There has been a great deal of discussion and controversy over the last few years about artificial intelligence and the potential impacts on the American workforce. While there are the obvious professions that are already feeling the hit of AI replacement in the fields of writing, graphic design, and tech, the impact that it will have on law enforcement is not one that’s often talked about or even considered.
We are already witnessing some effects in this regard. With the explosion of school zone cameras, we seldom see those flashing blue lights in school zones anymore, warning drivers of pedestrian children in the area. A common argument is that this technology then frees up officers for more important tasks but a logical conclusion might be that this is only the beginning and that surveillance will play a key role in streamlining law enforcement agencies.
Like most fields, the roles to be hardest hit will likely be entry level ones. As more and more surveillance technology is used for traffic enforcement, fewer officers will be needed. The beat cop and officer on patrol could become a thing of the past. Larry Ellison of Oracle famously speculated that “people will be on their best behavior” because of ubiquitous cameras not because of a strong police presence. Though it is unlikely that mass surveillance means that crime will cease to exist, officer roles whose main purpose is to observe and look for trouble would not be needed in a world policed by surveillance, certainly not in current numbers.
Even the names of these surveillance products suggest that they are designed to replace specific law enforcement roles. Case in point are “first responder” drone programs. Flock Safety, which has become the face of the vast surveillance state, claims a current success rate of 1 in 5 calls being resolved without a dispatch. They claim that their product enables the user to “save resources” with the implication that those “resources” are human beings. The current resolution rate of 20% without human intervention would lead to the logical conclusion that 20% fewer human resources are needed. Considering that many drone programs include 1-3 drones, an assumption that expanding those programs will lead to fewer jobs does not seem far-fetched. Even assuming that new roles such as drone operators are created, would there be as many of those positions needed as boots on the ground?
Autonomous robots are now performing human tasks in public security situations. Used in both public safety and private security, these robots are already in use on campuses, parking lots, and public parks. They not only have intrusive surveillance capabilities unmatched by a human beings such as facial recognition and thermal imaging, they also operate at a third of the cost without ever calling in sick.
In 2020, during COVID-19 lockdowns the Boston Dynamics robot dog, Spot, was used to enforce social distancing policies and monitor residents in quarantine hotels to ensure that they were not opening their doors or leaving their rooms. In California robots were enforcing mandatory masking and performing temperature screenings.
Six years later, the arrival of advanced AI features have the technology poised to progress from information gathering to action. In an event described as a “nationwide first” a drone was used to disarm a suspect. Military use of armed robots is setting a precedent for such use domestically. While police departments champion such use as a method to provide officer safety, it stands to reason that widespread use will ultimately result in fewer officers.
Why should cities employ staffs of police for these functions when a handful of observers at a real-time crime center would suffice? Thinking long-range, why should a city fund police in a local real-time crime center when a company could offer remote real-time crime center functionality at a fraction of the price?
Even investigative work by detectives is now being performed by AI. Why is it necessary to have an experienced detective with a high annual salary and benefits when all that is really needed is someone to input information into a software?
This leads to the question—why do so many law enforcement officers champion these technologies? Why is massive public outcry against surveillance not matched by those who stand to be replaced by it and then, ultimately, subjected to it? With labor unions currently fighting to prevent AI job displacement across so many industries and fields, why are police unions not vigorously standing against this?
The push against the surveillance state has become passionate and prominent over the last few months. Both pro-police and anti-police individuals and groups are making it clear that they do not want to live in the world of Big Brother. Here’s to hoping that a sense of self-preservation will lead law enforcement and first responders to join in the fight against mass surveillance.
Elizabeth Melton
Elizabeth Melton is a founding member of Banish Big Brother, focusing on education and strategy against government surveillance—a passion ignited after attending a shocking local smart city meeting. She is also the founder of The Gray Matter Project, producing documentaries on critical issues that deserve greater attention.