The European Union’s law enforcement agency is advocating for a more efficient integration of artificial intelligence (AI) tools to combat serious criminal activities, as stated by a senior official. Jürgen Ebner, the Deputy Executive Director of Europol, emphasized that current legal constraints hinder the swift deployment of AI technologies, leaving law enforcement agencies at a disadvantage against increasingly sophisticated criminal operations.
Urgent need for streamlined AI processes
According to Ebner, criminals are exploiting AI to enhance their illegal activities, while police forces are trapped in a web of bureaucratic hurdles that can delay AI implementation by as much as eight months. He elaborated, stressing the critical importance of expediting this process in urgent situations where there is a potential “threat to life.”
In recent years, Europol has significantly enhanced its technological capabilities, diving into areas such as big data analysis and decryption of criminal communications. The agency aims to counteract rising cybercrime, particularly as AI technology continues to evolve. However, there are ongoing concerns from academics and advocacy groups regarding the unregulated use of AI by law enforcement, fearing it could lead to privacy infringements.
“It is an absolute essential for there to be a fast-tracked procedure to allow law enforcement to deploy AI tools in ‘emergency’ situations without having to follow a ‘very complex compliance procedure,’” said Ebner.
Balancing innovation with ethical considerations
President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, has committed to significantly increasing Europol’s personnel to transform it into a formidable entity capable of tackling criminal organizations straddling both physical and digital fronts. The Commission plans to introduce a legislative proposal aimed at enhancing Europol’s capabilities in the second quarter of 2026.
The necessary assessments for data protection and fundamental rights, mandated by the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the AI Act, can prolong the deployment of AI tools. Ebner emphasized that any expedited processes would still adhere to ethical boundaries, particularly concerning profiling and the use of live facial recognition technologies.
While law enforcement agencies have certain exemptions under the EU’s AI Act, which prohibits real-time facial recognition in public spaces, EU member states have the discretion to allow exceptions for severe offenses. This has raised alarms among lawmakers and digital rights organizations regarding the potential misuse of such allowances.
Ebner noted that virtually all investigations today involve an online component, imposing a significant financial strain on law enforcement agencies. He indicated that Europol is exploring ways to enhance its collaboration with private sector entities to foster innovation and technology transfer.
“Artificial intelligence is extremely costly. Legal decryption platforms are costly. The same is to be foreseen already for quantum computing,” he remarked. Europol’s role is pivotal in reinforcing Europe’s digital defenses by providing technological expertise and resources to support national police operations.
Despite its central mission of aiding national police in cross-border investigations, there are limitations on how much policing power can be transferred to Europol. Ebner clarified that removing law enforcement authority from individual EU countries is not a viable option in discussions about bolstering Europol’s capabilities.
“We don’t think it’s necessary that Europol should have the power to arrest people and to do house searches. That makes no sense, that [has] no added value,” he concluded.