blog

AI as a Force Multiplier in Policing and Surveillance

Artificial intelligence has entered nearly every domain of modern society, but nowhere are its effects more consequential than in policing and public surveillance. The combination of AI analytics, camera networks, automated license plate readers, facial recognition systems, and cross-agency data sharing has created new capabilities that dramatically expand law enforcement's reach and efficiency. These systems can process massive amounts of information instantly, detect patterns that humans would never see, and trigger real-time actions with unprecedented speed. That makes AI a force multiplier, an amplifier of governmental authority that increases the ability to monitor, identify, track, and intervene in the daily lives of citizens.

Understanding how this works, what the risks are, and how society can minimize those risks is essential for any community that values civil liberties, transparency, and democratic governance. Technology has already moved beyond pilot programs and proof-of-concept deployments. AI-enhanced surveillance is now operating, often beneath the surface of public awareness, creating new realities for how law enforcement agencies function and how citizens navigate public space. This underscores the need for public debate and oversight, empowering citizens to take an active role in shaping the future of AI surveillance.

A force multiplier enhances the effectiveness of existing systems without increasing the workforce. In military contexts, this might mean a technology that allows ten soldiers to accomplish what once required a hundred. In policing, AI creates similar amplification effects by automating tasks that previously demanded significant human resources and by enabling capabilities that could not exist without computational power.

Consider real-time surveillance across entire cities using networked cameras. These systems can track individuals as they move from block to block, maintaining continuous visual records without requiring officers to follow suspects or manually review footage. The cameras feed into centralized systems that can flag behaviors deemed suspicious, such as loitering in certain areas or movement patterns that deviate from the system's normal patterns.

Predictive analytics takes this further by attempting to identify criminal activity before it occurs. These systems analyze historical crime data, demographic information, and other variables to produce probability scores for neighborhoods or even individuals. The promise is that police can allocate resources more efficiently by focusing on areas where crime is most likely to occur. The reality is more complicated, particularly when these algorithms encode and perpetuate existing patterns of discriminatory policing.

Automated license plate readers have become ubiquitous on highways, city streets, and parking structures. These cameras photograph every passing vehicle, recording not only the plate number but also the time, location, and, often, the make and model of the car. This information flows into databases that can track individual vehicles across vast geographic areas, creating detailed records of where people go, when they go there, and how often they return.

Facial recognition technology represents the most personal form of AI surveillance. Modern systems can match a face captured by a camera against databases containing millions of images in a matter of seconds. These matches can occur in airports, at protests, in shopping districts, or anywhere else cameras are deployed. Technology has become sophisticated enough to work with partial views, low-quality images, and subjects who are unaware they are being scanned.

Behind all these individual technologies lies the infrastructure for data fusion. Information from traffic cameras, license plate readers, social media, criminal databases, and private sector sources can be combined and cross-referenced to create comprehensive profiles of individuals and their activities. What once required laborious manual investigation can now be automated and run continuously.

When AI performs these tasks without pause or human direction, its amplification effect becomes profound. What once required hundreds of officers now occurs continuously in the background, often without public awareness or oversight. This creates enormous advantages for legitimate public safety efforts, from locating missing children to tracking down suspects in violent crimes. However, it also opens the door to overreach, discrimination, and unconstitutional surveillance on a scale that would have been impossible in previous generations. This potential for misuse should be a cause for concern and a call to vigilance for all stakeholders.

The real world already provides several clear illustrations of how AI-enhanced policing operates and what consequences it produces. These are not hypothetical scenarios but documented deployments that have generated significant public concern and, in some cases, legal challenges.

Extensive networks of automated license plate readers have been installed in communities across the country, many deployed by private vendors such as Flock Safety. These systems scan millions of vehicles daily, creating detailed logs of citizens' movements that can be accessed by local police and, through data-sharing agreements, by federal agencies. The information typically remains in databases for months or years, allowing law enforcement to reconstruct historical patterns of movement, even for individuals never suspected of any crime. Some municipalities have installed these readers without public debate or notification, only to face backlash when residents discover that their daily commutes and weekend trips are systematically recorded.

Facial recognition systems have been deployed in airports, sports arenas, downtown business districts, and even school campuses. The technology works by comparing faces captured on camera against databases of known individuals, including driver's license photos, arrest records, and images scraped from social media. In some jurisdictions, this happens without public notice or consent. Several high-profile wrongful arrests have resulted from misidentification by these systems, with Black men being disproportionately affected due to higher error rates for darker-skinned faces. These cases have prompted some cities to ban facial recognition entirely, while others continue to expand their use.

Predictive policing algorithms aim to use data science to anticipate crime. These systems analyze historical crime reports, arrest records, calls for service, and other data to forecast which neighborhoods or individuals are likely to be involved in criminal activity. Police departments present this as a neutral, objective approach that removes human bias from decision-making. However, these models have been widely criticized for reinforcing existing biases embedded in policing patterns. Suppose a neighborhood has been heavily policed in the past. In that case, it will generate more arrests and calls for service, which the algorithm then interprets as evidence of higher crime rates, leading to even more policing in a self-reinforcing cycle. This potential for discrimination in predictive policing should be a cause for concern and a call to action for all stakeholders.

Border enforcement agencies have enthusiastically embraced AI surveillance. Machine learning models’ flag what officials describe as suspicious travel behavior based on license plate scans and route analytics. These systems track vehicles approaching border regions and assign risk scores based on factors such as how often a car crosses the border, what routes it takes, and whether its movements align with employment or shopping patterns deemed normal. When vehicles receive high-risk scores, they may be subject to enhanced scrutiny or traffic stops initiated through federal and local data-sharing pipelines. Civil liberties organizations have documented cases where people living near borders face regular stops and questioning simply because their daily routines trigger algorithmic suspicion.

These examples illustrate how quickly AI can knit together physical monitoring and digital surveillance into a unified operational capability. Technology creates comprehensive tracking systems that were unimaginable two decades ago. It does so in ways that can be difficult to detect and even more difficult to regulate after the fact. Once these systems are operational and integrated into law enforcement workflows, removing them becomes politically and logistically complicated, even when evidence of harm accumulates.

What makes AI surveillance particularly challenging is that it operates at scales and speeds that overwhelm traditional oversight mechanisms. A police officer conducting a stop can be observed, questioned, and held accountable through existing procedures. An AI system scanning thousands of faces per hour or tracking millions of license plates per day operates beyond the practical reach of such mechanisms. The sheer volume of surveillance makes meaningful oversight nearly impossible without equally sophisticated monitoring systems.

The deployment of these technologies often happens without public input or legislative approval. Private vendors market AI surveillance systems directly to police departments and municipal governments, sometimes offering free trial periods or special financing arrangements that circumvent normal procurement processes. By the time residents learn that their city has deployed facial recognition or predictive policing algorithms, the systems are already operational, and contracts are signed.

The consolidation of data from multiple sources compounds these concerns. Information that might seem innocuous in isolation becomes revealing when combined with other data streams. License plate reads showing someone visited a medical clinic, mosque, or political rally gain entirely different significance when cross-referenced with social media activity, consumer purchases, or employment records. AI systems excel at finding these connections, creating detailed portraits of individuals' lives from fragments of data collected across multiple contexts.

The implications extend beyond individual privacy to fundamental questions about the relationship between citizens and their government. Pervasive surveillance changes how people behave in public spaces. When individuals know or suspect they are being constantly monitored, they modify their actions, avoid specific locations, and self-censor their speech and associations. This chilling effect operates even when no direct harm occurs, gradually reshaping the texture of civic life in ways that are difficult to measure but real.

Democratic societies have long recognized that some level of anonymity and privacy in public space is essential for political freedom, religious expression, and simple human dignity. AI surveillance threatens these values not through dramatic confrontations but through gradual normalization. Each new camera system, each expanded database, each algorithmic risk score becomes part of the infrastructure of daily life until comprehensive monitoring seems natural and inevitable rather than extraordinary and troubling.

The challenge for communities, policymakers, and citizens is to grapple with these technologies before they become so deeply embedded that meaningful choice about their use becomes impossible. This requires understanding not just what AI can do but what it should do, and who gets to make those decisions. The force-multiplier effect of AI means that mistakes, biases, and abuses of authority are not just amplified but automated, operating at machine speed and at human cost.

🌐 BearNetAI: https://www.bearnetai.com/

💼 LinkedIn Group: https://www.linkedin.com/groups/14418309/

🦋 BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/bearnetai.bsky.social

📧 Email: marty@bearnetai.com

👥 Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/BearNetAI/

🔹 Signal: bearnetai.28

Support BearNetAI
BearNetAI exists to make AI understandable and accessible. Aside from occasional book sales, I receive no other income from this work. I’ve chosen to keep BearNetAI ad-free so we can stay independent and focused on providing thoughtful, unbiased content.

Your support helps cover website costs, content creation, and outreach. If you can’t donate right now, that’s okay. Sharing this post with your network is just as helpful.

Thank you for being part of the BearNetAI community.

☕ buymeacoffee.com/bearnetai

Books by the Author:

Categories: AI Governance, AI Ethics, Surveillance and Society, Law Enforcement Technology, Civil Liberties and Privacy

Glossary of AI Terms Used in this Post

Algorithmic Bias: Systematic errors in an AI model that lead to unfair outcomes due to biased training data or design.

Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR): A camera system that captures license plate numbers and associated metadata such as time, date, and location.

Data Fusion: The process of integrating data from multiple sources to produce more comprehensive intelligence.

Facial Recognition: Technology that identifies or verifies individuals by analyzing patterns in facial imagery.

Machine Learning: A category of AI that enables systems to learn patterns from data and make predictions or decisions without explicit programming.

Pattern-of-Life Analysis: The use of AI to identify behavioral patterns in a person’s movements or activities based on collected data.

Predictive Policing: The use of AI models to forecast criminal activity or identify individuals or areas at increased risk.

Surveillance Capitalism: The business practice of collecting, analyzing, and monetizing large amounts of user data, often used by private surveillance vendors.

Transparency Mandate: A regulatory requirement that organizations disclose how AI systems operate, what data they use, and how decisions are made.

Warrant Requirement: A legal standard requiring law enforcement to obtain judicial approval before accessing certain types of AI-processed data.

This post is also available as a podcast: