AI Surveillance at 2024 Paris Olympics challenge

Photo by Luca Dugaro on Unsplash

Name of case: Law on the 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games and various other provisions (Loi relative aux jeux Olympiques et Paralympiques de 2024 et portant diverses autres dispositions)
Court: French Constitutional Council (Conseil constitutionnel)
Application no.: Case n° 2023-850 DC
Status: Closed

Ahead of the 2024 Paris Olympics, on 12 April 2023 the French Parliament passed a special law which amongst other things allows for invasive Artificial Intelligence (AI) surveillance to be deployed during the games and until December 2024. The law was then referred to the French Constitutional Council (Conseil constitutionnel) on 17 April, to issue a judgment on the constitutionality of the algorithmic video surveillance measures.

PI, along with 7 other civil society organisations (European Center for Not-for-Profit Law, International Network of Civil Liberties Organizations, Legal Resources Centre (South Africa), International Council Civil Liberties (Ireland), Agora (Russia), Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, Canadian Civil Liberties Association), filed an amicus curiae, or "external contribution", with the French Constitutional Council, challenging the constitutionality of the law. We argued in particular that:

• Algorithmic videosurveillance interferes with various constitutional rights, including the right to free movement, the right to privacy, the right to freedom of expression and the right to protest;
• The definition of algorithmic surveillance in Article 10 of the law is constitutionally insufficient, as it lacks foreseeability and clear boundaries around what types of technology can be deployed and in what circumstances; and
• The law enables processing of biometric data in a way that does not comply with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

On 17 May 2023, the French Constitutional Council issued its judgment (in French). It did not find any violations of constitutional rights when it comes to the use of algorithmic video surveillance during and after the Olympics, but incorporated a safeguard in the law requiring that the permission to use algorithmic videosurveillance be renewed every month. We believe that nothing in this safeguard addresses the concerns set out in our submissions, notably the lack of necessity and proportionality of the measure.

We will continue monitoring the implementation of the Olympics law and support additional initiatives and legal challenges defending respect for human rights.