At a recent briefing on federal surveillance by American Community Media on Friday September 5th, policy experts and digital rights advocates shared alarming details about how personal data in the United States is being collected, shared, and used. The speakers explained that systems built for taxes, healthcare, and immigration have been repurposed in ways that go far beyond what most people understand. For Indigenous communities, immigrants, and anyone who interacts with federal agencies, the changes could affect basic rights, privacy, and trust in government.
Nicole Alvarez from the Center for American Progress began by describing what she calls a “digital watchtower.” She explained that this is “a rapidly expanding system of surveillance that threatens not only the immigrant communities currently being targeted by this administration, but the privacy rights of all Americans.”
She explained that the United States has long followed a principle called purpose limitation. When you give the government information, it should only be used for the reason you gave it. But the Privacy Act that created this rule is from 1974. As Nicole put it, “the Privacy Act has simply not kept up with the times.”
She pointed to a major example: an agreement between the IRS and ICE that allows tax records to be shared for immigration enforcement. “These are not irrational choices,” Nicole said of people who might now avoid filing taxes. “They are survival instincts in a system that no longer feels safe.” She warned that once trust breaks down, people stop using services they need, like healthcare or benefits programs, which hurts everyone.
Next, Emerald Tsay from Georgetown’s Center on Privacy and Technology explained how surveillance reaches into everyday life. She said ICE has accessed records from DMVs, utilities, and other state agencies. Then she described something even more concerning: DNA collection. “We found that the federal government has been collecting DNA on the assumption that people will commit crimes in the future,” she said.
Those DNA profiles are stored in the national CODIS database, even if the person has never been charged with a crime. “This surveillance puts everyone at risk, not just immigrants,” Emerald said. She added that private companies are selling the technology behind these programs, creating systems that become bigger and harder to dismantle over time.
Sophia Cope from the Electronic Frontier Foundation spoke about social media monitoring and border searches. She said that people applying for visas now have to list five years of social media handles, and that the government has started “continuous vetting” for people already in the United States. “They don’t want to risk themselves being swept up into the surveillance and having that data collected and stored, and potentially used against them later on,” she explained.
Sophia said the focus of this monitoring has widened over time. “We’ve seen them expand the subject matter of looking at social media and potentially punishing people or revoking statuses,” she said. People now worry that posts about Gaza, Palestine, or even general political views could be used against them. “All of that speech, frankly, even pro-terrorism speech, is actually protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as long as you’re not inciting imminent violence or making a true threat,” she said.
She also explained how border searches work. “CBP has the ability to search the cell phones, laptops, or other devices of travelers crossing,” Sophia said. These searches can be simple manual checks or more advanced searches that copy large amounts of data. “They will not look at information in the cloud. They only look at data that’s resident on the device,” she added.
During questions, people asked about the lack of privacy laws, the use of AI without safeguards, and whether states like California could be pressured to share data with ICE. Nicole said, “We need to modernize these laws” so people can trust public systems again. Emerald urged reporters to focus on “the impacts of surveillance on people who are being directly affected by these technologies.” Sophia said the government should also be required to prove these programs actually work, instead of relying on vague claims about security.
For Indigenous and border communities, these changes are not abstract. When signing up for healthcare or paying taxes can feed into a federal database, families start to pull back. They delay medical care. They skip benefits. And with every new database, every new surveillance program, trust erodes further.
The speakers all agreed that people need stronger privacy protections, real oversight, and clear limits on how personal data can be used. Nicole put it simply: “Americans deserve a full account detailing how these systems were built and used.” Until that happens, families will keep living with uncertainty about where their information goes, who can see it, and how it might be used against them later.
