Privacy and Surveillance: A Closer Look at Recent Developments
The concept of privacy remains a pressing topic in the U.S., as highlighted by recent statements from Kristi Noem, the Secretary of Homeland Security. In 2025, Noem has made claims regarding the identification of federal agents, asserting that such actions constitute “doxing.” Additionally, she has positioned the exposure of these agents as a form of “violence.” Legal experts, however, question the validity of her assertions, noting that the current landscape of surveillance operates in both directions—a telling sign of our times.
Since the re-election of Donald Trump, the U.S. has witnessed an escalation in arrests and raids conducted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and affiliated federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. Many of these agents operate under heightened secrecy, citing their own safety as justification for concealing their identities. In response, citizens have ramped up efforts to document law enforcement encounters, reaching what appears to be unprecedented levels.
Grassroots “ICE watch” groups have emerged nationwide, signifying an active effort to monitor immigration enforcement. Applications to track such activities have intermittently appeared on major app platforms. Simultaneously, social media has become a repository for videos showcasing unidentified agents engaging in confrontational encounters, including instances of physical arrest and the disruption of families across urban America. From California to Illinois to North Carolina, concerned citizens have harnessed their smartphones to capture these occurrences, often in real-time.
Historically, documenting police activities has been part of American culture, a practice rooted in the desire to balance power dynamics between law enforcement and civilians. Experts like Adam Schwartz from the Electronic Frontier Foundation point out that this phenomenon dates back to events like the 1968 Democratic Convention when journalists began capturing police misconduct on film. Jennifer Granick from the ACLU underscored that this pursuit likely extends back centuries, but modern technology has transformed the landscape. Today, nearly everyone has a video recording device at their fingertips, facilitating rapid distribution of sensitive visual evidence.
The surge in civilian documentation took a pivotal turn in March 1991 when George Holliday recorded the brutal beating of Rodney King by LAPD officers. This video ignited nationwide conversations regarding race and policing, setting the stage for ongoing debates about accountability and transparency in law enforcement.
From a cybersecurity perspective, these developments might indicate various adversary tactics drawn from the MITRE ATT&CK framework. Techniques such as initial access—where agents may employ deceptive practices to cover their identities—could be at play, alongside tactics for persistence and privilege escalation among those involved. As societal dynamics shift, the implications for privacy and surveillance will continue to evolve, challenging conventional notions of safety and oversight.
Thus, the ongoing dialogue surrounding privacy is not merely a legal or ethical issue; it intertwines with cybersecurity practices that impact individuals and communities alike. As this story unfolds, the balance between public safety and civil liberties will undoubtedly remain a focal point of concern for both business owners and citizens in the digital era.
