Amnesty International has accused Argentina of building techno-authoritarian surveillance infrastructure without adequate legal safeguards, as the government's newly created AI security unit expands state monitoring over citizens' online communications and physical movements.
The rights group's latest report says Argentina's Ministry of Security spent at least $1.2 million on surveillance technology between 2024 and 2025. That spending included social media monitoring tools, facial recognition software, thermal-camera drones with automatic tracking, and systems that transmit images in real time.
Amnesty said the surveillance raises concerns for protesters, journalists, activists, human rights defenders, migrants, young people, and marginalized groups. The group warned that people who believe they are being monitored may avoid speaking, protesting, or organizing - even without being directly arrested or punished. That "chilling effect" threatens the right to privacy, freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of association, the report said.
Clearview AI purchase and legal context
In October 2025, Argentina bought a Clearview AI facial recognition license for $33,500. Clearview's database contains more than 70 billion facial images scraped from the internet, and data protection authorities in France, Italy, Greece, and Belgium have already fined the company over its data practices. The Ministry maintains that the Federal Police uses facial recognition only in connection with active judicial investigations, and no evidence has surfaced that Clearview was used specifically to identify protesters.
Argentina's expansion of AI-driven surveillance has largely occurred through executive and ministerial measures rather than legislation. On July 26, 2024, then-Security Minister Patricia Bullrich signed Resolution 710/2024, creating the Artificial Intelligence Unit Applied to Security (UIAAS) inside the Ministry of Security's Directorate of Cybercrime and Cyber Affairs.
The resolution authorizes the unit to patrol open social media, applications, websites, and the dark web. It also permits real-time facial recognition through CCTV footage, machine-learning analysis of historical crime data to predict future crimes, and large-scale data aggregation to build suspect profiles. The resolution states these powers must operate within the Constitution and existing law, but it does not specify data retention limits, access restrictions, or independent oversight mechanisms. A related May 2024 rule let the Federal Police also monitor social media and other public digital sources without judicial authorization.
Argentina has already struck down a predecessor system on similar grounds. The legislature's required oversight commission was never established, and the Ombudsman's Office never filed the reports the law required. A separate 2024 challenge led courts to suspend a related Buenos Aires facial recognition system pending an independent audit and privacy impact assessment.
Decree bypasses Congress
On December 31, 2025, the government issued DNU 941/2025, amending Argentina's National Intelligence Law by decree instead of through Congress. The civil rights association argues the decree is unconstitutional because it bypasses the constitutional requirement that decrees of necessity and urgency apply only when Congress cannot convene or a genuine emergency exists. The organization specifically objects to a provision letting intelligence personnel detain individuals before notifying police, calling it an unlawful transfer of policing power to intelligence agencies.
Amnesty uses the term "techno-authoritarianism" to describe how technology can sustain and enable government control. The concern is that governments can use AI-powered tools to make monitoring and identifying people easier and more widespread. The group is calling on Argentina to ban remote biometric recognition for mass surveillance and adopt more concrete rules governing the purchase, development, sale, import, export, and use of surveillance technologies.
For legal professionals and government officials tracking AI governance, Argentina's case illustrates a recurring pattern: executive agencies adopting powerful surveillance tools faster than legislatures can build oversight frameworks. The absence of data retention limits, access restrictions, and independent audits in Resolution 710/2024 mirrors similar gaps in other jurisdictions rolling out AI policing tools. Professionals working in government and law may find it useful to compare Argentina's approach with their own country's safeguards - particularly whether their legal frameworks specify who can access surveillance data, how long it can be kept, and what independent body reviews its use. For those seeking structured guidance on these issues, AI Learning Path for Policy Makers covers the core legal and governance questions. Broader resources on AI for Government also address how public sector agencies can deploy these tools within constitutional limits.
Your membership also unlocks:
