Argentine President Javier Milley has announced an ambitious plan to use artificial intelligence to predict, detect and investigate crime. While the measure is intended to increase security, it raises serious concerns about widespread surveillance and policing.
Last week, Argentina’s Ministry of Security unveiling Artificial Intelligence Applied to Security Services (UIAAS) aims to use “machine learning algorithms to analyze historical crime data to predict future crimes and help prevent them.” UIAAS Tools deal with This includes facial recognition software, social media monitoring, drone surveillance and real-time security video analysis to identify political threats and criminal groups.
“Advances in technology, especially in artificial intelligence, represent one of the most relevant sociotechnical changes to the general public,” explain Security Minister Patricia Bullrich cited the United States, China, India and Israel as examples of countries using artificial intelligence in security operations.
Bullrich emphasized that UIAAS will “significantly increase the efficiency of different areas of the ministry and the federal police and security forces, allowing for faster and more accurate responses to threats and emergencies.”
new artificial intelligence alliance It will be made up of police officers and agents from various security forces and will be responsible for overseeing the “prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of crime”. Key capabilities include identifying cyber threats, handling bomb disposal with robots, increasing communication speeds between security teams and managing large amounts of data. In addition, UIAAS will monitor Social media networks instantly detect potential threats, suspicious financial transactions and other indicators of illegal activity.
Although Meyer is a liberal attitude Amid several issues, including privatization and deregulation, there are growing concerns that Argentina’s predictive policing programs could become a tool of oppression, leading to widespread surveillance of citizens and threats to their freedoms.
“Mass surveillance affects free speech because it encourages people to self-censor or avoid sharing their thoughts or criticisms,” explain Amnesty International Executive Director Mariela Belski introduced the plan.
“The government agencies created to patrol social networks, apps and websites contradict several articles of the country’s constitution,” said Martín Becerra, professor and researcher in media and information technologies. nation. “The Mire (and Burridge) government is illiberal. It has enacted new regulations that have strengthened the repressive role of the state, increased the opacity of public funding, and eliminated norms designed to protect the most vulnerable. “
While predictive policing promises to target future risks and reduce crime rates, it “has become yet another excuse for authorities to crack down on those who treat them the wrong way”. explain reasonJD Tusil. The United States has a similar plan face scrutiny Misuse of data to target innocent people.
"The accuracy of a predictive policing program depends on the accuracy of the information provided," reasonRonald Bailey notes. “We should always remember that any new technology that helps police better protect citizens can also be used to better oppress them.”
Argentina’s own history with surveillance technology exacerbates these concerns. In 2019, Buenos Aires implemented a facial recognition surveillance system called the Fugitive Facial Recognition System (SNRP), which identifies fugitives by matching video images with a national database. But the system resulted in some false arrest and illegal collection of data Hundreds of journalists, academics and human rights activists. Legal challenge leads to plans suspended in 2022 after court hearing rule It is unconstitutional due to inadequate controls and oversight.
Judge Andres Gallardo said: “The system can only capture around 40,000 fugitives in Argentina” explain About the SNRP survey. “But the number of individuals the city requested was close to 10 million. The government could never explain why it was requesting so much data that did not belong to fugitives.”
