- Draconian measures are imposed on the basis of public security
- It is estimated that up to 60,000 surveillance cameras will be installed in Hong Kong
- The implementation of AI in these systems is considered natural
- Considering the actual cases and crimes in which they are used, it is clear that the deployment of these technologies is more related to mass surveillance than for security reasons.
Day after day, anyone can see the fast advance of digital technology imposed on the population under the dubious foundation of public safety.
Governments around the world have adopted innovations such as biometrics and surveillance cameras, proclaiming their deployment as vital tools for maintaining order and ensuring security.
Since these tools predominantly serve as mechanisms of control and oppression, rather than genuine protective safeguards for the population. This cover-up where they are presented as "security" enhances the evil nature of their deployment.
Approximately 60,000 surveillance cameras
Hong Kong, a city long celebrated for its vitality and resilience, is also one of the most significant examples of digital surveillance and more recently with its ambitious plan to expand its public surveillance network to an unprecedented 60,000 CCTV cameras by 2028.
This expansion is one of the biggest surveillance improvements in the city since the implementation of the National Security Law, of course in the year when the curtain fell on humanity: 2020.
It was a legislative measure introduced under the pretext of safeguarding national stability but criticized for its draconian measures against dissidents and activists.
The integration of artificial intelligence into this extensive network is at the core of this entire deployment. These AI systems are designed for functions such as license plate reading, crowd analysis, and suspect tracking.
Although apparently harmless in theory, in practice, these capabilities effectively make everyone a potential suspect.
Surveillance is natural in technology
No individual is exempt from scrutiny; perpetual monitoring erodes personal privacy and creates a life-long prison environment where innocent citizens are subjected to blackmail, harassment and even inadvertent punishment based on vague interpretations of their behavior.
According to Chris Tang, a security chief, using AI to track "suspects" is a "natural" extension of existing surveillance technologies. In fact, the current surveillance infrastructure already encompasses crowd monitoring and license plate reading.
This makes it clear that these digital technologies have as their natural purpose biometric surveillance and identification. Therefore believing that expanding these capabilities amounts to benign development ignores the underlying intent.
Surveillance, in this context, is not a neutral instrument for security; it is a deliberate means of social control aimed at maintaining authoritarianism over the population.
Moreover, imposing surveillance systems on the basis that it is "a natural extension" of existing technologies are actually statements that serve to normalize the ubiquitous nature of surveillance, making it seem like an inevitable technological progression.
Everyone's privacy destroyed to solve a few cases
These statements over security, however, are disproved by reality: the deployment of these systems has, in practice, given poor uses and results, but exposed as shocking, considering the number of people affected massively by digital scrutiny and surveillance.
Despite the comprehensive nature of these systems, only 400 cases have been resolved. This inefficiency clearly underscores that the real purpose of these massive monitoring activities is not to prevent crime or improve security.
Instead, they serve as mechanisms of oppression, blackmail and manipulation of privacy rights, making citizens subject to relentless surveillance.
The difference between the intended purpose of such systems and their actual use leaves reality in plain sight: digitalization and surveillance are intrinsically tools of control.
Their display generates fear, stifles dissent and consolidates authority without having to manifest violently.
The argument that these measures are necessary for security is hollow when promised benefits - such as case resolution - are minimal compared to widespread intrusion into everyday life and personal privacy.
The illusion of security: the expansion of surveillance and the reality of opression
