Report: Americans support targeted AI surveillance, oppose 'indiscriminate' monitoring

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Americans support targeted AI surveillance but oppose indiscriminate monitoring, a report reveals.
• The report said 94% of respondents expect security cameras to aid or solve crimes committed in public spaces.
• Concerns persist over AI facial recognition tracking citizens at civic events, highlighting privacy issues.

SALT LAKE CITY — Everyday surveillance has, slowly but surely, become integrated into more and more aspects of our lives.

You or a neighbor likely uses a Ring doorbell or has some variety of home security system. Traffic cameras catching erratic and speeding drivers is far from a new phenomenon.

And with AI becoming ever more integrated into all aspects of life, surveillance technology certainly isn't being left behind.

But how do Americans feel about it?

A report released last week by Utah-based software company LiveView Technologies, based on a Harris Poll survey of 2,089 U.S. adults, aimed to answer that question by painting a picture of how people actually feel about emerging technologies like AI-powered security cameras, license plate readers, and facial recognition in public spaces.

Perhaps surprisingly, the main takeaway wasn't that Americans distrust surveillance or oppose AI integration into surveillance but oppose "unchecked, indiscriminate surveillance," said the report.

"The public draws a precise line: They endorse targeted technology that monitors behavior, detects active criminal actions, and identifies known violent offenders, while explicitly rejecting systems designed to track ordinary citizens going about their daily routines," the report continued.

Surveillance has been a hot topic in national and local headlines, specifically license plate recognition.

Ivan Miller, an Iowa man charged with killing three women in southern Utah, was captured in Colorado in March through a network of license plate recognition cameras, a technology that has become increasingly common across the country and is debated among citizens concerned about privacy implications.

While the technology is a vital tool for law enforcement, the expanding use of license plate recognition technology has also raised questions about how much data cities collect and who has access to it.

In Provo, concerns escalated in January when a resident argued that the city's participation in the Flock Safety camera network contributed to "a national mass surveillance network" that could affect anyone traveling along major roads, regardless of whether they are suspected of a crime.

The report also outlined an interesting paradox that exists across political parties, generations and geographic divides: Large segments of the American public express conceptual hesitation regarding surveillance or AI security footage usage, while an overwhelming 94% of Americans would expect nearby security cameras to help or solve the case completely if they were to become the victim of a crime in a public space.

When it comes to AI integration into surveillance, public perception largely hinges on target selection and intent.

According to the survey, 60% of respondents believe security cameras with AI should be used in public to detect suspicious behaviors before they occur, and 59% support using security cameras with AI to assist in finding missing children or lost pets.

On the other hand, only 12% of respondents believe AI should never be deployed in public spaces.

While most respondents were in favor of AI-capable security cameras, automated identification is a different story entirely.

A clear majority of respondents (63%) expressed explicit concern that security cameras with facial recognition technology could be utilized to track them if they were exercising civic rights such as attending a protest, town hall meeting, or political rally.

Concern levels differ between political ideologies, too, as 72% of Democrats and 55% of Republicans indicated explicit concern about being targeted by security cameras with facial recognition software.

The takeaway from this, said the report, is that "targeted identification of violent offenders is acceptable, but algorithmic tracking of ordinary citizens at civic gatherings is a direct violation of the public trust."

The full report can be found here.

The Key Takeaways for this article were generated with the assistance of large language models and reviewed by our editorial team. The article, itself, is solely human-written.

Related topics

Artificial IntelligenceUtahScience

Logan Stefanich

• 
• 

Logan Stefanich is a reporter with KSL, covering southern Utah communities, education, business and tech news.