by Mercy Abang
On January 16, 2026 reports surfaced alleging that the US technology company Palantir had developed a specialized application designed to assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in pinpointing specific neighborhoods for immigration raids.
This development once again brings to the forefront the critical lack of guardrails governing tech giants. It pushes us into a precarious ethical territory where the state can make arbitrary calls for high level “national security” Operations with little to no oversight. If you’re from the global south like I am, this is a very familiar phrase used when the state wants to crack down on dissents or opposition groups and civil society.
For societies where minorities have historically suffered ethnic cleansing, often orchestrated by state and non-state actors alike, the integration of Artificial Intelligence into security operations is profoundly alarming. Throughout history, humans have perpetrated genocides against various ethnic groups across the globe. Given the existing limitations of human security in ensuring an equitable world and with accounts of ethnic cleansing still emerging to this day, we now face a new and formidable player, Big Tech.
The central question is one of accountability and transparency. Should private platforms be permitted to develop tools that independently target individuals and effectively decide their fates, regardless of their citizenship status? If we allow these systems to picket neighborhoods and automate the identification of “targets” we must ask ourselves: what kind of future are we building for our nations?
These tools are not without hazards. They have been frequently reported to lack ethical or moral frameworks, and they are inherently unable to produce empathetic, human centered outcomes. While the internal political dynamics of the United States are complex, the patterns emerging there have global implications. We are seeing a blueprint that could be dangerously replicated in authoritarian regimes where the separation of powers is non-existent and judicial institutions are ill-equipped to challenge the “scientific” evidence of abuse.
Outsourcing the identification, detention and arrest of human beings to an algorithm known for bias against minorities is crossing a “Rubicon” of digital ethics. Nations across the Global South follow the technological patterns of the United States with Great attention. This current trend serves as a stark reminder for the global community to act swiftly in defining the ethical boundaries of AI.
The concerns extend beyond domestic law enforcement and into the theater of war and its various commands. There have been ongoing allegations regarding the use of AI in active warfare. International conventions governing combat operations include strict “Rules of Engagement” designed to protect the civilian population. However, do AI companies abide by these conventions? When the systems fail, resulting in collateral damages and devastating human cost – who is held liable? is it the software engineer, the corporation, or the state that purchased the license?
The use of AI to lead combat operations or determine citizenship is an extreme use that requires immediate global moratorium. We must demand a halt to these deployments until we can agree on the modalities of usgae. If we do not act urgently, the consequences will be dire and irreversible.
AI operates on human data, it acts precisely on what it has been instructed to do. Historically the plight of minorities and civil rights movements became global causes because the world could factually see that certain people were being targeted for their race. We must reject the assumption that AI will somehow produce “better” and “more objective” outcomes than humans in these sensitive areas. If the data fed into the system is rooted in a history of systemic bias, the AI will simply automate and accelerate that discrimination.
The debate over AI policy must shift its focus toward concrete accountability metrics, especially for companies involved in security and combat operations. and to protect human rights, we must address these questions, who regulates the information systems that decide who is a threat or a non-citizen? How do we account for unauthorised or rogue use of AI for security purposes? What international conventions govern AI safety measures when the state itself is the violator?
___________________________________
Mercy Abang is a journalist, media entrepreneur. She’s worked both in Africa and in Europe. Mercy was a 2017 United Nations (Dag Hammarksjold) Journalism Fellow. She studied journalism, digital storytelling, advertising and public relations at various levels and holds an MBA from the Berlin School of Business & Innovation
