Guest post by Leo Hohmann – republished with permission.
Across the United States, law enforcement agencies are eyeing the deployment of AI-driven facial-recognition technology that could potentially track and identify individuals in public spaces in real-time.
Some local politicians are advocating for a halt or outright prohibition of this technology in police hands. However, the struggle appears to be heavily tilted in favor of the technocrats and law enforcement, as they wield substantial resources and a robust media presence, while concerned citizens and wary politicians seem to be left shouting into the void. The odds are stacked against those advocating for privacy and civil liberties, as history often indicates.
In Milwaukee, two-thirds of the city council have voiced their opposition to granting police access to this technology. An article from the Biometric Update highlights that 11 out of 15 city alderpersons signed a letter expressing concerns over bias, ethical implications, and the potential for governmental overreach.
In the words of the Milwaukee city council, the rationale for such technology is typically framed around a triad of safety, efficiency, and expediency. The police department, currently devoid of a facial-recognition system, argues that acquiring one would expedite crime-solving processes. They assure the public that safeguards would be in place to prevent civil rights violations, emphasizing that such technology would never solely serve as probable cause for arrest. They have also committed to public consultations before any formal acquisition.
Nevertheless, the council’s letter articulates “strong opposition to the deployment of facial recognition technology by the Milwaukee Police Department,” asserting that the perceived public safety benefits do not outweigh the associated risks.
The letter further references the potential for overreach, particularly under the previous administration, and highlights studies indicating that facial-recognition algorithms disproportionately misidentify individuals with darker skin tones, women, and the elderly.
It’s quite a paradox that their principal concern is the misuse of this technology by a Trump-led administration, suggesting a willingness to embrace it under a different political banner, perhaps from leaders like Gavin Newsom or Kamala Harris.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin has urged the Milwaukee Council to implement a two-year moratorium on any new surveillance technologies across city services, including those used by the police.
This debate is not confined to Milwaukee; New Orleans is also grappling with similar issues. The city is considering Project NOLA, a nonprofit managing a nationwide crime camera network. A hearing is scheduled to determine whether the integration of facial recognition into Project NOLA should be prohibited, regulated, or fall under municipal authority.
While the New Orleans police continue utilizing Project NOLA, they have paused the receipt of real-time alerts generated by AI-driven facial recognition technology.
WHAT’S THE REAL ISSUE HERE?
At the heart of this matter lies the influence of affluent technocrats advocating for the transformation of cities into Smart Cities. It’s crucial to recognize that many city council members may lack the expertise to understand the implications of AI and burgeoning surveillance tactics. Often, they view the acquisition of the latest surveillance technologies as progressive and appealing, failing to grasp that they are paving the way for a surveillance regime championed by elitist organizations like the United Nations and World Economic Forum, which seek to exert control over human movement and behavior.
Smart Cities Dive recently published a list of the Top 10 most rapidly developing Smart Cities in America for 2025, with Atlanta leading the charge, followed by Boston, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., Chicago, and Seattle. The list also includes Miami, New York City, Los Angeles, and San Jose.
The subsequent evolution involves the concept of a 15-minute city—essentially a Smart City weaponized against its inhabitants. In this model, surveillance technologies are not merely tools for maintaining public safety; they are utilized to enforce radical climate policies and other agendas designed to control behavior.
With facial-recognition scanners and vehicle license-plate readers, law enforcement can monitor the movements of individuals, regardless of their mode of transport. Do we genuinely wish to inhabit an Orwellian landscape?
While cities like Milwaukee and New Orleans publicly wrestle with the implications of implementing such technology, it is surreptitiously being deployed in municipalities across the nation, often with federal backing. How aware are you of whether your city is covertly tracking your vehicle and scanning your face everywhere you go? It may be time to investigate and elevate this issue to public discourse.
