Anju Gupta
JECRC University
Jaipur, India
https://orcid.org/0009-0005-6942-3583
Abstract
This paper examines the growing tension between technological innovation and the protection of human rights in the digital era, with particular emphasis on the privacy–security trade-off. While digital tools enhance communication, transportation, and public safety, they also expand the capacity for surveillance, data collection, and automated decision-making, increasing the risk of misuse, identity theft, discrimination, and other rights violations. The discussion highlights how encryption and anonymization can safeguard sensitive information, yet acknowledges that the same technological ecosystem can enable large-scale data breaches and intrusive monitoring through facial recognition, biometric identification, and AI-driven systems. To manage these risks, the paper argues for a multifaceted response that combines transparency and accountability by data-collecting organizations, ethical technology development that embeds privacy protections by design, robust legal frameworks for data protection and oversight, and sustained public awareness so individuals can better understand and mitigate online threats. Ultimately, the paper concludes that the digital age need not undermine human rights; with responsible governance and informed use, technology can support security while preserving dignity, freedom, and democratic values.
Keywords: privacy, surveillance, data protection, artificial intelligence
As we move further into the decade, the intersection of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Political Science has transitioned from a niche technical concern to a fundamental challenge for global human rights. In 2026, the proliferation of generative AI and predictive analytics is not merely changing how we govern—it is fundamentally altering the “Social Contract.” For the international political science community, specifically those focused on human rights, this shift demands a new vocabulary of resistance and a reimagined framework for justice.
One of the most pressing political issues today is the erosion of “Epistemic Security”—the ability of a society to distinguish fact from fabrication. Generative AI has weaponized the “marketplace of ideas.” With hyper-realistic deepfakes, we have entered an era of “The Liar’s Dividend,” where the very existence of AI allows bad actors to dismiss real evidence of human rights abuses as “synthetic.”
From a political science perspective, this shatters the foundation of democratic accountability. When the public cannot agree on a shared reality, the right to free and fair elections—and the right to information—is compromised. We are seeing a shift in political strategy where the goal is no longer to convince the electorate of a particular truth, but to exhaust them with so much “synthetic noise” that they withdraw from the political process entirely.
There is another problem and that is accountability Gap
The transition from traditional bureaucracy to “Algocracy”—governance by algorithm—represents a significant shift in state power. AI systems are now routinely used in judicial sentencing, social welfare distribution, and migration management. While proponents argue this brings “Scientific Management” and efficiency, human rights advocates see a “Black Box” problem.
In political theory, the legitimacy of the state rests on the transparency of its decisions. However, many AI models are proprietary and inscrutable. If a citizen is denied asylum or a social safety net based on a biased algorithm, whom do they hold accountable? The programmer? The data set? The machine? This lack of transparency violates the right to due process and creates a new form of “digital disenfranchisement” that disproportionately affects marginalized populations.
AI has also enabled a level of “Ubiquitous Surveillance” that would have been unimaginable to 20th-century theorists. The combination of facial recognition, gait analysis, and predictive policing has turned the “Panopticon” into a digital reality.
For the IPSA Human Rights Committee, the concern is how these tools are used to stifle dissent. In several regions, AI is used to monitor political activists in real-time, predicting protests before they happen and “pre-emptively” neutralizing opposition. This “Predictive Authoritarianism” chills the freedom of assembly and association, as the mere knowledge of being watched by an infallible algorithm forces citizens to self-censor their political expressions.
AI has also resulted in the Geopolitics of the “Compute Divide”.
In International Relations (IR), power is being redefined by access to “Compute”—the hardware and data necessary to run advanced AI. This is creating a dangerous “North-South” divide. We are witnessing a form of “Data Colonialism,” where the Global South provides the raw data (often generated by its citizens without consent), while the Global North controls the refined AI models.
This “Compute Divide” has direct human rights implications. Countries without sovereign AI capabilities are forced to rely on foreign platforms that may not align with their cultural values or legal protections. It creates a hierarchy of nations where “digital sovereignty” is a luxury, leaving the rights of billions of people at the mercy of a few transnational corporations.
Perhaps the most profound impact is on the nature of political agency. If algorithms can predict—and influence—voter behavior with 99% accuracy, what remains of the “Autonomous Individual”? Political science must now grapple with the idea that the “voter” is being replaced by a “data profile.”
The challenge for the 21st century is to draft a “Digital Bill of Rights” that treats AI not just as a tool, but as a systemic force that requires global oversight. We must move toward “Human-in-the-Loop” governance, where the final decision in any matter affecting a person’s life, liberty, or livelihood remains a human responsibility.
Conclusion: A Call to Action for Political Scientists
The integration of AI into the political sphere is an “orbit-shifting” event. For the members of the IPSA, our task is to ensure that while technology evolves, the “Compass of Human Rights” remains fixed. We must advocate for the Decolonization of Data, the Auditability of Algorithms, and the Protection of the Epistemic Truth.
The new horizon of politics is digital, but our commitment must remain resolutely human. As we analyze these shifting power dynamics, let us ensure that innovation serves to expand human dignity, rather than providing new tools for its suppression.
