How do the increasing use of digital and AI-technology impact protests?

The ‘right to protest’ is legally a combination of the right to free expression (article 10 ECHR) and the right to assembly and association (article 11 ECHR). It is a cornerstone of democratic societies, allowing individuals to express their views and hold those in power accountable. Municipalities and police have therefore the positive obligation to maximally facilitate protests, according to EU case-law (see for instance Navalny v. Russia from 2018). This obligation extends to forms of civil disobedience, which are increasingly becoming a popular method of demonstrating. While the right to protest is not “absolute” – meaning it can be restricted by muncipalities for a variety of reasons, like the prevention of disorder, national security, public health (think: COVID protests), or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others – these restrictions must not impair the essence of the right.

Against this backdrop, protest scholars have documented changes in so-called "protest policing" over the last decades, with increasing incorporation of smart technologies to enhance efficiency and efficacy. However, there are both pros and cons to these technologies, human rights experts say. In certain situations, it may be appropriate for law enforcement to use digital and AI-technologies, such as when they assist with preparedness by analyzing de-identified logistical information (e.g., estimated attendance, crowd density, and protest routes). On the other hand, certain technologiescan give rise to a higher degree of intrusiveness vis-a-vis the privacy of demonstrators – such as facial recognition and digital image recording. The latter category, in particular, has led to a growing body of research examining the link between technology use and “chilling effects” – the legal term for when individuals refrain from protesting due to fear of repercussions that may follow. 

In AI-Maps, we tried to deepen the understanding of especially AI's effects on protest policing, a relatively unexplored area, by observing Extinction Rebellion protests in The Hague and interviewing a diverse range of stakeholders, including activists, police officers, media representatives, NGOs, and the Ombudsman. Our key findings, now published, confirm the link between technology and the “chilling effect” on protests. However, we also found new patterns of this chilling effect, characterized by two distinct features: (1) they are more sociological in nature (rather than solely legal), and (2) they impact both activists and police. As such, in adapting to the increasing technological landscape both police and activists exhibited also ‘hyper-transparency’ (extreme openness) and ‘hyper-alertness’ (extreme caution). These other forms of chilling effects, which have not been discussed in the literature, have equally serious societal implications - similar to those arising from activists not exercising their right to protest.

We discuss many of these social implications in our article, but we can mention a few here as initial examples. First and foremost, hyper-transparency and hyper-alertness are contrasting experiences—complete opposites—which impact dynamics at and beyond protests. These are tensions that movements must increasingly navigate in their culture—whether to balance/prioritize hyper-alertness or hyper-transparency—and to what extent this influences protest potency. The negative impact is not limited to activists, however: police officers increasingly find themselves viewed as representations of the government's failures or even “enemies” of demonstrators, instead of the traditional role of facilitators of protest rights and bridge-builders between activists and the government. When police start to wear balaclavas for privacy reasons (under hyper-alertness), for example, the perception of police as threatening for protestors can strengthen.

Our article provides concrete recommendations focused on de-escalating tensions and addressing deepening societal divisions—offering an alternative to the escalatory measures proposed by many MPs during the national debate on the right of protest on 22 January 2025. We principally argue that the (non-)use of AI requires increased and straightforward transparency. A suggestion would be to provide online information about the tools, their purpose, how they are used, and the legal basis for any technology-driven surveillance. This transparency is essential for dispelling fears of “unchecked” police discretion and reinforcing that policing is grounded in the rule of law and democratic oversight. We also believe technology legal frameworks should be developed collaboratively with policymakers, police, civil society, and privacy scholars: while the EU AI-Act provides some foundation, its ambiguities permit (too) much police discretion. The Dutch government's roundtable on protest rights (with XRNL, police and mayor present), was therefore a very promising example. Such democratic formats could be extended to reflections on technology experiences; as our research reveals, the perception of surveillance technology ripples through society, influencing public values far beyond protest rights alone.

Please reach out with thoughts, questions or comments you may have.

We’d be delighted to hear what you think.

Link to article: Surveillance experiences of extinction rebellion activists and police: Unpacking the technologization of Dutch protest policing