In a post-Luigi Mangione world, this is not surprising. The public murder of a top healthcare CEO rocked the news, and with the phenomenon of copy-cat crimes, it makes sense that many organizations would become wary of future attacks propelled by political motives.
ICE seems to have the same concerns – in a 15-page document, they outline three levels of “vulnerability assessments.” At the lowest level (Tier 3), they focus on threats to ICE employees and buildings. At the highest level (Tier 1), they are concerned about threats to top ICE leaders and their families.
This raises serious questions as to our right to free speech – and our basic right to freedom of thought. As put by Sam Biddle of the Intercept, “It’s unclear how exactly any contractor might sniff out someone’s ‘proclivity for violence.’ The ICE document states only that the contractor will use ‘social and behavioral sciences’ and ‘psychological profiles’ to accomplish its automated threat detection.”
And we want threat detection: Of violent persons, intent on doing harm, before they can do any harm. But ICE has a history of controversial actions—like infiltrating public schools, racially profiling American citizens, and detaining children. Searching for negative opinions about them smacks more of thought-policing than actual security.
And the biggest question is unanswered: How will this company differentiate between a negative political opinion, versus a legitimate violent threat?
In today’s world, a single thought can go viral in seconds. This level of surveillance goes beyond what George Orwell imagined in 1984, where people were watched through two-way TV screens. At least those screens relied on facial expressions and sound. Now, website tracking can reveal people’s interests, friendships, purchases, and opinions—often without them realizing it. Companies can even track how you interact with emails and websites using hidden digital tools.
This kind of digital surveillance isn’t new. In China, the government watches its citizens with internet monitoring, facial recognition cameras, and data tracking. According to Forbes, this technology is “embedded into daily life, ensuring that almost no action goes unnoticed.” Russia does something similar by collecting data from phone and internet users. Public Wi-Fi networks must log user identities, and internet companies have to store communication records for years.
This is called digital authoritarianism—using technology to control and monitor people.9 Even in democratic countries, companies often sell user data, usually for advertising, but sometimes for other purposes. The risk of widespread digital surveillance is real.
As our world becomes less private, we should start thinking about how to protect our online privacy and take steps to protect ourselves. Here is information on the information Big Tech companies already have on you: https://www.security.org/resources/data-tech-companies-have/
Check out how to protect your digital privacy here.
