Tracing the Watchful Eye: U.S. Surveillance Yesterday and Today

The United States government has long been criticized for excessive surveillance of citizens and non-citizens alike. To many, this practice contradicts the American ideals of personal liberty and privacy. Directives for mass surveillance are most commonly made after major tragedies or during political upheaval. After the 9/11 attacks, the Patriot Act allowed authorities to detain  hundreds of immigrants for prolonged periods despite not being accused of a crime. These detentions, along with other consequences of the act, were later defended as necessary for national security. However, the expansion of the FBI’s power, combined with ambiguous checks on that power, enabled the wrongful detention of many, including American citizens, based largely on race and faith.

One lesser-known example of mass surveillance in the U.S. was the CIA’s Operation CHAOS, which took place from 1967 to 1974. The stated goal of the operation was to determine the extent of foreign influence on dissident groups. Operation CHAOS aimed to gain access to political groups that they considered radical to gather information for foreign intelligence purposes. In this context, “radicals” included vocal student activists, anti-war organizers, and proponents of Black power. American dissidents living abroad were also monitored during this period. Although some CIA officials viewed the operation as an overreach, their chain of command ordered that it continue. Operation CHAOS ultimately produced an index with more than 300,000 names of people and groups connected to political activism. In the process, the CIA intimidated thousands and exceeded the limits of its authority. The minor changes that followed, such as the creation of the House Intelligence Committee, did little to restrict the CIA’s reach. Surveillance abilities often grow more rapidly than the mechanisms meant to restrict them.

Members of the Sweden-based branch of the American Deserters Committee, which was under CIA surveillance, February 1968.

Despite historical abuses, surveillance remains necessary in some circumstances. Advances in technology over the past three decades have fostered vast social networks that bring people together yet also enable coordination among malevolent groups. It is unrealistic to expect a world with no surveillance because there will always be threats that the government is expected to identify. But we must pause to reflect on the boundaries of surveillance systems – in other words, we must clarify what is essential for safety versus what is excessive.

Some limits are already in place, but many argue that they are now insufficient. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), which was formed in 1978, was designed to oversee the executive branch’s ability to collect communications data from Americans. Yet the privacy provisions outlined within Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) have  not kept pace with evolving technology. This is because the growth of data collection has made it easier for the government to access diverse types of information. Because digital platforms support long-term storage, governments have a longer period in which they can legally intercept and analyze personal data.

In the age of digital monitoring and artificial intelligence (AI), public skepticism of the government has risen considerably. Today’s technology enables a level of uninterrupted monitoring that is far more invasive than what was possible under earlier systems. Because of this shift, the question is no longer about when surveillance is justified, but instead when and how it must be limited. Existing surveillance systems can be quietly redesigned and repurposed with little legal pushback. These concerns are no longer hypothetical; recent developments indicate that we must scrutinize how surveillance systems are evolving. 

Under the current presidential administration, the Department of Homeland Security is using AI tools to examine people’s social media activity to identify critics and potentially bar them from receiving visas and green cards. The United States Border Patrol is using a predictive intelligence system, which combines street cameras, license plate readers, and an unspecified algorithm, to detain people with “suspicious driving patterns” associated with trafficking. Facial recognition technology is also being used by law enforcement officials to identify suspects, which has resulted in several wrongful arrests and criminal sentences. 

Illustration depicting the application of facial recognition technology to old photographs. 

The quiet expansion of surveillance itself is concerning. Perhaps even more concerning is the lack of regulation governing AI and other emerging technology. Unlike the European Union, the United States does not have a cohesive nationwide law to regulate AI. Instead, scattered regulations arise from initiatives in different agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). This lack of structure makes it harder to enforce compliance uniformly. Most legislation focuses on deepfakes and consumer-facing systems. Because the use of AI and other emerging technology for surveillance purposes remains largely unaddressed, Americans lack protections against the unethical use of their personal data.

Although older programs like CHAOS were controversial, they were limited in reach and became highly visible once exposed. Today, surveillance is no longer always discrete, time-bound, or tied to a specific objective. Instead, it is often subtle and far-reaching, embedded within public spaces, social media platforms, and other online networks. The underlying problems of mass surveillance persist, but new risks have been brought about by such a dramatic technological transformation. The automation of surveillance systems means that unchecked bias or error could affect millions. 

Despite the scale of today’s technology, human judgment still shapes how surveillance systems are implemented and interpreted. Transparency and cooperation among policymakers, engineers, and analysts will become increasingly important. Surveillance has always carried both benefits and risks, but its rapidly growing scope makes maintaining this balance particularly difficult. The choices we make now will determine whether surveillance systems maintain public safety or infringe on the freedoms that they are supposed to protect.