---
title: "The Surveillance State"
description: "From Orwell's 1984 to modern day technologies, mass surveillance has transitioned from dystopian fiction into reality. As surveillance technologies take over…"
url: https://www.independentpress.com/article/the-surveillance-state
date: 2026-09-16
categories: ["Technology","Law Enforcement","Social"]
author: "Allie Pallotta"
---

# The Surveillance State

![Jeremy Bentham's Panopticon](https://images.ctfassets.net/ewtdlsoyixc1/1bzToejn2qA2U1XbawCglG/6539b7db22210c3a7a6713072cbaee96/Panopticon.png)

The idea of mass surveillance has long captured the public imagination. George Orwell’s _1984 _popularized the watchful eye of Big Brother, a totalitarian symbol of power that utilizes telescreens to spy on the populace and discreetly carry out the governing Party’s will. Orwell’s dystopian novel spoke to the anxieties of the 1930s and 1940s, with the rising threat of authoritarianism during World War 2 and the erosion of civil liberties that followed. Today, surveillance technology is becoming increasingly visible, with devices like Flock cameras, Ring doorbells, Meta smart glasses, and Palantir software recording the movements and digital data of millions of people across the United States and the world. The continued encroachment of surveillance technology in public spaces and our everyday lives is becoming a significant threat to individual privacy and freedoms.

Surveillance technology has its roots in the philosophical and architectural idea of the panopticon. The [panopticon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon), a concept designed and created by the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham in the 18th century, is a circular prison design to give one prison guard the ability to observe all inmates and prisoners at once without them knowing if anyone is watching. As a result of the panopticon’s layout and implications, inmates are prompted to self-regulate their behavior as if they are being watched at all times. With the rapid advent of the internet and modern digital technologies, people’s lives have become so visible and accessible that we are now living in a digital panopticon.

Within this interconnectedness and ever-increasing flow of information, U.S. domestic intelligence systems have enhanced their ability to monitor American citizens. The passage of the [Patriot Act](https://www.fincen.gov/resources/statutes-and-regulations/usa-patriot-act) by Congress, in response to the September 11th terrorist attacks, has accelerated the growth of the surveillance state by effectively granting the U.S. government the authority to spy on Americans through roving wiretaps on phones and other devices, as well as a heightened ability to access and investigate third-party records. While the Patriot Act was enacted as a means of expanding and strengthening security measures, its provisions paved the way for more restrictive monitoring and surveillance. According to the [Brennan Center](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/ending-national-security-excuse-racial-and-religious-profiling), changes in law and policy after 9/11 have given rise to increased racial and religious profiling under the umbrella of “national security” concerns, with [thousands of American Muslims being targeted for questioning and surveillance](https://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/us911/USA0802.pdf?inline=1). Moreover, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Homeland Security have monitored the social media and activities of [Black Lives Matter activists](https://theintercept.com/2015/07/24/documents-show-department-homeland-security-monitoring-black-lives-matter-since-ferguson/), [people with alleged associations to Antifa](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/30/us/politics/trump-right-wing-domestic-terrorism.html), and [Chinese Americans in science and technology fields](https://www.justice.gov/archives/nsd/information-about-department-justice-s-china-initiative-and-compilation-china-related) who are believed to represent terrorist, extremist, or espionage threats to the United States. Though justified in the name of security protocols, the growth of the surveillance state risks not only infringement on Fourth Amendment freedoms of privacy but also exposes the weaponization of surveillance to quash political dissent and its disproportionate impact on certain groups.

Domestic intelligence agencies are not the only organizations keeping a close eye on citizens; private Big Tech companies have accelerated the development and proliferation of surveillance and intelligence-gathering technologies through data harvesting. Collecting personal data en masse not only enables companies like Amazon and Meta to track user behavior to optimize algorithms and recommendations, but also gives these companies something much more powerful: influence. And as they harvest every click, like and purchase of their users, minimal legal safeguards are in place to prevent overreach. In 2016, Cambridge Analytica, a British consulting firm, was found to have collected and used the personal data of millions of Facebook users to create profiles and generate political advertisements for Donald Trump’s presidential campaign without informed consent. This unchecked ability to shape decision-making and political outcomes through targeted influence campaigns forebodes the union of government and Big Tech into a technocratic state, which threatens the very foundations of democracy. 

Given the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence and its applications in facial recognition, cameras, and data monitoring, the perils that surveillance poses to the populace are being magnified. In January 2025, the Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE) under the guidance of Elon Musk was granted access to a trove of sensitive information and federal records–including Medicare and Medicaid records, financial data from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, federal student loan records, military records from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, and data on government financial transactions from the U.S. Department of the Treasury—without Congressional approval. The House Oversight Committee and whistleblower complaints sounded the alarm that [members of the DOGE team copied a database of approximately 300 million Americans’ Social Security information without authorization and transferred it to a third-party server](https://www.npr.org/2026/03/11/nx-s1-5745153/doge-social-security-data-whistleblower-investigation). This unlawful breach represents a highly troubling infringement of both privacy and public trust, especially as the identity of the third-party server and the intended use of this information remains unclear. One can only wonder if Elon is planning on using this information to influence future election results and/or to train his AI chatbot Grok.

Nowhere is the current expansion of the surveillance state more apparent than in the massive rollout of Flock cameras on public roads and highways across America. Produced by [Flock Safety](https://www.flocksafety.com/), Flock cameras are solar-powered automatic license plate readers (ALPRs) connected to the internet that are used to record and track the license plates of passing motorists. In the United States, over 120,000 Flock cameras have been installed across rural and urban areas since the company’s founding in 2017. While Flock cameras are primarily used by law enforcement for monitoring traffic, the cameras are also allegedly being used by agencies like the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to track suspected undocumented immigrants and make arrest stops. There are also allegations of Flock cameras being misused, with [four officers in a Georgia police department purportedly using surveillance for personal matters outside of their legal duties](https://www.nbcnews.com/video/four-georgia-police-department-employees-arrested-after-alleged-misuse-of-flock-cameras-268792389749). Surveillance technologies, especially those with AI capabilities, have also drawn immense criticism for false positives and high error rates that have led to false accusations and arrests. In Sainsbury, United Kingdom, [an AI face scanner falsely identified a civilian as a shoplifter at a supermarket chain](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/aug/17/humiliated-sainsburys-store-pauses-ai-scanning-after-false-shoplifting-accusation), while in the United States, facial technology led to the false arrest of [an Oklahoman grandmother for fraudulent cash withdrawals in Maryland despite never having visited the state](https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/more-than-a-dozen-wrongful-arrests-due-to-police-reliance-on-facial-recognition-technology). 

While the use of Flock cameras is becoming increasingly prevalent in the U.S., so is the backlash from American citizens. [A poll by the Washington Post found ](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/08/28/americans-turn-against-license-plate-readers-privacy-concerns-grow/)that 46% of Americans oppose Flock cameras being used in their community. Within the last year, protests against Flock cameras [have increased by almost 600%](https://www.newsweek.com/anti-flock-camera-protests-surge-12403463). [Over 90 cities have canceled contracts with Flock cameras](https://thehill.com/policy/technology/6053849-flock-contract-cancellations-grow-data-concerns/) due to heavy criticism and scrutiny. Vigilantes have even taken it upon themselves to [vandalize and destroy the cameras, broadcasting it on social media](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/jul/25/flock-surveillance-cameras). As Flock cameras and similar technologies draw increasing public scrutiny, they are raising concerns about threats to civil liberties protected by the U.S. Constitution. In _Griswold v. Connecticut, _the Supreme Court_ _ruled that a right to privacy exists within the penumbras of the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments. The union of the government and Big Tech and the increasing use of mass surveillance technologies is steadily eroding these civil liberties.

Despite many people’s concerns over mass surveillance technology’s infringement on privacy, its effectiveness at improving safety cannot be overlooked. In 2019, [a study by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice](http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12419) found that over the course of forty years, CCTV cameras prompted a significant reduction in crime in stores, car parks, residential areas, and other places where they were installed. The research indicated that the cameras’ panopticon-like surveillance serves as a major deterrent by enabling increased scrutiny, awareness, and response to incidents. Surveillance technology has also played a critical role in helping law enforcement counter terrorism. In the 2013 manhunt for the Boston Marathon bombers, the FBI and local police examined terabytes of digital surveillance footage from surrounding stores and phones to locate and identify the perpetrators.

It is unquestionable that surveillance technology designed for lawful investigative and safety purposes can be an invaluable tool for crime prevention and a boon to the overall societal good. However, this technology is only as effective as the people who use it. In the wrong hands surveillance technology can be used to oppress the very citizens it is meant to protect. For example, Human Rights Watch highlights how the [Israeli military has been building a database on Palestinians by collecting biometric and personal information to track them](https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/11/24/mass-surveillance-fuels-oppression-uyghurs-and-palestinians). Moreover, the Israeli spyware platform Pegasus, developed by the NSO Group, has been used to [hack into journalists’ and human rights groups’ phones and devices](https://www.theguardian.com/news/series/pegasus-project) to extract personal information, as well as to access their cameras, microphones, and text messages. Similarly, Chinese authorities utilize the Integrated Joint Operations Platform (IJOP), a mass surveillance system, in Xinjiang [to monitor and root out peaceful dissent among its Uyghur Muslim population](https://xjdp.aspi.org.au/explainers/how-mass-surveillance-works-in-xinjiang/). These cases illustrate how surveillance can initiate and enable the creation of a police state, ultimately realizing the kind of grim dystopia that George Orwell envisioned.

We cannot turn a blind eye to the threats of surveillance technology, as well as the implications of who is watching us through those lenses. It is important that we strike a balance between the benefits of surveillance technologies that keep us safe and the need to protect personal privacy and uphold the freedoms of our citizens. Community resistance toward the overreach of Big Tech companies and the pushback against Flock cameras signals a desire to check the forward advance of the surveillance state. By transparently evaluating the technology’s successes and shortcomings, citizens can collectively negotiate a solution that puts power in the hands of the people rather than big corporations and the government.