“People are scrambling” to figure out if Elon Musk’s programmers have accessed their private information, explained a federal intelligence employee to HuffPost. About a week earlier, a Forbes headline read “Elon Musk And DOGE’s Access To Student Loan Data Raises Concern.” That same day a CNN headline read “Homeland Security Secretary Noem says DOGE team has access to agency data.” A week later an NBC headline read “Top Social Security official steps down after disagreement with DOGE over sensitive data.” These news reports referenced a few of the federal government computer systems that billionaire Elon Musk and his team accessed, at the behest of President Donald Trump, under the auspices of making the government more efficient. In defending the project, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said of Musk on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” “What he’s finding with his algorithms, crawling through the data of the Social Security system, is enormous amounts of fraud, waste, and abuse.” While much of the media attention focused on lauding Musk from the right and chiding him from the left, there was a dearth of discourse about how ubiquitous data collection, not Musk or his team, is the biggest threat to people’s privacy.
The modern digital economy thrives on the destruction of privacy. Many of the technologies we rely on today— from GPS to the internet to touchscreens — were originally funded by the U.S. government for wartime surveillance and communication. In the post-Cold War era, these innovations were commercialized, leading to the rise of Silicon Valley. However, it was the aftermath of September 11, 2001 (9/11) that solidified the partnership between Big Tech and the government. Under the guise of national security, the federal government responded to the attacks of 9/11 with new laws that enabled mass data collection. As a result, Big Tech companies gained enormous power by supplying data to intelligence agencies. The result was a surveillance capitalist economy, where user data became the most valuable commodity.
As data collection expanded, private industries recognized its immense value. Insurers, landlords, advertisers, police departments, social safety net providers, and even educational institutions sought access to user information to refine their models and maximize profits. The internet’s so-called “free services” were merely a front for mass surveillance. Everything from driving in a car to checking into a hotel to making reservations at a restaurant to vacuums and televisions with so-called smart technology collect behavioral data, often without clear user consent. This obsession with data fueled predictive analytics allows tech companies to anticipate and manipulate consumer behavior.
Furthermore, the line between corporate and governmental surveillance is often blurred, as many of the corporations whose profits derive from data collection have contracts with the federal government to collect citizens’ data. Indeed, in 2013, a government contractor turned whistleblower named Edward Snowden exposed the extent of mass surveillance, revealing how intelligence agencies, colluding with Big Tech, exploited legal loopholes to spy on citizens. Such practices skirt constitutional protections of privacy from government by allowing surveillance by proxy from corporations who are financially dependent on government contracts and favorable regulatory and tax policies. In the process, privacy became nearly obsolete.
Despite congressional hearings and public outcry, lawmakers often demonstrated a lack of understanding—or worse, complicity — in the rapid erosion of privacy. Indeed, instead of addressing the core issues Snowden raised, the media and political establishment focused on Snowden himself, painting him as a traitor while ignoring the broader implications of his disclosures. More recently, lawmakers’ indifference to domestic spying was evident in the hypocritical scrutiny of the non-U.S. owned social media platform TikTok. While concerns about foreign surveillance at the hands of TikTok are valid, the same criticisms — regarding data collection, addictive algorithms, and manipulation — can and should be applied equally to US-based tech giants like Amazon, Facebook and Google. Yet, these companies face far less scrutiny from Congress. The companies also work with the federal government on surveillance, data collection and content moderation.
Some dismiss the dangers of mass surveillance with the shallow argument: I’m not doing anything wrong, so why should I care? Thinkers like George Orwell and Hannah Arendt addressed this question decades ago, noting that the erosion of privacy is a hallmark of exploitative systems — such as plantation slavery, totalitarian regimes like Nazi Germany and patriarchy.
Surveillance also poses a unique danger because what is legal today may become illegal tomorrow. For instance, people in states with trigger laws suddenly found that seeking or even discussing abortion became a crime overnight following the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade. A crime that was difficult to avoid for people who had given their health information to big-tech through supposed health apps that monitor menstrual cycles.
Importantly, the harms of surveillance are not limited to those accused of wrongdoing. Victims of stalking and those living with undocumented individuals depend on privacy for their safety and stability. Successful social movements — such as the labor, women’s rights, and civil rights movements — relied on privacy to strategically organize, communicate, and mobilize without interference or suppression from those in power. Additionally, corporations exploit data collection to justify inflating costs — such as rent and insurance — while limiting access to essential services for low-income communities. Similarly, LGBTQ+ youth and young people questioning or exploring their sexuality, who may not yet be out, run the risk of being even more subjugated.
Worse, data analytics tools are far from neutral; they reflect the biases of their creators. Studies show these tools disproportionately misclassify people of color as criminals, creating additional barriers for already marginalized groups.
Big Tech has masterfully convinced users that they are more powerful than they truly are, selling the illusion of connection, activism, and democracy — even as its products fuel division and democratic decline. Worse, these companies have shown a willingness to bend to power, embracing anti-disinformation and DEI policies under Democratic leadership, only to abandon it all with a Republican administration.
The panic over Elon Musk’s control of vast user data proved that no single entity should wield that much power. But users do have real power, and they must wield it to pressure both government and tech giants to protect privacy and end exploitative data collection. If the U.S. is to remain a democracy — where laws are enforced and truly reflect the will of the people — a Privacy Bill of Rights is a crucial first step. This framework should include:
Data Dividend: A federal law requiring companies to compensate citizens for their harvested data. Surveillance capitalism, companies may find, is too expensive to sustain at market rate.
Right to Be Erased: Citizens must have the right to demand the deletion of their personal data. This includes strict penalties for unauthorized data collection and bans on coercive data-for-access policies.
Decentralization of Data: Strict laws must prevent data from being collected, shared, or stored without a citizen’s explicit consent.
Surveillance-Free Zones: Cars, hotels, schools, homes, and other personal spaces must be declared surveillance-free zones, making digital surveillance in these areas illegal. Some argue that surveillance enhances safety, but true security comes from better policing—not from surrendering fundamental privacy rights. After all, what are the police protecting if your rights are already gone?
Opt-Out Protections: Privacy should never be the price of admission for using essential services. It must be illegal for companies to mandate data collection as a condition of access, with severe penalties for violations.
A Privacy Bill of Rights isn’t just an abstract ideal — it’s a necessary safeguard against corporate overreach and government intrusion. Today, politicians and media figures decry Big Tech’s overreach, yet they spent years enabling it. Real accountability, therefore, will not come from the institutions upholding the status quo. It must be demanded by the independent journalists, activists and ordinary citizens who have long sounded the alarm.
Read more
about Trump, Musk and DOGE
