Efficiency Over Humanity: Mahmood’s Vision for an AI-Powered ‘Panopticon’ State

The Labour government has been cast further adrift this month, perilously overladen with scandal and factionalism. Whilst I don’t doubt that Starmer will go down with this ship, certain members of his cabinet could survive unscathed, and miraculously so. Certain names and policies scattering the headlines are doing an impressive job of diverting attention away from more subdued and insidious acts of party betrayal. Take Shabana Mahmood, the UK’s Home Secretary, whose vision for an AI powered ‘panopticon’ model of surveillance indicates a hostile and rightward pivot in ideology. 

Just as philosopher Jeremy Bentham envisioned prisons to be cloistered and solitary by design, this idea hatched by Mahmood has so far remained relatively contained, negating the headlines. Clearly, the loudest cries of public outrage don’t always indicate the gravest political betrayals. Her proposals for a tech fuelled omniscient police state are the machinations of a paranoid and, frankly, lazy politician. 

In an interview with Tony Blair in January, Mahmood stated her aim to achieve ‘by means of AI and technology’ a sense that ‘the eyes of the state can be on you at all times.’ This Orwellian fantasy is not only unworkable and unpopular but fundamentally incompatible with the foundational principles of Labour’s manifesto. Before considering exactly what Mahmood’s plan would entail, it’s worth noting that Jeremy Bentham shares Mahmood’s throne of political inspiration alongside another figure. Margaret Thatcher.

Bentham’s 18th century architectural model of the panopticon should function as a cautionary tale rather than source of inspiration. This circular shaped prison with a central blind watchtower and minimal guards is designed to instil constant self-surveillance and self-regulation amongst prisoners. Unable to physically view their guards yet aware that they are being observed within this cylindrical hall of mirrors at all times, they resort to self-censorship. Here, authority is internalised and becomes self-sufficient; the role of the guard is outsourced. 

In an ideal world, this would develop into an efficient and morally utilitarian model. Fewer guards would be required and prisoners would reform themselves through self-policing. However, in a system where perception equates to reality, that is the sensation of being watched descends into the actual watching of the self and others, paranoia reigns supreme. In the words of historian Michel Foucault, prisoners merely become ‘docile bodies.’ The state becomes at once both absent and omnipresent. The safety net provided by the government? Discarded. Left dangling, visible, but just out of reach. 

Few Labour members share Mahmood’s dystopian fantasy. Labour Peer Lord Katz has explicitly criticised the Home Secretary’s proposal, whilst Baroness Chakrabarti declared it ‘fake news,’ hoping to attribute such statements to some other renegade politician. But this vision hasn’t entirely emerged out of a vacuum either; Starmer has been attempting to economise and depersonalise the prison system since coming into power. Inheriting a dire Tory legacy, with prison systems ‘bursting at the seams’ and staff at increasing risk of assault, Starmer has sought out efficient, and often technological, solutions. His intentions can’t be faulted; testimonies of in prison assault are growing in frequency and intensity (The number of assaults on staff have risen from 3,266 to 9,204 in 10 years, an increase of 182%), and members of the public must be protected from criminals escaping or evading imprisonment due to overstretched and underfunded services. But adopting a depersonalised and hostile model of surveillance is not the answer. 

AI is increasingly being used to pre-emptively detect crime, supplement the work of guards and create an extensive database of criminal profiles. Only last summer did the government announce plans for an AI pilot scheme that would ‘detect, track and predict’ where knife crime is likely to occur. The Ministry of Justice’s AI Action Plan is extensive. Extensively reliant on the watchful eye of artificial intelligence to predict the risk posed by offenders towards other prisoners, scan the contents of seized mobile phones, and consolidate IDs and records for prisoners across all courts. Alexander Iosad, Director of Innovation Policy at the Tony Blair Institute claimed that ‘if implemented well and at pace’ this could ease the pressure on prisons and support effective rehabilitation. Pace is crucial here. Unfortunately, Mahmood’s vision of a rapid decline into a hostile panopticon model does not strike as reasonably paced. 

For the most part we can dismiss Mahmood’s approach as delusional and singularly unpopular. To create a climate of vigilant watchfulness, a space commandeered by a robotic eye, is a thing of dystopian fiction. Such plans can be relegated to the world of Orwell’s 1984 or Spielberg’s Minority Report. However, the ideological implications of Mahmood’s plan, and the marked lack of criticism by our prime minister are far reaching.

We are facing a fundamentally human crisis. We are seeing a 51% increase in the use of food banks across the UK, the highest rate of unemployment in 5 years, and an acceleration in racially and religiously fuelled hate crime. We can’t attribute blame to a particular government but we can assess whether a detached and hostile model of surveillance is suitable to address these very real issues. Mahmood’s ideal reveals a prioritisation of hostile efficiency over humanity. The belief that a big and omniscient state is preferable to a compassionate one. Whilst much of this is a numbers game (staff numbers must be supplemented, cost effective solutions applied), resolutions can’t be devoid of feeling and integrity.

Whilst Starmer has been quick to state that the Tories have failed our prisons, Labour is hardly showing any consideration of its intended purpose and outcome. The transition from human resources to AI could descend into the cutting of corners, dehumanisation of prisoners, and detachment from the fundamentally social issues at play here. Mahmood’s comments reveal the lengths she is willing to go to restore public trust and appear to be fixing a broken prison system. Unfortunately, her prioritisation of optics over ideological integrity betrays a lack in political acumen. Her supposedly visionary model merely provides a new glamorous facade to an archaic and hostile structure of imprisonment. 

Mahmood claims that there is ‘no true liberty if you are unsafe in your country.’ Naturally, everyone values the freedom granted by feeling safe. However, where is the liberty to reform or even be when an omniscient eye is watching you at every turn. What about the proposed utility of preemptive AI tracking on suspected criminals? Do we assume that those suspected of criminal activity ought to have their liberty stripped prior to committing an offence? Just in case. And aren’t such models working on the input and existing documents shaped by human prejudices? When handed over to an autonomous AI model, who knows how racism, sexism and hatred will manifest or multiply in these new systems. 

It was only a matter of time before we considered how AI could be harnessed to address and reform our prison system. New technology should and must be used to alleviate pressure on staff and to prevent human errors in the handling of prisoners. However, when dealing with a complex web of social issues, we must integrate AI technology with caution. The outsourcing of prison work could descend into a complete detachment from, and dehumanisation of, criminals. Solutions may be arrived at within prisons but this remains futile if the necessary human work isn’t done to prevent crime and reoffending outside. Mahmood’s plan is, and will only ever be, a fantastical thought experiment. However, the intentions behind it remain worrying. Punitive efficiency is what matters now. 

Labour has no qualms regarding the co-optation of its competitor’s politics, and will dance to the tune of seemingly any political stance so long as it appeases the electorate. This could just be another rightward pivot away from socialism. Or it could usher in a more ominous and hostile era of policing.

Image: Flickr/Niklas Hallen (UK Home Office)

Licence.

No image changes made.