When Law Enforcement Gets Cozy With AI: The Europol Problem
I’ve been following the privacy community discussions lately, and something caught my attention that’s been gnawing at me: Europol’s increasingly opaque relationships with AI companies. It’s one of those stories that doesn’t get nearly enough attention in mainstream media, but it should absolutely terrify anyone who cares about privacy and civil liberties.
The basic issue is this – Europe’s law enforcement agency has been cosying up with various AI companies behind closed doors, with very little transparency about what they’re doing, what data they’re sharing, or what capabilities they’re building. One comment I saw really hit the nail on the head: this explains why the push for initiatives like ChatControl and ProtectEU never seems to stop. It’s not just bureaucratic momentum; it’s institutional desire. Law enforcement agencies want these tools, and they’re not particularly fussed about democratic oversight getting in the way.
Here’s the thing that frustrates me most about this situation. I work in IT, and I’ve spent my career in development and DevOps. I understand the incredible potential of AI technologies – the efficiency gains, the pattern recognition capabilities, the sheer processing power. But I also understand the risks, and those risks multiply exponentially when you’re talking about law enforcement applications with minimal oversight.
Think about what we’re actually discussing here. We’re talking about AI systems that could potentially analyse vast amounts of personal communications, predict behaviour, identify individuals in crowds, and flag people as potential threats based on algorithmic assessment. These aren’t neutral tools. They embed the biases of their training data, the priorities of their funders, and the political preferences of the agencies deploying them. And apparently, we’re supposed to just trust that everything will be fine because… well, because the police say so?
The parallel with what’s happening in Australia isn’t lost on me either. We’ve had our own battles with encryption backdoors and metadata retention. The AFP and ASIO have been pushing for expanded digital surveillance powers for years. Every time there’s a terrorist incident or a high-profile crime, there’s another round of “we need more access to encrypted communications” from law enforcement. I get it – they have a difficult job, and they’re trying to keep people safe. But the solution can’t be to create a surveillance infrastructure that fundamentally undermines the privacy of everyone.
What really gets under my skin is the lack of transparency. If Europol wants to work with AI companies to develop new capabilities, fine. But do it in the open. Publish the contracts. Let independent researchers and civil society groups audit the systems. Create meaningful parliamentary oversight. Instead, what we’re seeing is the classic pattern: develop the capabilities first, seek forgiveness (or simply ignore criticism) later, and by the time the public finds out, the infrastructure is already built and “essential to operations.”
The comment about ministries of interior and police forces wanting these tools rings absolutely true. There’s a natural institutional bias towards gathering more information and having more capabilities. That’s not necessarily malicious – if you’re tasked with preventing crime and terrorism, you’re going to want every tool available. But that’s precisely why we need strong democratic checks and balances. Left to their own devices, security agencies will always push towards maximum surveillance because, from their perspective, that’s the rational thing to do.
This is where my progressive values really come into play. I believe in effective government services, including law enforcement. But I also believe that power corrupts, and unchecked power corrupts absolutely. The history of surveillance is littered with examples of systems built for “legitimate” purposes being used for political repression, discrimination against minorities, and stifling of dissent. Once these AI-powered surveillance systems exist, they’ll be used – and not always in ways we’d approve of.
The environmental angle bothers me too, though it’s often overlooked in these discussions. AI systems require massive computational resources. Training large language models and running real-time video analysis systems consume enormous amounts of energy. We’re in the middle of a climate crisis, and we’re building energy-intensive surveillance infrastructure with questionable social benefit. It’s yet another example of how AI’s environmental footprint isn’t getting the scrutiny it deserves.
So what do we do about it? For starters, we need to make noise. Contact your MPs, MEPs, or local representatives. Support privacy-focused organisations doing the hard work of holding these agencies accountable. Use encrypted communications tools – not because you have something to hide, but because privacy is a fundamental right. Push back against the narrative that only criminals need privacy.
We also need better regulation, and not the kind that gets written by the very agencies that want fewer restrictions. We need independent oversight bodies with real teeth, mandatory transparency reports, and legal frameworks that put the burden of proof on surveillance agencies, not on citizens.
The fight for digital privacy is going to be one of the defining civil liberties battles of our generation. The technology is moving faster than our legal frameworks can adapt, and law enforcement agencies are exploiting that gap. Whether it’s Europol, the AFP, or any other agency, we need to demand better. Democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency. No exceptions, even for the police.
User Feedback: Button: Close 11 votes
Writing clarity How clear and understandable was the writing in this blog post? Button: Very confusing Button: Somewhat confusing Button: Acceptable Button: Very clear Button: Crystal clear