looking forward: The risks due to ability of AI to track and analyze our digital lives are compounded 
because of the sheer amount of data we produce today as we use the internet. With the increased use of 
Internet of Things (IoT) devices and the attempts to shift toward “smart cities,” people will soon be creating 
a trail of data for nearly every aspect of their lives. Although the individual pieces of this data may seem 
innocuous, when aggregated they reveal minute details about our lives. AI will be used to process and 
analyze all this data for everything from micro-targeted advertising, to optimizing public transportation, 
to government surveillance of citizens. In such a world, not only are there huge risks to privacy, but the 
situation raises the question of whether data protection will even be possible.
Government surveillance has expanded with the growth of the internet and the development of new 
technologies, and AI is enabling more invasive surveillance tools than ever. For example, although no fully 
centralized government facial recognition system is yet known to exist, China’s work toward installing more 
CCTV cameras in public places and centralizing its facial recognition systems shows that this could soon 
change. In the U.S., half of all adults are already in law enforcement facial recognition databases.
73
Their use 
threatens to end anonymity, and the fear of being watched can stop people from exercising other rights, such 
as the freedom of association. The negative impact of AI-powered surveillance would be felt most acutely by 
the marginalized populations who are disproportionately targeted by security forces.
74
Additionally, because 
24/7 monitoring of the general population is neither necessary nor proportionate to the goal of public safety 
or crime prevention,
75
it would almost certainly violate the fundamental right to privacy.