The Rising Specter of Surveillance

We in an unprecedented age of surveillance, where the boundaries between personal privacy and state or corporate oversight have eroded to a perilous degree. In the United States, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) stands as a cornerstone of this troubling paradigm. As detailed in an April 11, 2023, article by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Section 702 authorizes the US government to conduct mass, warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international communications, encompassing phone calls, text messages, emails, social media posts, and web browsing histories. This sweeping program, ostensibly designed to target foreign actors for “foreign intelligence” purposes, casts a wide net that ensnares the private communications of ordinary Americans on an extraordinary scale, in direct violation of constitutional protections.

One of the most insidious mechanisms of this surveillance is PRISM, a program through which the National Security Agency (NSA) gains direct access to communications held by major US tech and social media companies, including Google, Apple, Microsoft, and Meta. While Section 702 is legally framed as a tool for monitoring non-citizens abroad, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) routinely exploits these databases to search and analyze the communications of American citizens for domestic investigations. This practice has led to repeated violations of the FBI’s own internal guidelines, with agents accessing private data without legitimate justification. Targets have included journalists, political commentators, government officials, and even a member of Congress, raising alarms about the potential for abuse. The ACLU notes that in 2011, the government admitted to collecting over 250 million communications under Section 702; current estimates suggest this figure now exceeds one billion, underscoring the program’s vast and unchecked reach.

The chilling effect of such surveillance is profound. The fear that the government is monitoring private communications may deter journalists, lawyers, activists, and others from engaging in open discourse online, stifling free expression and undermining the democratic process. This erosion of privacy is not unique to the United States but reflects a global trend toward surveillance states that evoke dystopian nightmares.

In a recent conversation on the Lex Fridman podcast, historian Jeffrey Wasserstrom drew parallels between global surveillance trends and science fiction. He referenced William Gibson’s Neuromancer and Gibson’s description of Singapore as “Disneyland with the death penalty,” a critique that led to his exclusion from the city-state. Wasserstrom highlighted China’s surveillance apparatus, particularly in Xinjiang, where the state employs advanced technology to monitor and control the Uyghur population. In this region, seemingly innocuous behaviors—such as quitting smoking or abstaining from alcohol—are flagged as potential signs of radicalization, leading to arbitrary detentions and disappearances. Wasserstrom recounted a poignant anecdote from a Uyghur poet who described how poets, regardless of their drinking habits, would place a bottle of alcohol on their table during gatherings to deflect suspicion—a stark illustration of life under constant surveillance. Similar controls are evident in Tibet and increasingly across other parts of China, where personal freedoms are curtailed under the guise of security.

Wasserstrom argued that China’s surveillance state embodies the dystopian fears of Minority Report, where predictive algorithms identify and punish individuals based on behavioral patterns. Yet, he cautioned, the US is not immune to these trends. The same questions about privacy and power—whether wielded by governments or Big Tech—are being asked domestically. The Chinese Communist Party’s post-1989 strategy offers a useful lens for understanding this dynamic. After the Tiananmen Square protests, the Party sought to maintain control by offering a new social compact: limited personal choices and material prosperity in exchange for political acquiescence. This “Brave New World” approach provided citizens with more consumer options—better food, entertainment, and goods—but stopped short of political freedom. As China’s economic boom has slowed, the Party has leaned on a narrative of stability amid global chaos, while simultaneously intensifying surveillance, turning up the “1984” knob of control. This blend of consumer inducements and omnipresent monitoring ensures that even personal choices are subject to scrutiny.

In the US, the role of Big Tech mirrors aspects of this model. As noted in my blog post titled “Big Broligarch is Watching You,” every online action—clicks, purchases, viewing habits—is collected and analyzed by artificial intelligence (AI). Machine learning algorithms can now predict personality traits with greater accuracy than friends, family, or spouses, creating detailed behavioral profiles that can be exploited for commercial or political purposes. This data-driven surveillance, combined with government programs like Section 702, creates a surveillance ecosystem that rivals authoritarian regimes.

The dangers of this ecosystem are magnified by the vast data troves accessible to private entities. In another post, “The A.I. of Sauron,” I write of how Elon Musk’s DOGE has gained access to an unprecedented array of sensitive information. This includes investigative files on millions of US government employees, federal workers’ tax records, biometric data, private medical histories (including treatments for substance abuse), cryptographic keys for restricted federal facilities, personal testimonies of low-income housing recipients, and detailed records on vulnerable children. DOGE’s access extends to the Social Security Administration’s Enterprise Data Warehouse, which contains comprehensive data on nearly every American who has applied for a Social Security number, including names, spouses, dependents, work histories, financial details, immigration status, and marital status. This level of access—described as “everything, including source code”—represents a potential for abuse on an unimaginable scale.

The implications are chillingly reminiscent of the Black Mirror episode “Shut Up and Dance,” in which individuals are blackmailed into committing crimes due to compromising personal information. Scaled to a national level, with data on hundreds of millions of Americans, such capabilities could enable mass coercion, discouraging dissent or protest. Imagine a scenario where 200 million people could be threatened with exposure of their private data—medical records, financial details, or personal indiscretions—to ensure compliance with government directives. This is not mere speculation but a plausible outcome of unchecked data aggregation.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, in a June 2024 article, warned that AI-powered surveillance systems suppress civic unrest by their mere existence, often amplified by public agencies exaggerating their capabilities. This dynamic contributes to democratic erosion, as fear of surveillance deters activism. China, a leading exporter of AI surveillance technology, disproportionately supplies autocratic regimes, furthering global authoritarianism. With over a third of humanity already living under autocratic rule, the gradual backsliding of fragile democracies—enabled by surveillance technology—is a pressing concern. The inclusion of the United States on Civicus’s 2025 watchlist, alongside nations like Pakistan and Serbia, underscores the rapid decline in civic freedoms domestically, signaling a troubling convergence with authoritarian trends.

The convergence of these forces—government surveillance, Big Tech data collection, and AI-driven profiling—creates a perfect storm for authoritarianism. In this context, the role of President Donald Trump and his administration raises profound alarms. Given Trump’s demonstrated willingness to centralize power and his alliance with figures like Elon Musk, it is highly likely that the data amassed by DOGE is already being leveraged to intimidate or blackmail potential opponents. The scope of DOGE’s data—encompassing sensitive personal and professional details on millions of Americans—provides an unparalleled tool for coercion. Journalists, activists, political rivals, and members of Congress could be targeted with threats of exposure, ensuring compliance with Trump’s agenda.

Trump’s rhetoric and actions suggest an ambition to consolidate power beyond democratic norms, potentially positioning himself as a de facto dictator for life. The use of DOGE’s data to neutralize opposition aligns with this goal. For instance, leaks of compromising information could discredit critics, while targeted surveillance could preempt organized resistance. The chilling effect of such tactics would mirror China’s Xinjiang model, where fear of surveillance stifles dissent before it can emerge. Unlike China’s overt authoritarianism, Trump’s approach could be cloaked in democratic trappings, using legal mechanisms like Section 702 and private-sector data to achieve similar ends.

This scenario is not hypothetical but grounded in the realities of modern surveillance. The combination of government overreach, corporate complicity, and AI’s predictive power creates a framework where dissent can be preemptively crushed. Trump’s administration, with access to DOGE’s data, could target individuals with precision, exploiting personal vulnerabilities to silence opposition. This could include leaking medical records to discredit a journalist, exposing financial irregularities to pressure a politician, or threatening to reveal private communications to deter an activist. Such tactics would erode the checks and balances essential to democracy, paving the way for unchecked executive power.

The stakes could not be higher. America stands at a precipice, teetering between democracy’s fragile shell and a dystopian future where surveillance enables authoritarian control. The global trend toward surveillance states, exemplified by China, serves as a warning of what lies ahead if these forces go unchecked. To prevent this slide into autocracy, urgent action is needed: reforming surveillance laws, imposing strict oversight on data collection, and holding both government and private entities accountable. Without such measures, the data in DOGE’s hands could become the instrument of Trump’s authoritarian ambitions, fulfilling Orwell’s grim prophecy of a world where freedom is extinguished not by force alone but by the silent, pervasive gaze of surveillance.