You Are Now the Surveillance State

Consider Kristi Noem's perspective.

The Dual Nature of Surveillance

The Department of Homeland Security secretary argues passionately in 2025, trying to persuade Americans that revealing the identities of public officials is perilous and disrespectful. However, legal specialists refute her assertions, noting they highlight a broader issue: surveillance is now omnidirectional.

The last year has seen significant turmoil in the United States, with frequent detentions and operations undertaken by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, and various law enforcement agencies implementing immigration laws. These officers often conceal their identities, citing personal risk, while residents increase their oversight of law enforcement, leading to unprecedented levels of documentation.

Watch groups focused on immigration enforcement are thriving, with apps dedicated to tracking law enforcement actions becoming available on platforms like Apple and Google Play stores. Social networks are inundated with videos featuring unidentified agents in action. This trend is evident from cities like Los Angeles to Chicago, where local citizens often document arrests and the subsequent disappearance of community members into the federal system.

Historical Context of Public Surveillance

Recording police activities to challenge the inherent power imbalance is a practice deeply embedded in American history, according to Adam Schwartz, a privacy law expert from the Electronic Frontier Foundation. He traces it back to events like the 1968 Democratic Convention when media documented police violence against protesters. Jennifer Granick of the ACLU believes this accountability measure has existed as long as policing itself but notes technology now enables instant global dissemination.

The practice gained significant attention in 1991 when George Holliday filmed LAPD officers assaulting Rodney King and shared the footage widely, igniting a nationwide debate on race and law enforcement. Again in 2020, public outrage followed the recording of George Floyd's murder by a teenager, fueling the Black Lives Matter movement.

The Evolution of Surveillance Practices

The year 2025 has seen the general populace adopt systematic documentation of law enforcement activities, initially a tactic of activists and protesters, now a routine action by everyday witnesses.

According to Schwartz, the past year has been marked by an aggressive law enforcement presence, featuring armed officers detaining individuals for superficial reasons, leading Americans to capture these acts on camera. The government's subsequent reaction has been swift and severe, including legal actions against individuals for allegedly compromising agent safety through social media.

The Trump administration's allies propose legislative changes, such as the Protecting Law Enforcement From Doxing Act, which would criminalize the exposure of law enforcement identities. Meanwhile, the administration exerts pressure on social media users to retract content or disclose publishers' details.

Rights Versus Privacy

According to legal norms, citizens have the right to record public officials as long as they do not interfere with their duties. As Schwartz elucidates, this accountability is a constitutional principle. He opposes framing public oversight as government surveillance, asserting the public's right to transparency in government actions.

Granick concurs that government officials, when executing public duties, have no privacy expectations. With transformations in the concept of privacy accelerated by social platforms and governmental surveillance, she argues that these measures barely scratch the surface of privacy concerns when compared to the extensive surveillance state.

Granick highlights the disparity, pointing out the government's arsenal of surveillance tools like license plate readers and communication interception capabilities, emphasizing the imbalance between public and governmental capacities for insight and oversight.