How the FBI can conduct mass surveillance – even without AI | Technology
The FBI says it can conduct mass surveillance without artificial intelligence, despite Anthropic’s objections.
A central part of the dispute between Anthropic and the Department of Defense revolved around the artificial intelligence firm’s refusal to allow its technology to be used for mass domestic surveillance. But FBI director Kash Patel’s remarks this week suggest that even without the cooperation of AI firms, authorities already reasonably operate a system capable of spying on citizens at scale.
On Wednesday, Patel confirmed to the Senate intelligence committee that the FBI is actively purchasing commercially available data on Americans. Patel’s sworn response came in response to a question from senator Ron Wyden about whether the agency had purchased location data on citizens, as it previously admitted to doing in 2023.
While the debate over how the US federal government uses artificial intelligence has come to the fore in recent months, it has also brought renewed attention to the broad capabilities that authorities already have to monitor and surveil the public. Patel’s admission underscores how the government can engage in mass surveillance despite assurances to comply with lawful uses of artificial intelligence and Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches that prohibit the unauthorized collection of individuals’ location histories.
Federal law enforcement generally requires a warrant to collect historical or real-time cell phone location data; This requires a determination of probable cause in the eyes of a judge. Although the high court ruled in 2018 that law enforcement cannot force companies to disclose information such as cellphone location records, the court did not explicitly prohibit authorities from purchasing data that includes that information and more. By contracting with a network of data brokers that collect information from apps, web browsers and other online sources, federal authorities were able to access information they would otherwise need a warrant to obtain. Purchasing such information, often in bulk, could eliminate this requirement and lead many privacy advocates to label the practice unconstitutional.
The data broker industry, worth hundreds of billions of dollars worldwide, is part of the lifeblood of modern marketing and targeted advertising. Consumers’ demographic information, browsing habits, location, and other identifying information is a valuable commodity that always carries the potential for misuse.
Privacy advocates, researchers and journalists have long documented how information from data brokers can be used to determine private details of citizens without their knowledge, including sensitive personal data such as health conditions and precise locations. In 2019, the New York Times, using a large set of smartphone location data show how easy it is Tracking and identifying the identity of nearly everyone who uses this seemingly anonymized data; in one case, identifying a senior defense department official and his wife based on their daily movements.
Fears about using data brokers to engineer mass surveillance have intensified in recent years as AI technology makes it easier to parse and cross-reference large data sets. The expanded capabilities enabled by AI also dovetail with efforts by government agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security and Elon Musk’s so-called “government efficiency department,” to create a master data set for uses that include targeting immigrants, Wired reported in April.
The use of this data has real-world consequences that go back years. During ICE’s mass deportation efforts, 404 Media reported Last year, the agency pivoted to surveillance systems that use commercially available data to monitor neighborhoods and track people to their homes or businesses based on their phone location. It was claimed that a company was following in 2024 Approximately 600 visits to Planned Parenthood locations to provide data for a major anti-abortion advertising campaign.
During Anthropic’s feud with the Pentagon, the company’s CEO, Dario Amodei, discussed in a blog post how data brokers were contributing to the risk that artificial intelligence could be used for mass surveillance, which has been one of the focal points of the fight.
“Under current law, the government can purchase detailed records of Americans’ movements, web browsing, and associations from public sources without any permission,” Amodei wrote, adding: “Powerful artificial intelligence makes it possible to automatically and at scale stitch together this dispersed, individually harmless data into a comprehensive picture of any person’s life.”
Amodei’s post also highlights that the Pentagon’s demand that AI companies allow “any lawful use” of their products is so vague that it could include mass surveillance of citizens. Analyzing Americans’ detailed personal information through the data broker loophole would not violate any privacy or surveillance laws; It’s a dynamic that Wyden describes as “an ugly ending around the fourth amendment.”
OpenAI, which signed a contract with the Department of Defense after Anthropic refused to comply with the Pentagon’s demands, initially left a gray area in the agreement around artificial intelligence using commercial data. Following the backlash, the company added a warning to the agreement that the artificial intelligence system “will not be intentionally used for domestic surveillance of U.S. citizens and citizens.”
“The Department understands that this limitation is to prohibit intentional tracking, surveillance, or tracking of U.S. citizens or nationals, including the purchase or use of commercially obtained personal or identifiable information,” OpenAI said in a post following the agreement.
Still some digital privacy experts express skepticism Pointing to the words “intentionally” and “intentionally” in the agreement’s language, he said the annex was strong enough to prevent the use of artificial intelligence in mass surveillance operations. In the past, the government has argued that their possession of personal information was an incidental byproduct of using such large data sets; Privacy advocates argue that this gray area has allowed them to continue years of domestic surveillance operations.
