Always Watching: The Era of Digital Surveillance
In our constantly evolving world, technology has cemented itself as a daily aspect of our lives. It is always there, whether you realize it or not. Along with the new heights of digital surveillance are the imperative questions resting in many people’s minds. Just how far can digital surveillance go? Is it truly beneficial, especially with the involvement of AI? Defining just how far your online information can be spread is both important and urgent in the current landscape of the world. Every step you take online nowadays is tracked, down to every minor detail. While there are benefits to sharing your information with the government–a more perfected algorithm of everything they know you love, or saved time monitoring specific behaviors–we have unknowingly let go of very crucial boundaries we should still be upholding. The introduction of AI into everyday life has also impacted the legality of everything. The Trump Administration has even worked closely with companies like Palantir, focused on tech surveillance, to create algorithms that recognize “suspicious” activity. Just how far are we going to let ourselves be monitored online?
Digital Surveillance is no longer limited to cameras and doorbells with a camera in them. Now, it includes every swipe of a credit card or message sent. Digital surveillance is defined as the monitoring, tracking, and analysis of someone with technology. Digital surveillance can get more personal and intricate as we grow more and more reliant on the virtual world. Digital surveillance, however, is not inherently an unnecessary breach of privacy. It can serve as proof and protection for those who are being harassed or are in danger of having their information leaked to sources outside of the government. Most cases involving digital surveillance refer to the Fourth Amendment, which prevents unnecessary search and seizure, protecting personal privacy in general.
Since the 1920’s, more clarifications have been made to the Fourth Amendment regarding technology. In Katz v. U.S, the court found that the Fourth Amendment protected people, not places. This meant acts such as wiretapping would be illegal in public spaces. Carpenter v. U.S ruled that using cell-site locations without a warrant is unconstitutional, spurring a need for new privacy protection laws in a new age of technology. People are even guaranteed privacy in public spaces, thanks to Commonwealth v. Augustine. Overall, it seems that, unless given a proper warrant, breaches of privacy would be considered illegal. However, the Fourth Amendment falls short when it comes to the purchase of data. Just about anyone can purchase data from a broker or surveillance company, and it would be perfectly legal. When you agree to third-party cookies, you are practically handing over a warrant, which is what allows them to acquire your data in the first place. Similar agreements are made when you press “agree” on a terms and agreements pop-up, which often ask your consent to be tracked to some extent. While that is the extent of how your data can be acquired legally, it can be used for just about anything. Often, your data is used to profile you and give you targeted information or advertising. Yet, with the Trump Administration and its use of AI, data collection may take a darker turn.
The Trump Administration has partnered with both Palantir and Babel Street, both digital surveillance companies, to collect Americans’ personal data into one big government database using AI. The issue with this is that it includes location information, which will let organizations like ICE track people down, even at places like protests. Both Palantir and Babel Street also feed this information into machine learning algorithms, which look at patterns in said information. This will also help to track and target those who fit Trump’s criteria of a "suspicious person.” ICE is even able to make a map of potential detainees, along with their personal information, like their address. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has even allowed similar practices to be applied to visa applicants via social media.
Based on what the Fourth Amendment usually permits, the current state of digital surveillance in the U.S is on thin ice. It is very clearly pushing the boundaries of what is constitutional, and partly illegal, too. Targeting people based on their data is one thing, but it is another to track them down to places like their homes or public spaces, which undermines most privacy laws. Specifically, Carpenter v. U.S and Commonwealth v. Augustine directly opposed such usage of private data. If we let these practices continue to abuse the loopholes in the legal system, we will very quickly realize the dangers of having our private data weaponized against us. Luckily, small steps are being taken, even now, to help minimize digital surveillance. The Senate is attempting to pass stronger data privacy bills, and some states, like Massachusetts, are trying to prohibit the sale of sensitive data. This will help prevent ICE and other organizations from abusing private data as they are now.
In short, if we do not stay attentive to how our data is being collected and used, it can and will be used against our will. While not all digital surveillance is immoral, and can even be for our own safety, serious concerns remain with the way some of our data is being utilized right now. The restrictions on digital surveillance should not allow us to be tracked at home or in public spaces, nor should we be targeted and profiled without proper consent. To protect ourselves and others, we should promote those in government attempting to make sure our data online remains safe and private.
Bibliography
“AI-Powered Surveillance Is Turning the United States into a Digital Police State. Now Is the Time to Stop It. - ACLU of Massachusetts.” ACLU of Massachusetts, 12 Feb. 2026, www.aclum.org/publications/ai-powered-surveillance-is-turning-the-united-states-into-a-digital-police-state-now-is-the-time-to-stop-it/.
Bonn, Dustin. “8 Advantages Digital Video Surveillance Systems Provide Businesses.” Marco, 16 July 2020, www.marconet.com/blog/8-advantages-digital-video-surveillance-systems-provide-businesses.
Cornell Law School. “Electronic Surveillance.” LII / Legal Information Institute, 2017, www.law.cornell.edu/wex/electronic_surveillance.
Hawkes, Paul. “Digital Surveillance Explained - Research Associates.” Research Associates, 9 Dec. 2024, researchassociates.com/digital-surveillance-explained/.