logo
We're creating AI that could surveil US citizens. And the government is in on it.

We're creating AI that could surveil US citizens. And the government is in on it.

USA Todaya day ago
Tech companies' lack of transparency and accountability in developing surveillance tools that governments can use is unacceptable.
President Donald Trump recently gathered CEOs for a summit about renewing the United States 'spiritually and financially.' At the top of the agenda was a closer look at 'American values' such as faith and freedom.
There is cause for alarm, however. Centuries after Americans declared independence from the British monarchy, our freedom and liberty are under threat − not only from foreign governments like China, but potentially our own.
America's surveillance state is spreading as the federal government collects personal data of hundreds of millions of Americans. In the age of artificial intelligence, with data collection accelerating at an unprecedented rate, our privacy has never been more vulnerable.
Who is the culprit? The data collectors range from the National Security Agency to Silicon Valley's cadre of data-hungry technology companies.
Add to that list a new organization: Palantir. While it is not a household name like Google or Netflix, it is soon to be a common domestic concern. The technology company's surveillance operation has exploded in recent months, raising the possibility of creating a full-fledged surveillance state.
Opinion: AI knows we shouldn't trust it for everything. I know because I asked it.
Since January, Palantir has received more than $113 million in federal funds, according to The New York Times, not including a $795 million Defense Department contract awarded in May.
While the federal government increased data sharing across agencies (with Palantir's help), the company continues to shop its technology to the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service.
AI technology could be repurposed for sinister uses
We are talking about technology that can be weaponized. While Palantir's current focus is to identify people in the United States illegally, tracking movements in real time, the company is also building the infrastructure that could be used for a massive surveillance state.
Former Palantir employees have warned about the potential for the company's AI tools to surveil American citizens with a disregard for personal privacy.
It is not so far-fetched. Palantir's AI software is used by the Israeli Defense Forces to strike targets in Gaza. It is used to assist the U.S. Defense Department in analyzing drone footage. And it has been used by the Los Angeles Police Department to forecast crime patterns.
This is called 'predictive policing.' If "Minority Report"was not a horror movie before, it is now.
Given the government's penchant for abusing power (see: COVID-19 censorship or the NSA spying scandal), does this not seem like an obvious move against our civil liberties?
For years, the NSA engaged in the mass surveillance of Americans' telephone records, as was exposed in 2013. Between 2001 and 2007, government wiretapping − executed without warrants − affected millions of U.S. citizens.
Now, the same agencies are tapping into the power of AI to expand government surveillance in once unimaginable ways.
Opinion: AI is changing our world. At what point will it change our reality?
Of course, the federal government can already access a wide range of our personal data, but it is often separated by agency. Washington, DC, can create exponentially more detailed profiles on all of us by sharing data with the help of Palantir's AI tools.
Even when surveilling noncitizens, the government's data collection inevitably tracks individual Americans based on their own interactions with these noncitizens. The government's data collection is based on information from police departments, financial institutions and other entities, like Palantir.
Big government and big tech partnership raises concerns
Even if the alliance between the government and Palantir works as intended, it is a potential threat to our civil liberties. Political dissidents could become targets. Not even those with limited public personas are safe from the state's detailed profiling machine.
These systems are not perfect, and neither are our leaders. What happens when AI systems fail? What happens when data collection goes haywire?
Palantir is hardly alone. OpenAI recently launched OpenAI for Government, which aims to equip federal, state and local leaders with advanced AI tools.
OpenAI claims to serve the 'public good' and 'bolster national security readiness,' but why would private citizens take that at face value? What does 'readiness' actually mean, in practice?
At the moment, many of our elected officials do not have answers to these questions, or they are just ignoring them. The same goes for OpenAI and Palantir, which are all too comfortable amassing ever-larger federal contracts and greater market share.
This lack of transparency or accountability is unacceptable. The only thing worse than the overreach of Big Government is Big Tech in bed with Big Government.
For those who care about freedom and liberty, now is the time to speak up, before it is too late.
Peyton Hornberger serves as communications director at The Alliance for Secure AI, a nonprofit organization that educates the public about the implications of advanced artificial intelligence.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

China calls for the creation of a global AI organization
China calls for the creation of a global AI organization

Engadget

time21 minutes ago

  • Engadget

China calls for the creation of a global AI organization

China wants to work with other countries and has laid out its plans for the global governance of artificial intelligence at the World Artificial Intelligence Conference (WAIC) in Shanghai. Li Qiang, the country's premier, warned about "technological monopolies" and said that AI could become "an exclusive game for a few countries and companies." As such, he proposed the creation of a "world AI cooperation organization" during the event. Li didn't specifically mention the United States when he talked about monopolies, but the US restricts AI chip exports to his country. NVIDIA had to develop chips that are only meant for China and conform to export rules so it wouldn't lose the Chinese market completely. Meanwhile, Chinese companies like Huawei are developing their own AI systems to make up for China's lack of access to more advanced AI chips from American firms. Li also made the statement a few days after the Trump administration revealed its AI Action Plan, which seeks to limit state regulation of AI companies and which aims to ensure that the US can beat China in the AI race. The Chinese premier said his country would "actively promote" the development of open source artificial intelligence and that China is "willing to provide more Chinese solutions to the international community" when it comes to AI. He also said that his country was eager to share AI technologies with developing countries in the global south. "Currently, overall global AI governance is still fragmented. Countries have great differences, particularly in terms of areas such as regulatory concepts [and] institutional rules," Li said. "We should strengthen coordination to form a global AI governance framework that has broad consensus as soon as possible."

Trump's Battle With Sanctuary Cities Dealt Major Blow
Trump's Battle With Sanctuary Cities Dealt Major Blow

Time​ Magazine

time21 minutes ago

  • Time​ Magazine

Trump's Battle With Sanctuary Cities Dealt Major Blow

Donald Trump has been dealt a significant setback in his ongoing battle over sanctuary cities, after a U.S. federal judge threw out the Administration's lawsuit which looked to block legislation in Illinois that limits local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration authorities. The Trump Administration argued that existing so-called 'sanctuary laws' in the state run counter to federal laws because they restrict local officials from sharing information with federal agents, stopping immigration officials from identifying people who 'may be subject to removal.' But those concerns were dismissed by Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins, who said finding sanctuary policies as 'impermissible regulation'would run counter to the Tenth Amendment. 'It would allow the federal government to commandeer States under the guise of intergovernmental immunity—the exact type of direct regulation of states barred by the Tenth Amendment,' said the judge. Jenkins, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, added: 'Because the Tenth Amendment protects defendants' sanctuary policies, those policies cannot be found to discriminate against or regulate the federal government.' Trump's war with sanctuary cities began on day one in office, with an Executive Order, titled 'Protecting the American People Against Invasion.' In the Executive Order, Trump argues that sanctuary jurisdictions 'seek to interfere with the lawful exercise of Federal law enforcement operations,' and calls on the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security to withhold federal funding from these cities. In April, Trump then signed an Executive Order asking Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) identify cities and states that don't sufficiently comply with Trump's federal immigration laws within a month. It is a continuation of Trump's first term, during which he also signed an Executive Order that looked to ensure sanctuary jurisdictions did not receive federal funding. At the time, though, multiple cities sued Trump, and the courts subsequently upheld the legality of such provisions. Read More: What Are Sanctuary Cities and Why Is Trump Targeting Them? Though Trump's battle might be lost in Illinois, his Administration continues to fight across the country. The day before the lawsuit in Illinois failed, Thursday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced new legal action against New York City for its sanctuary laws. Earlier this week, Louisville, Kentucky chose to acquiesce to the administration's immigration policies and cease its designation as a sanctuary city. As human rights organizations argue for the importance of sanctuary and some cities push back against what they view as federal government overreach, the question remains which cities are fighting back against the crackdown. Chicago's and Illinois leadership was very clear in its desire to challenge Trump's immigration policies. Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker celebrated the ruling on X, saying that, 'Illinois just beat the Trump Administration in federal court.' 'This ruling affirms what we have long known: that Chicago's Welcoming City Ordinance is lawful and supports public safety,' Chicago's Mayor Brandon Johnson said in a statement responding to the ruling, saying he was 'pleased' with the decision. 'Chicago cannot be compelled to cooperate with the Trump Administration's reckless and inhumane immigration agenda.' Chicago's status as a sanctuary city is just one iteration of the term—though the long-time Democratic city has been designated as such cities that limit information shared with federal immigration officers. Though there is no specific definition for a sanctuary city, the term refers to jurisdictions with a wide range of laws in place to limit their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. For Chicago in particular, their 'Welcoming City Ordinance,' argues that 'partnering with [Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE)] would go against our mission to make Chicago the most immigrant friendly city in the country and turn ours into a community of fear for immigrants.' The Trump Administration, though, also has ongoing suits against not just New York City but also Los Angeles, Denver, Rochester, and four cities in New Jersey. Tom Homan, President Trump's 'border czar,' also has laid out the administration's plans to continue combat sanctuary cities. Read More: Sanctuary Cities Are Not New 'Sanctuary cities are sanctuaries for criminals—hard stop,' Homan said. 'And President Trump made a commitment a couple weeks ago that we're going to prioritize sanctuary cities.' Simultaneously, certain cities designated 'sanctuary cities' have been less strong in their pushback against the federal Government. Louisville's Department of Corrections will now notify the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) at least 48 hours before an inmate with an immigration detainer is scheduled to be released from custody. The city's mayor, Craig Greenberg cited 'a terrifying increase in raids by ICE, including mass raids' on cities designated as sanctuary cities—claiming that by taking Louisville off the designated sanctuary city list, he prevents risking ' the safety of our broader immigrant community.' While New York City has remained the country's largest sanctuary city, its status as such and Mayor Eric Adams' desire to push back against the federal government has come into question. Even before the latest lawsuit issued by the Trump government, Adams' Administration had been embroiled in a battle with the New York City Council and court system to allow ICE agents into Rikers Island. Though he has said he will 'without a doubt' keep the city's sanctuary status. Adams has called for changes to the city's sanctuary laws after the Justice Department suit, saying that they 'go too far' in some places. 'I think we need to tweak the current laws to allow us to coordinate with the federal government when it comes down to removing those dangerous people from our streets," Adams told CBS New York. Back in February, Adams' cooperation with the federal government came under questioning after the Justice Department ordered federal prosecutors to drop corruption charges against the Mayor, stating that the case was interfering with the Democratic mayor's ability to follow through with the President's agenda to crack down on illegal immigration. The move pushed Gov. Kathy Hochul to consider removing Adams from office.

Trump deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, but the left will never admit it
Trump deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, but the left will never admit it

The Hill

time21 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Trump deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, but the left will never admit it

There is seemingly no worthwhile accomplishment or good deed authored by President Trump that the left will give him credit for achieving. That in and of itself speaks to the bottomless pits of partisanship and rhetorical poison some have eagerly embraced in the 'Age of Trump.' Unfortunately for the Democratic Party as a whole, such anger-fueled denial has a spillover effect that hurts the party's electoral chances. In speaking with former high-level Democrats, I am told that one of the main reasons Trump sailed to victory last November was because almost the entirety of the Democratic and far-left echo chamber mortgaged its energy and treasure seeking to demonize Trump rather than addressing the solvable real-world problems plaguing their constituents and fellow Americans. But at what cost is this coming to the Democratic Party or, more importantly, Americans looking to it for desperately needed help? Don't take my word for it. Billionaire businessman Mark Cuban recently laid into Democrats for having no policy or strategy beyond 'Trump sucks.' 'We picked the wrong pressure points,' said Cuban on 'Pod Save America.' 'It's just 'Trump sucks.' That's the underlying thought of everything the Democrats do. 'Trump sucks.' Trump says the sky is blue. 'Trump sucks.' That's not the way to win! It's just not! Because it's not about Trump — it's about the people of the United States of America — and what's good for them! And how do you get them to a place where they're in a better position, and it's less stressful for them.' Cuban — who a growing number of Democrats believe might make a credible presidential candidate in 2028 — is correct. When will it be peak 'theater of the absurd' for that echo chamber? When do working-class and disenfranchised Americans once again matter to it? When does national security once again matter to it? When does the performance art — aimed at literally just a few thousand entrenched elites living in bubbles — stop? If you only got yours information from that echo chamber, you would believe that Trump never accomplished anything; never built anything; was never successful; never made a correct decision; and never had a worthwhile instinct. Ever. And that was before he became president. Since Trump became president, inhabitants of that echo chamber have seemingly been in a constant state of rage. One of the issues that has most made them apoplectic is Trump being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Over the last three decades or longer, the Nobel Prize Committee has become for many the poster child for a 'woke,' in-the-tank for the left organization. Especially when it comes to the Peace Prize. On the surface, there is nothing wrong with that, if the committee members admit that they have morphed into a propaganda arm for the far left and its causes. But they won't. Instead, they — like the Pulitzer Prize Committee — proclaim their nonpartisanship while actively discriminating against conservatives or those they perceive to be on the right. In 2015, one of its members, Geir Lundestad — possibly suffering a pang of guilt — had the good grace to admit to a mistake. That mistake being the laughable and sycophantic decision to award President Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 for literally doing nothing. Obama had been in office for less than nine months when he got the award. Liberal New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof called it 'premature.' Obama himself felt so self-conscious about getting the award that he gave serious thought to skipping the ceremony. Years later, while giving that 2015 interview, Lundestad said, 'Even many of Obama's supporters believed that the prize was a mistake. In that sense, the committee didn't achieve what it had hoped for.' Well, the committee did achieve what it set out to do, which was to fawn over a far-left president by giving him an award he never earned. It just didn't anticipate the immense blowback and ridicule. Again, it seems that, for the left, Trump should never be given any credit for anything. No matter how patently obvious that he deserves it. Even about keeping the peace and saving lives. For years prior to him becoming president — when many powerful Democrats courted his friendship and money — Trump spoke out against the war in Iraq and the needless waste of lives, something he continued to do as president. Just as he has done about the war in Ukraine. Did those calls against war and to save hundreds of thousands of lives ever register with the Nobel Committee? What about in 2020 when Trump created the Abraham Accords, an agreement that normalized relations between Israel and Arab countries? Again, in 2009, the committee awarded Obama the award for 'his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.' Except, that is not what he did — and yet, he still got the award. Trump established the Abraham Accords — and was ignored by the committee. In 1998, the committee awarded the Peace Prize to John Hume and David Trimble for 'their efforts to find a peaceful solution to the conflict in Northern Ireland.' Okay, let's compare. Just recently, Trump was instrumental in preventing all-out war between India and Pakistan. Two nuclear-armed nations. Is that more valuable to the world than finding a 'peaceful solution to the conflict in Northern Ireland?' Apparently not to the committee. In 2019, the committee awarded the Peace Prize to Abiy Ahmed 'for his efforts to achieve peace and international cooperation, and in particular for his decisive initiative to resolve the border conflict with neighboring Eritrea.' Again, earlier this year, Trump brokered a peace agreement between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda. While much of the mainstream media sought to bury the accomplishment, surely the committee knew of it. Mark Cuban was correct to call out the Democrats for only having one failed campaign policy. Trump is correct to call out the Nobel Prize Committee for its obvious and shameful bias. Brokering peace and saving lives should always be recognized — no matter if you are a Democrat or a Republican.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store