Algorithmic Authority: How Have Governments Utilised AI?

By Genta Firth

Source:  Media from Biometric Update

In an age when a computer can read and interpret a book in less than a second, we must ask ourselves about the role of AI in society. One pressing concern is how governments are utilising AI and what this means for the safety and freedom of citizens. George Orwell’s 1984 depicts a totalitarian government with unlimited power over its citizens, even controlling their thoughts and opinions through surveillance carried out by human agents. But what if we replaced Orwell’s human agents with AI? How would this shift the balance of power?

The surveillance state of 1984 relied on human agents to pore over its citizen's every move. Likewise, surveillance states spend vast sums of money and time managing massive amounts of data, limiting the amount of information an institution can feasibly process. Yuval Noah Harari suggests in his newest book, Nexus, that the introduction of AI will put an end to such limitations. Imagine you are in a country that enforces strict littering laws using AI, and a gum wrapper falls from your pocket. A human agent watching through CCTV might miss the offence while sipping their coffee or could even let it go, understanding it as an honest mistake. An AI, on the other hand, never needs a coffee break and never overlooks an infraction. Perhaps, this could be fairer as laws could be applied without the biases a human agent is subject to. Still, such uncompromising scrutiny may seriously threaten our personal liberties. The reality is that we are all imperfect. Suspicious behaviour might suggest a security risk or be a benign quirk. Should we not be free to do something strange occasionally, provided we are not hurting others? AI, when used as a tool for governance, could create a system where every decision hinges on an algorithm’s interpretation of an individual’s behaviour and loyalty. Unlike Orwell’s world, where human fallibility leaves room for error and mercy, an AI-powered system could detect dissatisfaction or rebellion before an individual is even aware of their feelings.

The real-world implications of this are evident. The NSA already utilises AI-powered tools to enhance its surveillance capabilities, allowing it to process and analyse vast amounts of data from emails, phone calls, and online activity. One such tool, Skynet, is an AI system designed to detect potential threats by analysing patterns in metadata and inferring travel histories and social networks. While these systems have proven effective in counterterrorism efforts, they also raise significant concerns about privacy and civil liberties. Critics warn that such systems risk unjustly targeting innocent individuals or profiling minority groups. Moreover, the use of AI for surveillance shifts the balance of power dramatically, enabling unprecedented levels of oversight that could easily be misused to suppress dissent or violate personal freedoms under the guise of security.

In Iran, AI is being used to enforce women’s dress codes. Facial recognition technology has been deployed in public spaces to monitor adherence to strict mandates, such as wearing the hijab or face coverings. Violators are identified automatically, often facing fines or vehicle impoundment without human intervention. This use of AI has drawn widespread criticism domestically and internationally, as it intensifies the government’s authoritarian control and further infringes on personal freedoms. Citizens now feel their every move is scrutinised by an unyielding, emotionless observer, amplifying the oppressive atmosphere. Protests have erupted across the nation, highlighting the dangers of AI being weaponised to suppress social movements and individual rights in restrictive regimes. The case of Iran demonstrates how AI can be used not only to enforce existing laws but to entrench authoritarianism in ways previously unimaginable.

The implications of such technology are profound. Harari warns that the combination of AI’s ability to watch, understand, and act makes it a powerful but dangerous tool in the hands of governments. Personal freedoms and the ability to challenge authority could be eroded entirely in a world where every action is recorded and analysed. If an AI had surveilled Orwell’s protagonist in 1984, his growing dissatisfaction could have been detected and suppressed before he knew it himself. As we advance into an age of AI-powered governance, we must ask ourselves: how much freedom are we willing to sacrifice for safety, and who decides how these tools are used?

---

Genta is a Master of Science (Chemistry) student at the University of Melbourne, where he also completed a Bachelor of Science in Chemistry. He is currently researching novel drug targets in bacterial and parasitic pathogens through genomic analysis. Alongside his scientific work, he has a strong interest in computer science and the ways technology shapes politics and international relations, especially in the context of global health and innovation.