In an era where artificial intelligence systems process billions of personal data points daily, the question of who ultimately controls this information has become one of the most pressing issues of our time. Maxim Ageev, co-founder and CEO of De Novo, a prominent technology company, has raised alarming concerns about what he calls “techno-fascism” – a scenario where AI-powered systems could be weaponized against the very citizens whose data they collect. His warnings come at a critical juncture when governments and corporations worldwide are racing to harness AI capabilities, often with minimal oversight or transparency.

The concept of techno-fascism, while provocative, addresses genuine concerns about the concentration of technological power in the hands of a few major players. Ageev argues that when vast repositories of personal information are combined with sophisticated machine learning algorithms, the potential for manipulation and control becomes unprecedented in human history. Unlike traditional authoritarian regimes that relied on physical force and surveillance networks of human informants, modern technological systems can monitor, predict, and influence behavior on a scale previously unimaginable.

The Rise of AI-Driven Data Collection

The explosive growth of artificial intelligence over the past decade has fundamentally transformed how personal data is collected, processed, and utilized. Every smartphone interaction, online purchase, social media post, and even physical movement through spaces equipped with sensors contributes to vast digital profiles maintained by both private corporations and government entities. According to recent industry estimates, the global datasphere is expected to reach 175 zettabytes by 2025, with a significant portion consisting of personal information. This unprecedented accumulation of data has created what some experts describe as “surveillance capitalism” – an economic system built on the extraction and monetization of human experience.

Ageev’s concerns about how this data might be turned against citizens are rooted in historical precedent. Throughout the 20th century, authoritarian regimes demonstrated how census data, identity documents, and community records could be weaponized against targeted populations. The difference today is the scale, speed, and sophistication with which such operations could be conducted. Modern AI systems can identify patterns, predict behaviors, and flag individuals for attention in milliseconds, operating continuously and tirelessly in ways that human administrators never could.

Economic Nationalism and Data Sovereignty

The intersection of AI development and economic nationalism has created a complex geopolitical landscape where data has become as strategically valuable as traditional natural resources. Nations increasingly view control over data infrastructure and AI capabilities as essential to national security and economic competitiveness. This has led to the emergence of data localization laws, restrictions on cross-border data flows, and massive state investments in domestic AI development. Countries from China to the European Union to India have implemented or proposed regulations requiring that certain categories of data be stored and processed within their borders, fundamentally reshaping the architecture of the global internet.

Ageev points out that this trend toward data nationalism carries both potential benefits and significant risks. On one hand, keeping data within national borders can provide citizens with greater legal protections and reduce vulnerability to foreign interference. On the other hand, it can also concentrate power in the hands of domestic authorities, potentially enabling the very techno-authoritarian scenarios that privacy advocates fear. The key question becomes not merely where data is stored, but under what legal frameworks and oversight mechanisms it operates.

Protecting Individual Rights in the AI Age

As artificial intelligence systems become more deeply embedded in critical decision-making processes – from credit scoring and hiring decisions to criminal justice and healthcare – the stakes for individuals continue to rise. Algorithmic systems have already demonstrated troubling patterns of bias and discrimination, often reflecting and amplifying existing social inequalities. Without robust transparency requirements and accountability mechanisms, citizens may find themselves subject to consequential decisions made by opaque systems they cannot understand, challenge, or appeal.

Experts in digital rights and AI ethics emphasize that addressing these challenges requires a multi-faceted approach combining technical safeguards, legal frameworks, and institutional oversight. This includes implementing strong data protection regulations with meaningful enforcement, requiring algorithmic impact assessments for high-stakes applications, and ensuring that individuals maintain meaningful control over their personal information. The conversation Ageev has initiated about techno-fascism, while using stark terminology, ultimately points toward the same fundamental questions that democratic societies must grapple with as they navigate the AI revolution: How do we harness the benefits of these powerful technologies while preventing their abuse? And who should have the authority to make these decisions on behalf of citizens?