Introduction
The combination of Artificial Intelligence (AI), biometric surveillance, and digital monitoring has revolutionized how governments consolidate political control in today’s world. The struggle over surveillance technology involves not only authoritarian states but also democratic governments and multinational corporations. They compete over different visions of internet governance, human rights, and national sovereignty. As authoritarian governments promote “cyber sovereignty” to justify digital control, democratic governments increasingly introduce guardrails to protect privacy and freedom of expression.
This article examines how governments use AI-driven surveillance to strengthen their political control. It focuses on China, Russia, and India, while also examining the European Union’s efforts to establish democratic guardrails. The analysis draws on current reports from the United Nations, Amnesty International, Freedom House, and academic institutions. These sources provide evidence-based insights into the intersection of technology, politics, and ethics.
Defining Digital Authoritarianism
Digital authoritarianism consists of three main components: information control, social media control, and narrative manipulation through state-sponsored bots and trolls. Information control includes censorship algorithms, social media regulation, and the manipulation of online narratives. Fragmented internet architecture allows governments to disconnect from the global internet while maintaining domestic control. Russia’s Sovereign Internet Law is a clear example of this approach.
Digital repression differs from traditional authoritarianism because governments rely on algorithmic systems that encourage citizens to police themselves, even when authorities are not directly monitoring them. Critical media studies explain how digital technologies reshape power by expanding state control while making that control less visible. They show how governments use digital tools to extend their influence while maintaining plausible deniability.
The Archetype of AI-Driven Surveillance: China
China is the world’s most advanced example of digital authoritarianism. The country operates around 600 million surveillance cameras, roughly one for every two people. It combines facial recognition, behavioural analysis, and the Social Credit System to monitor citizens. Authorities evaluate citizens’ finances, social interactions, political views, and even ethical behaviour. These evaluations influence access to employment, travel, education, and healthcare.
The Social Credit System relies on criminal records, financial information, and government data. It also uses video surveillance and facial recognition to predict an individual’s level of risk before any crime occurs. AI algorithms analyse movement patterns, social networks, and purchasing habits. Authorities use these predictions to restrict the activities of individuals they consider politically problematic. China’s techno-autocratic model has also expanded beyond its borders through technology exports.
Beijing exports AI surveillance equipment to governments around the world. Huawei’s smart camera systems in Belgrade and other cities illustrate how Chinese surveillance technology strengthens authoritarian practices abroad. According to the Carnegie Endowment, China’s technological advances may establish global standards that favour state control over individual rights.
The Chinese Communist Party ultimately seeks to connect all human activities to digital systems. Under this model, authorities record every journey, purchase, and conversation. Citizens lose anonymity and remain permanently accountable to the state.
Internet Fragmentation and Cyber Sovereignty in Russia
The Sovereign Internet legislation (2019) gives Russia’s state media watchdog, Roskomnadzor, the authority to take control of the Russian internet without prior warning whenever it identifies a threat to national security.
Russia strengthens digital authoritarianism not only through infrastructure control but also through spyware, disinformation campaigns, and surveillance technology partnerships. The government regularly tests the integrity of the internet in preparation for emergencies. These tests strengthen censorship capabilities because the law does not clearly define what constitutes an emergency. As a result, authorities can partially or completely block internet access at their discretion.
The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) describes this approach as a “dual strategy.” Russian authorities isolate citizens from foreign sources of information while tracking and monitoring opposition figures and journalists. Unlike China’s integrated surveillance model, Russia achieves the same objective through different technical methods.
India: Democratic Backsliding and Surveillance Expansion
Expansion of State Surveillance
India presents a particularly important case because its surveillance system has expanded within a formally democratic framework. At the same time, surveillance laws have become less restrictive, and civic space has narrowed. Authorities monitor public spaces through Aadhaar, the biometric identity database, facial recognition systems, CCTV networks, and behavioural analytics.
The National Crime Records Bureau uses AI-powered facial recognition technology. Although the system is highly accurate, experts have raised concerns about racial bias and wrongful identification. The Central Monitoring System enables warrantless surveillance of telecommunications, while the Internet Shutdowns policy allows authorities to suspend connectivity during protests and civil unrest.
The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC) demonstrate how authorities can use surveillance systems to support discriminatory policies. Human rights organisations have also documented that Pegasus spyware targeted at least 17 Indian journalists. These cases show how surveillance technologies can suppress dissent even in democratic states.
Digital Public Infrastructure and Civil Liberties
India’s Digital Public Infrastructure combines empowering and restrictive features. The Unified Payments Interface (UPI) promotes financial inclusion. However, authorities can also use similar technologies to monitor economic activity through CCTV networks, behavioural analytics, and predictive policing without adequate legal safeguards.
This pattern is especially visible in Jammu and Kashmir. Internet shutdowns have affected more than 120 million people and caused significant economic losses. These measures show how democratic governments often justify expanding surveillance in the name of national security while limiting civil liberties.
Democratic Responses and Regulatory Guardrails in the EU
The EU AI Act
The EU AI Act, adopted in March 2024, represents the most comprehensive democratic response to digital authoritarianism. The Act bans real time remote biometric surveillance in public spaces despite the initial exemptions proposed by the police. Members of the European Parliament voted 499–28–93 to prohibit live facial recognition systems, emotion recognition systems, and predictive policing algorithms.
The Act classifies AI systems according to their level of risk. It prohibits biometric categorisation based on sensitive characteristics such as race, religion, and political opinion. It also bans untargeted facial recognition from CCTV cameras and internet footage. However, judicial authorities may approve these technologies in limited circumstances, including preventing terrorist threats, identifying suspects involved in serious crimes such as human trafficking or kidnapping, and responding to imminent terrorist attacks.
Setting Global Standards
The European Union aims to establish global standards that protect privacy while encouraging innovation. Through the Brussels Effect, the EU promotes Human Rights Impact Assessments (HRIA), independent oversight mechanisms, and export controls for surveillance technologies that threaten fundamental freedoms.
Despite these efforts, implementation challenges remain. The Act may not become fully effective until after 2025, and some member states have not fully enforced its provisions. Civil society organisations continue to call for stronger action against surveillance capitalism and broader protection of digital rights.
International Trade in Surveillance Technology
NSO Group’s Pegasus spyware illustrates the global trade in surveillance technology. Companies use Pegasus to transform mobile phones into powerful surveillance devices with access to cameras, microphones, emails, text messages, and contact lists. Companies from Canada, China, Germany, the United States, and the United Arab Emirates continue to export surveillance and censorship technologies to Pakistan despite concerns about its human rights record.
Surveillance technology has affected journalists across the world. Between 2020 and 2023, Pegasus targeted at least 16 journalists in Jordan. More than 200 journalists worldwide have also become targets, including 17 journalists from seven countries who filed complaints against NSO Group in Paris and before the UN Human Rights Special Rapporteurs. Reports also document the use of Pegasus against media workers in Morocco, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia.
Human Rights and Internet Freedom
The UN Human Rights Office warns that governments often use spyware for illegitimate purposes rather than counterterrorism. Authorities use these technologies to suppress dissent instead of addressing genuine security threats. Widespread surveillance weakens democratic institutions and places the right to privacy under increasing pressure. The United Nations therefore calls for a moratorium on spyware sales until governments establish adequate human rights safeguards.
Global surveillance technologies, including facial recognition, body worn cameras, drones, and social media monitoring, disproportionately affect marginalised communities. These technologies restrict freedom of expression while expanding state power.
Freedom House reports a fifteen year decline in global internet freedom because of democratic backsliding and continued authoritarian repression. The governance of AI and rapidly developing digital technologies will shape the future of internet freedom. Iceland ranks highest with 94 points, followed by Estonia with 92 and Canada with 86. Pakistan scores only 27 points and falls into the category of “Not Free.”
Conclusion: The Imperative for Transnational Governance
The global surveillance trade allows authoritarian practices to spread beyond national borders and blurs the distinction between democracies and autocracies. China, Russia, and India follow different paths to technology based political control, but they share several common characteristics. The European Union offers a contrasting model by developing regulations that protect civil liberties.
Governments should strengthen policy frameworks, international regulation, and ethical standards to safeguard democratic values, privacy, and human rights in an increasingly digital world. States should require human rights impact assessments, ensure transparency, establish independent oversight, reduce bias, and provide remedies for those affected. International cooperation should also limit exports of surveillance technologies that threaten human rights while strengthening encryption and protecting whistleblowers.
Politics, technology, ethics, and law intersect in ways that require continued interdisciplinary research. Scholars must better understand how digital repression evolves, how state power changes through technology, and how digital resistance grows through cyber optimism, digital literacy campaigns, and internet freedom movements. Only coordinated research, stronger regulation, and sustained advocacy can prevent digital technologies from becoming instruments of oppression rather than tools of liberation.
Maryam Siddiqui
M.Phil Scholar, Department of Defense and Strategic Studies, Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad and an acting Vice Pricipal at the Sprout School, Islamabad.
Related
