Ethical AI Design in Blockchain-Powered Surveillance Systems

Authors

  • Dr Munish Kumar K L E F Deemed To Be University Green Fields, Vaddeswaram, Andhra Pradesh 522302, India Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.63345/sjaibt.v1.i3.103

Keywords:

Ethical AI, Surveillance, Blockchain, Privacy-Enhancing Technologies, Fairness, Zero-Knowledge Proofs, Verifiable Credentials, Audit, GDPR, EU AI Act

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) and distributed ledger technologies are increasingly integrated into public and private surveillance infrastructures—from city-wide camera networks to critical-infrastructure monitoring and access control. This integration promises higher integrity and accountability through immutable logs, faster incident response via on-device inference, and interoperable audit trails across organizations. Yet it also amplifies ethical risks: mass data collection, opacity in model decisions, function creep, demographic harms, cross-border data governance conflicts, and accountability gaps when immutable records meet “right to erasure” regimes. This manuscript proposes an ethics-by-design reference architecture for blockchain-powered surveillance that embeds privacy, proportionality, and fairness controls into each lifecycle stage (purpose definition → data capture → model training → inference → access → audit → decommissioning). Technically, it composes privacy-enhancing technologies (PETs)—including differential privacy, federated learning, zero-knowledge proofs, verifiable credentials (VCs), and content-provenance standards (C2PA)—with permissioned blockchain ledgers, model cards, and risk management aligned to the NIST AI RMF, ISO/IEC 23894, ISO/IEC 42001, UNESCO, and ACM guidance. A simulated evaluation illustrates how the architecture can reduce false-positive disparities and unauthorized access, while preserving evidentiary integrity. We discuss tensions with GDPR (e.g., Article 17 erasure; DPIA obligations), constraints introduced by the EU AI Act (e.g., prohibitions and high-risk biometric uses), and strategies to reconcile immutability with privacy (e.g., off-chain storage with revocation, redaction-friendly commitments). The paper closes with limitations and a future research agenda for measurable, auditable ethical guarantees in real-time surveillance.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

• ACM U.S. Public Policy Council. (2017). Statement on Algorithmic Transparency and Accountability. https://www.acm.org/binaries/content/assets/public-policy/2017_usacm_statement_algorithms.pdf

• Ben-Sasson, E., Chiesa, A., Garman, C., Green, M., Miers, I., Tromer, E., & Virza, M. (2014). Zerocash: Decentralized anonymous payments from Bitcoin. IEEE S&P. (zk-SNARKs overview).

• Bünz, B., Bootle, J., Boneh, D., Poelstra, A., Wuille, P., & Maxwell, G. (2018). Bulletproofs: Short proofs for confidential transactions and more. IEEE S&P.

• C2PA. (2025). C2PA Technical Specification 2.2. https://spec.c2pa.org/specifications/specifications/2.2/specs/

• Dwork, C. (2006). Differential privacy. In ICALP 2006. Springer.

• European Parliament, EPRS. (2019). Blockchain and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): Can distributed ledgers be squared with European data protection law?

• EU. (2024/2025). Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AI Act). EUR-Lex.

• Fairlearn. (n.d.). Common fairness metrics: Demographic parity. https://fairlearn.org/ (accessed 2025).

• Gentry, C. (2009). A fully homomorphic encryption scheme (Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University).

• Hardt, M., Price, E., & Srebro, N. (2016). Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. NeurIPS.

• ISO/IEC. (2023). ISO/IEC 23894:2023—Artificial intelligence—Risk management. IEC/ISO.

• ISO/IEC. (2023). ISO/IEC 42001:2023—AI management system standard. ISO.

• Lyon, D. (2001). Surveillance society: Monitoring everyday life. Open University Press.

• Meiklejohn, S., et al. (2013). A fistful of Bitcoins: Characterizing payments among men with no names. IMC. (Bitcoin deanonymization).

• Mitchell, M., Wu, S., Zaldivar, A., et al. (2019). Model cards for model reporting. FAT* 2019.

• NIST. (2023). Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0). NIST.

• UK ICO. (2025). Video surveillance guidance (CCTV): Data protection principles & DPIA. https://ico.org.uk/ (accessed 2025). Information Commissioner's Office

• UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. UNESCO Digital Library.

• W3C. (2022). Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) v1.0—W3C Recommendation. https://www.w3.org/TR/did-core/ W3C

• W3C. (2022). Verifiable Credentials Data Model v1.1—W3C Recommendation. https://www.w3.org/TR/2022/REC-vc-data-model-20220303/

Published

04-07-2024

Issue

Section

Original Research Articles

How to Cite

Ethical AI Design in Blockchain-Powered Surveillance Systems. (2024). Scientific Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Blockchain Technologies, 1(3), Jul (20-28). https://doi.org/10.63345/sjaibt.v1.i3.103

Similar Articles

41-50 of 98

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.