Privacy Isn’t Dead: The Paradox of Two-Way Surveillance and Public Accountability

Byline: The evolving conflict between government surveillance and public oversight, highlighted by Kristi Noem’s framing of lawful accountability as “doxxing.”

1. Introduction: A Disputed Narrative and the Central Paradox

The assertion that “privacy is dead” is challenged by recent events surrounding Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security, whose 2025 rhetoric frames the public’s documentation of masked federal agents as “doxxing” and “violence.” Legal experts uniformly reject this characterization, yet her claims underscore a defining tension of the contemporary era: surveillance is no longer one-directional.

Since Donald Trump’s second inauguration, U.S. life has been destabilized by relentless immigration enforcement actions—arrests, raids, and detentions by ICE, CBP, and deputized local authorities. Agents, citing “operational safety,” often conceal their identities, prompting an unprecedented surge in public documentation of law enforcement activity.

2. The Escalation of Enforcement and the Public Response

Across the nation, “ICE watch” networks, mobile applications for tracking enforcement (and their subsequent removal from app stores), and social media feeds flooded with footage of unidentified agents detaining individuals in public spaces (e.g., parking lots, residential areas) have become emblematic of this shift. From Los Angeles to Raleigh, North Carolina, ordinary citizens—neighbors, passersby—have increasingly documented community members’ interactions with law enforcement.

3. Historical Roots of Public Oversight

Documenting law enforcement activity to counterbalance power disparities is a longstanding American tradition, predating modern civil rights movements. Adam Schwartz, Privacy Litigation Director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), traces this practice to the 1968 Democratic National Convention, where journalists documented police brutality against protesters. Similarly, Jennifer Granick, ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project attorney, notes: “The act of documenting police activity is as old as policing itself; technology has merely democratized it.”

Key turning points include:

• 1991: George Holliday’s videotape of LAPD officers beating Rodney King, catalyzing national debates on racial inequities in policing.

• 2020: A teenager’s recording of Derek Chauvin’s killing of George Floyd, fueling the Black Lives Matter movement and social media-driven accountability.

4. Technological Enablement: The “Always-On” Video Recorder

The proliferation of smartphones and social media has transformed documentation into a populist practice. Granick explains: “Today, everyone carries a video recorder, and sharing footage is instantaneous—no longer confined to journalists or activists.” This shift, combined with a “distributed network of observers,” has amplified public oversight of law enforcement.

5. The Trump Administration’s Retaliatory Legal and Administrative Moves

The Trump administration has responded aggressively to this oversight:

• Criminal Indictments: In September 2025, three individuals were charged for “livestreaming an ICE agent’s home address” on Instagram.

• Subpoenas: DHS subpoenaed Meta (Instagram’s parent company) to unmask six accounts linked to “officer safety threats,” later withdrawn in December 2025.

• FBI Investigations: The FBI initiated “criminal and domestic terrorism investigations” into “threats against immigration enforcement activity” in 23 U.S. jurisdictions, per internal documents obtained by The Guardian.

6. Doxxing: A Legal and Political Rhetorical Tool

“Doxxing”—publishing personal information without consent—is not a formal legal term or criminal offense under federal law. However, Trump administration allies seek to criminalize it: Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn introduced the Protecting Law Enforcement From Doxxing Act in June 2025, which remains stalled in Congress.

Outside legal channels, pro-administration actors have “jawboned” social media users to remove content or disclose uploaders’ identities, attempting to suppress documentation.

7. Legal and Constitutional Framing: The Right to Record and Transparency

Legal experts emphasize that public recording of law enforcement in public spaces is constitutionally protected, provided it does not obstruct official business. Schwartz clarifies: “Government accountability is a ‘basic constitutional paradigm.’ The public’s right to know what the government does is paramount.”

Granick adds: “Police and ICE agents lack an expectation of privacy when acting as public officials. Transparency is the government’s obligation to the public, not surveillance.”

8. Conclusion: The Balance of Surveillance and Power

Privacy in America evolves amid technological and political shifts. While some decry populist accountability as “privacy erosion,” Granick argues this is a misnomer: “The government already outstrips individual surveillance capabilities—via license plate readers, warrantless data access, and warrant-based surveillance. Public documentation is not surveillance; it is accountability.”

In the era of two-way surveillance, the debate over privacy is ultimately a debate over power: between an overreaching state and a vigilant public.

Key Takeaway: Public oversight of law enforcement is not “surveillance”—it is the Constitution’s guarantee of transparency.