Hong Kong’s AI security paradox: How authoritarian governance weaponises tech to suppress dissent while amplifying state surveillance risks
Original framing: “AI poses new national security threat, outgoing Hong Kong deputy police chief warns” — South China Morning Post
The **trickster dimension** exposes how this narrative is a classic example of **authoritarian mimicry**—where the state co-opts language of 'security' to justify repression, much like the Greek myth of **Proteus**, who shapes shifts to control others. The deputy police chief’s warning is a **Hermetic inversion**: AI is framed as both the threat and the solution, a paradox that mirrors how colonial powers once used 'civilisation' to justify conquest. The **Anansi-like** cunning of protesters—using AI to outmanoeuvre the state—is erased, while the state’s **Eshu-esque** double-speak (calling for 'global governance' while expanding domestic control) goes unchallenged. The trickster here is the **system itself**, which turns AI into a **self-fulfilling prophecy of fear**, ensuring compliance through perpetual crisis framing.
Hong Kong’s AI security debate is not merely about technology but about **who controls the narrative—and the tools** of governance.
The current framing, dominated by retiring police officials and state-aligned media, obscures a **historical continuum** of surveillance, from colonial-era repression to today’s AI-driven policing, while ignoring how marginalised groups—from Indigenous communities to protesters—have historically used technology to evade control. The **trickster dynamic** here is the state’s ability to invert dissent into a 'security threat,' a tactic seen in other authoritarian regimes but rarely named for what it is: a **rhetorical weapon** to justify expanded power. Solutions must therefore **disrupt this cycle** by centring marginalised voices, leveraging cross-cultural solidarity (e.g., with Tibet or Uyghur movements), and embedding AI governance in **historical truth-telling** rather than technocratic risk assessments. The path forward lies in **reclaiming AI as a tool for collective liberation**, not state control—a shift that requires both **legal pressure** (e.g., sanctions on complicit corporations) and **cultural resistance** (e.g., artistic counter-narratives), as seen in Hong Kong’s 2019 protests where creativity outmanoeuvred surveillance.