The most surveilled cities in the world

Cities of China — 626m cameras to 1.43bn people = 439.07 cameras per 1,000 people

Hyderabad, India — 900,000 cameras for 10,801,163 people = 83.32 cameras per 1,000 people

Indore, India – 200,000 cameras per 3,302,077 people = 60.57 cameras per 1,000 people

Delhi, India — 449,934 cameras for 22,547,000 people = 19.96 cameras per 1,000 people

Singapore, Singapore — 109,072 cameras for 6,080,859 people = 17.94 cameras per 1,000 people

Moscow, Russia — 214,000 cameras for 12,680,389 people = 16.88 cameras per 1,000 people

Baghdad, Iraq — 120,000 cameras for 7,711,305 people = 15.56 cameras per 1,000 people

Seoul, South Korea — 144,513 cameras for 9,988,049 people = 14.47 cameras per 1,000 people

St. Petersburg, Russia — 75,000 cameras for 5,561,294 people = 13.49 cameras per 1,000 people

London, England (UK) — 127,423 cameras for 9,648,110 people = 13.21 cameras per 1,000 people

Quantity aggregation of CCTV Cameras

The introduction of AI Facial Recognition Technology (AI FRT) into Hong Kong's urban landscape marks a significant evolution in surveillance practices, impacting areas from public safety to education. As one of over 75 countries utilizing this technology, Hong Kong stands out with its extensive deployment of smart lampposts and the installation of 2,000 surveillance cameras to enhance crime prevention efforts. These advancements underscore the city's commitment to integrating sophisticated technologies within its infrastructure.

Multi-functional smart lamppost

The influence of mainland China, recognized as a surveillance powerhouse, is pronounced in Hong Kong’s implementation of AI FRT. The technology is applied in various capacities, from combating COVID-19 to monitoring public activities and contributing to international tech initiatives like those spearheaded by Huawei.

Nevertheless, this widespread use of AI FRT has ignited a complex debate among Hong Kong's residents and policymakers. The core of the discourse revolves around finding a balance between the benefits of heightened security and the risks to privacy and personal freedom. The rollout of multifunctional smart lampposts, designed to collect real-time data, has particularly intensified these concerns, casting doubt on the sufficiency of current regulatory measures.

Zhang Kaitai, a resident of Shenzhen, elucidates on the capabilities of AI FRT: "With AI, the cameras aren't just recording; they're analyzing in real-time." His statement underscores a shift towards more proactive and preemptive surveillance strategies. This technology's rapid data processing capabilities facilitate swift law enforcement actions and suggest broader implications for surveillance practices, navigating a fine line between enhancing security and potential overreach.

Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance

Despite its potential benefits, the adoption of AI FRT has provoked significant privacy concerns, highlighted by the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (PDPO). The PDPO provides guidelines but falls short of comprehensively regulating data collection through AI FRT, revealing critical areas that require further attention. Public reaction to the smart lampposts has been mixed, with many expressing concern over privacy violations and the government's lack of transparency in employing such technologies.

As Hong Kong advances in its use of AI FRT, its strategy will undoubtedly influence global discussions on the convergence of technology, surveillance, and civil liberties. The ongoing debate underscores the imperative for a balanced framework that honors individual freedoms while harnessing technological advancements for the greater good.

Central to the debate are concerns about privacy and the risk of misidentification, frequently cited as evidence of the technology's potential overreach. Marvin Chan, a resident of Hong Kong, articulated his concerns: "The technology has undoubtedly made public spaces safer, but the pervasive feeling of being under constant surveillance is disconcerting. It seems there’s hardly any privacy left." This sentiment underscores the considerable privacy sacrifices that come with technological advances, reflecting a broader anxiety about the erosion of personal space and freedom.

Further depth is added to the public conversation through scholarly insights. Kylie Lui, a sociology tutor at HKU, noted, "The real challenge with AI FRT lies not only in privacy or security concerns but in ensuring that these tools do not infringe on our basic human rights. There is an urgent need for regulations that adapt as swiftly as the technologies develop." Kylie's comments highlight the critical need for robust, responsive legal frameworks that keep pace with technological progress and safeguard citizen rights.

The online ethnography conducted through social media platforms in Hong Kong reveals a spectrum of opinions that further complicates the public discourse. Themes of security efficacy, privacy concerns, and political manipulation dominate these discussions, illustrating the multifaceted impact of AI FRT on society. For instance, some residents question the actual enhancement of security provided by AI FRT, while others fear its use as a tool for political control.

Are You Willing to Be Under the Camera?

As Hong Kong navigates these challenges, the path forward involves striking a delicate balance between leveraging technological benefits and upholding civil liberties. The implementation of AI FRT has prompted a reevaluation of policies and regulations, such as those outlined in the Personal Data Privacy Ordinance, which seeks to address data collection practices but currently falls short in regulating the nuances of facial recognition technology.

The evolution of AI FRT in Hong Kong encapsulates a broader dialogue about the intersection of technology, privacy, and governance. By integrating citizen feedback and scholarly insights into policy-making, Hong Kong can better align its technological ambitions with the ethical standards that prot ect individual freedoms and societal values.

Controversies

1) Privacy

• The state and private organizations assert that personal privacy is protected through law regulations on FRT. However, they do not disclose the actual use of data or provide any reports on it.
• (eg) A private zoo company's implementation of AI FRT for faster entry and crime monitoring became the first legally contested FRT case in China, raising citizens concerns about the collection of their private information.

2) Misidentification/ False Positives

• AI claims 95% accuracy, yet it mistakenly shames and punishes a person on a bus as a jaywalker in Shenzhen.
• Flaws still persist, if we solely rely on AI FRT for crime control.

3) Personal Freedom

• AI FRT at schools, tracking student behaviors and emotions, violates of one's fundamental right of personal freedom. It functions as a disciplinary mechanism employed to enforce conformity to subjective notions of lawful conduct.
• It mimics Foucault's panopticon - Students become self-policing agents within the campus.
• Yet, schools should be a place to express ideas freely and learn creatively but not an “educational prison”.