Critics also raise concerns about the AI systems themselves, which can reinforce existing biases if trained on discriminatory data
The use of algorithmic surveillance during the Paris Olympics has sparked concerns from human rights groups, despite law enforcement officials praising its effectiveness. While authorities hail the technology as a success, activists warn about the potential for misuse at future events.
Last week, police prefect Laurent Nuñez, a former interior minister and ally of French President Emmanuel Macron, informed the French parliament’s legal committee that algorithmic surveillance had “proved its usefulness” during the 2024 Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games. The surveillance technology, powered by artificial intelligence (AI), is designed to detect abnormal events like someone falling or crowd movements indicating panic. Crucially, it does not involve facial recognition.
Nuñez described the trial results as promising and expressed hope that AI surveillance could be extended to other sporting and cultural events in France. Under a law passed in 2023, AI surveillance is permitted for use in public spaces until March 31, 2025, offering a window for further application.
According to law enforcement, the technology helped ensure public safety during the Games, and they are exploring options for post-Olympic use. However, this has raised alarms among privacy advocates and human rights groups who fear the technology could be misused or extended without proper safeguards.
Human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, have voiced concerns about the impact of surveillance on individual freedoms. Katia Roux, a researcher at Amnesty International, pointed out that such surveillance can lead to self-censorship and limit people’s willingness to exercise their rights in public spaces.
“When people know they are being watched, they tend to change their behaviour, censor themselves, and perhaps refrain from exercising certain rights,” Roux said. She emphasized that under international law, any form of public surveillance must be necessary, proportionate, and justified. “The onus is on the authorities to show that there is no less intrusive way of ensuring security. This has not been demonstrated,” she added.
Critics also raise concerns about the AI systems themselves, which can reinforce existing biases if trained on discriminatory data. Roux noted that in other countries, similar surveillance technologies have disproportionately targeted marginalized groups, a trend that could carry over to France if the system is not carefully monitored.
This isn’t the first time large-scale sporting events have tested surveillance technologies. The 2012 London Olympics saw widespread deployment of CCTV cameras, while the 2018 FIFA World Cup in Russia used facial recognition technology, which remains in use today.
As the debate around AI surveillance continues, the French government is expected to present a report to parliament on its use by the end of this year. A public debate will follow to decide whether the technology should continue beyond its current March 2025 deadline.
While law enforcement touts the benefits of AI surveillance in maintaining public safety, human rights advocates remain cautious, urging a balance between security measures and the protection of individual freedoms.
