Privacy, Civil Liberties, and Digital Crime Control

Privacy, civil liberties, and digital crime control examines the tensions between the expanding surveillance and investigative capabilities that digital technology provides to law enforcement and the constitutional rights, statutory protections, and democratic values that constrain the exercise of state power in a free society. Within Cyber Criminology, this topic addresses the foundational governance question of how societies should balance the legitimate need for effective crime control against the equally legitimate need to protect individual privacy, freedom of expression, freedom of association, and due process of law in an era when digital technology has dramatically expanded both the threats that government must address and the powers available to address them. The Supreme Court has recognized that the digital age requires reconsideration of constitutional principles developed in analog contexts (Riley v. California, 2014; Carpenter v. United States, 2018), and the legislative, regulatory, and institutional frameworks governing digital crime control continue to evolve in response to technological change, public concern, and the ongoing advocacy of civil liberties organizations. This article examines the constitutional framework, the major policy debates, and the institutional dynamics that shape the relationship between privacy, civil liberties, and digital crime control within the broader field of Criminology.

Introduction

The tension between security and liberty is as old as democratic governance itself. What is new in the digital age is the scale and granularity at which both the threat and the response operate. Digital technology enables criminal activity — cybercrime, online child exploitation, terrorism-related communications, drug trafficking through encrypted platforms — that is difficult to investigate and prosecute without access to digital data. The same technology enables surveillance capabilities — the monitoring of communications, the tracking of physical movements, the analysis of behavioral patterns, the identification of individuals through biometric systems — that exceed anything available to previous generations of law enforcement and that, if deployed without adequate constraint, could transform the relationship between the state and the citizen from one of regulated authority to one of pervasive monitoring (Lyon, 2007; Zuboff, 2019).

The Snowden disclosures of 2013 brought the scale of government digital surveillance to public attention, revealing programs that collected the telephone metadata of virtually every American, intercepted internet communications transiting major fiber-optic cables, and compromised the encryption protocols on which the security of digital commerce depends (Greenwald, 2014). The disclosures prompted significant legislative reform (the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015), institutional changes within the intelligence community, and a public discourse about digital surveillance that continues to shape policy development. At the same time, the escalation of cybercrime, the persistence of terrorism threats, and the exploitation of digital platforms for child sexual exploitation have generated sustained pressure for investigative capabilities that may require access to the same digital data that privacy advocates seek to protect.

The challenge is not to choose between security and liberty but to develop governance frameworks that effectively serve both — frameworks that enable law enforcement to investigate serious crime while constraining the state’s surveillance power within boundaries that preserve the conditions of democratic freedom. This article examines the major dimensions of that challenge across constitutional law, legislative policy, the encryption debate, emerging technologies, and the institutional dynamics of digital crime control governance.

Constitutional Framework

Fourth Amendment Evolution in the Digital Age

The Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on “unreasonable searches and seizures” provides the primary constitutional framework for limiting government surveillance power, but its application to digital data has required substantial judicial development. The traditional Fourth Amendment framework, established in Katz v. United States (1967), protects individuals who have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the information or space at issue — a standard that has been applied to determine whether government access to specific categories of digital data constitutes a “search” requiring a warrant based on probable cause (Kerr, 2005; Solove, 2004).

The Supreme Court’s digital-era Fourth Amendment jurisprudence reflects a progressive recognition that digital data implicates privacy interests qualitatively different from those at stake in physical searches. Riley v. California (2014) unanimously held that police must obtain a warrant before searching a cell phone seized incident to arrest, reasoning that cell phones contain “the privacies of life” — a breadth and depth of personal information that distinguishes them from the wallets, address books, and containers that police had previously been permitted to search without a warrant upon arrest. Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion for the Court acknowledged that the rule would have costs for law enforcement but concluded that “[p]rivacy comes at a cost” — a formulation that explicitly weighed the privacy interests at stake against the government’s investigative needs and found the privacy interests weightier.

Carpenter v. United States (2018) extended Fourth Amendment protection to historical cell-site location information, holding that the government’s acquisition of seven or more days of CSLI constitutes a search requiring a warrant. The decision was significant not only for its specific holding but for its broader reasoning, which departed from the third-party doctrine — the principle that information voluntarily shared with third parties carries no Fourth Amendment protection — by recognizing that the “seismic shifts in digital technology” had created forms of data collection that the doctrine’s framers could not have anticipated (Ohm, 2010). Justice Roberts’s majority opinion described CSLI as providing “an intimate window into a person’s life” and held that “an individual maintains a legitimate expectation of privacy in the record of his physical movements as captured through CSLI” — reasoning that has implications for government access to other categories of digital data that the Court has not yet addressed.

The doctrinal questions left open by Carpenter are substantial. The Court explicitly declined to address real-time CSLI tracking, tower dumps (the disclosure of all phones connecting to a particular cell tower during a specified time period), security cameras, and “other business records that might incidentally reveal location information” — categories of digital surveillance that remain governed by pre-Carpenter doctrine in most jurisdictions. The application of Carpenter’s reasoning to these and other categories of digital data — including automated license plate reader databases, commercial location data purchased from data brokers, and aggregated metadata from multiple sources — is being determined by lower court decisions that may produce circuit splits requiring future Supreme Court resolution (Gray & Citron, 2013).

First Amendment and Digital Expression

The First Amendment’s protections for speech, press, assembly, and association intersect with digital crime control in multiple dimensions. The criminalization of online expression — including cyberstalking, harassment, threats, and the distribution of illegal content — must satisfy First Amendment requirements that distinguish protected speech from criminal conduct. The Supreme Court’s true threats doctrine, as refined in Counterman v. Colorado (2023), requires that the government prove the defendant had some subjective awareness of the threatening nature of their statements — a mens rea requirement that protects speakers who make statements that listeners reasonably perceive as threatening but that the speaker did not intend or recognize as such (Volokh, 2023).

The First Amendment’s protection of anonymous speech and association is particularly relevant to digital crime control. The Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment protects the right to speak anonymously (McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 1995) and the right to associate privately (NAACP v. Alabama, 1958) — rights that are implicated when government surveillance of digital communications reveals the identities, associations, and expressive activities of individuals who have not been individually suspected of criminal conduct. The chilling effect of surveillance on protected expression — the tendency of individuals to self-censor when they know or suspect that their communications are being monitored — represents a First Amendment harm that is distinct from the Fourth Amendment privacy interest and that has been recognized by courts as a cognizable injury in challenges to surveillance programs (Laird v. Tatum, 1972; Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 2013).

The tension between content moderation and the First Amendment adds a further dimension. When government officials pressure social media platforms to remove content — including extremist speech, disinformation, and material related to criminal activity — the question of whether the resulting content removal constitutes government censorship subject to First Amendment constraints has generated significant litigation. The Supreme Court’s decisions in Moody v. NetChoice (2024) and related cases have begun to address the constitutional boundaries of both government pressure on platforms and state regulation of platform content moderation decisions, though the doctrinal framework remains in development (Lakier, 2021).

The Encryption Debate

Law Enforcement Access and the Going Dark Problem

The expansion of strong encryption across consumer devices and communication platforms has produced one of the most intractable policy disputes in digital crime control. End-to-end encrypted messaging services (Signal, WhatsApp, iMessage) prevent anyone other than the communicating parties — including the service provider, law enforcement agencies with valid court orders, and intelligence agencies — from accessing message content. Full-disk encryption on smartphones and laptops prevents forensic access to device contents without the user’s passcode. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies have characterized this situation as “going dark” — the loss of lawful surveillance capability that encryption creates — and have advocated for technical or legislative solutions that would enable authorized access to encrypted communications and devices (Comey, 2014; Wray, 2017).

The law enforcement argument is grounded in specific operational consequences. The FBI has documented cases in which encrypted devices seized pursuant to valid search warrants could not be accessed, leaving potentially critical evidence — communications, photographs, location data, contacts — beyond investigative reach. In child exploitation cases, encrypted messaging provides channels through which exploitative material can be exchanged and grooming can occur without the possibility of detection by the service provider. In terrorism cases, encrypted communications enable operational planning that intelligence agencies cannot monitor. In drug trafficking cases, encrypted platforms facilitate distribution networks that are invisible to wiretap orders. The cumulative effect, law enforcement argues, is a degradation of investigative capability that allows serious criminals to operate with impunity behind an encryption barrier that valid court orders cannot penetrate (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018).

The technical community’s response is that any mechanism enabling law enforcement access to encrypted communications or devices would necessarily create a vulnerability that could be exploited by criminal actors, hostile foreign governments, and other unauthorized parties. Abelson, Anderson, Bellovin, Benaloh, Blaze, Diffie, Gilmore, Green, Landau, Neumann, Rivest, Schiller, Schneier, Specter, and Weiser (2015) — a group of leading cryptographers and computer scientists — published a detailed technical analysis arguing that “exceptional access” mechanisms cannot be designed to be available exclusively to authorized government users and that mandating such mechanisms would “undo progress on security at a time when Internet vulnerabilities are causing massive economic harm.” The argument is that weakening encryption to enable law enforcement access would reduce the security of all users — including the vast majority who are not criminal suspects — exposing them to data theft, identity fraud, corporate espionage, and foreign intelligence collection.

Legislative Proposals and International Approaches

Multiple legislative proposals have sought to address the encryption impasse. The EARN IT Act (Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act), introduced in multiple Congressional sessions, would modify Section 230 immunity to incentivize platforms to adopt best practices for detecting child sexual exploitation — practices that critics argue would be incompatible with end-to-end encryption. The Lawful Access to Encrypted Data Act would require service providers to assist law enforcement in accessing encrypted data pursuant to court orders, effectively mandating the creation of access mechanisms that the technical community opposes. Neither proposal has been enacted, reflecting the absence of political consensus on an issue where the competing interests — child safety, national security, cybersecurity, privacy, commercial innovation — are each supported by powerful constituencies (Kerr & Schneier, 2018).

International approaches have varied. Australia’s Assistance and Access Act of 2018 empowers law enforcement to compel technology companies to provide technical assistance in accessing encrypted communications, including the creation of new interception capabilities — the most aggressive legislative approach among Western democracies. The United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act includes provisions that could require platforms to implement content scanning in encrypted environments, though the technical feasibility of such scanning without compromising encryption remains disputed. The European Union’s proposed Child Sexual Abuse Regulation (the “chat control” regulation) would require platforms to detect CSAM in private messages, including encrypted ones — a proposal that has generated fierce opposition from privacy advocates and technology companies. The international landscape reflects the same unresolved tension that characterizes the U.S. debate, with different nations striking different balances based on their legal traditions, political cultures, and assessments of the relative priority of security and privacy.

Surveillance Reform and Oversight

Post-Snowden Reforms

The Snowden disclosures prompted the most significant reforms to U.S. surveillance law and practice since the original enactment of FISA in 1978. The USA FREEDOM Act of 2015 ended the NSA’s bulk collection of domestic telephone metadata under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, replacing it with a targeted query system in which the government must obtain records from telephone companies on a case-by-case basis using specific selection terms approved by the FISA Court. The Act also established a panel of amici curiae — independent advocates who can be appointed to present arguments before the FISA Court in significant cases — addressing the criticism that the Court’s proceedings had been entirely one-sided, with only the government’s position represented (Donohue, 2016).

Additional reforms included the declassification of significant FISA Court opinions, the creation of a Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) with authority to review surveillance programs, the implementation of new transparency reporting requirements, and internal intelligence community reforms to the handling of U.S. person information incidentally collected through foreign intelligence surveillance. These reforms collectively represented the most substantial rebalancing of surveillance authority and civil liberties protection since the Church Committee investigations of the 1970s, though civil liberties advocates argued that they did not go far enough — particularly in failing to address Section 702 of FISA, which authorizes the collection of communications of non-U.S. persons abroad through U.S. service providers and which incidentally captures substantial volumes of U.S. person communications (Donohue, 2016; Granick, 2017).

The reauthorization of Section 702 in 2024 — following intense congressional debate about the program’s privacy implications — extended the authority while imposing additional restrictions on the querying of collected data using U.S. person identifiers. The compromise reflected the persistent tension between the intelligence community’s assessment of Section 702 as its most valuable collection authority and civil liberties organizations’ concern that the program enables warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international communications. The reauthorization debate illustrated how digital surveillance policy is shaped by the interplay of institutional interests, political dynamics, and the episodic public attention that national security controversies generate.

Oversight Mechanisms and Their Limitations

The oversight of digital surveillance operates through multiple institutional channels: judicial oversight by the FISA Court and regular Article III courts issuing warrants and court orders; congressional oversight through the intelligence and judiciary committees; executive branch oversight through inspectors general, the PCLOB, and internal compliance programs; and civil society oversight through litigation, investigative journalism, and freedom of information requests. Each mechanism provides a check on surveillance authority, but each also has significant limitations that constrain its effectiveness (Donohue, 2016).

Judicial oversight of surveillance is constrained by the ex parte nature of warrant and FISA Court proceedings, the high approval rate for surveillance applications (exceeding 99 percent for both criminal wiretaps and FISA orders), and the limited capacity of courts to evaluate the technical merits of surveillance applications. Congressional oversight is constrained by the classification of surveillance programs, the information asymmetry between intelligence agencies and congressional staff, and the political dynamics that may discourage aggressive oversight of programs that both parties have supported. Civil society oversight depends on the disclosure of surveillance practices — through leaks, FOIA requests, or declassification — that agencies may resist, and the standing requirements for legal challenges (as articulated in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 2013) create procedural barriers that prevent many potential challengers from reaching the merits of their claims.

The effectiveness of oversight is a function not only of institutional design but of political will. Oversight mechanisms that exist on paper but are not exercised vigorously provide only nominal accountability. The Snowden disclosures revealed instances in which existing oversight mechanisms had failed to detect or correct violations of surveillance authorities — including the NSA’s collection of domestic email metadata without proper legal authorization and the FISA Court’s discovery that the NSA had misrepresented the scope of its collection activities. These failures highlight the importance of robust, multi-layered oversight that does not depend on any single institution to function effectively.

Data Privacy and Commercial Surveillance

The Government’s Use of Commercial Data

The relationship between commercial data collection and government surveillance has emerged as a critical privacy concern that existing legal frameworks address incompletely. Technology companies, data brokers, and advertising networks collect vast quantities of personal data — location information, browsing history, purchase records, app usage, social connections — for commercial purposes. This data is often available for purchase by government agencies without the warrant or court order that would be required to collect the same information directly, creating what privacy advocates describe as a “loophole” in Fourth Amendment protection that enables surveillance through commercial intermediaries (Hartzog & Solove, 2022).

The scale of commercially available data is staggering. Location data derived from mobile advertising networks can track the movements of millions of individuals with high precision. Social media data aggregated by commercial analytics companies can map social networks, political affiliations, and behavioral patterns. Consumer data from data brokers compiles hundreds of data points per individual — financial status, health conditions, religious affiliations, political interests — into profiles that are available for commercial purchase. When government agencies purchase this data — as the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the IRS, and other agencies have been documented to do — they acquire surveillance capability that circumvents the legal processes designed to constrain government access to personal information (Cox, 2021).

The legal response to government purchase of commercial data is developing but incomplete. The Fourth Amendment Isn’t for Sale Act, introduced in Congress, would prohibit government agencies from purchasing data that they would otherwise need a warrant to obtain. Executive Order 14086 (2022) established safeguards for signals intelligence activities, including restrictions on the bulk collection of personal data, though its application to commercially purchased data is limited. Several federal courts have begun to consider whether the government’s purchase of commercial data constitutes a Fourth Amendment search under Carpenter’s reasoning, but no definitive judicial resolution of this question has been reached.

The Absence of Federal Privacy Legislation

The United States’ lack of a unified federal data privacy law — comparable to the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation — creates a regulatory environment in which personal data is collected and processed with minimal legal constraint, generating the data infrastructure that both commercial entities and government agencies exploit. The fragmented American approach — sector-specific federal regulation, state-level privacy laws, and FTC enforcement of “unfair and deceptive practices” — leaves significant gaps in privacy protection that affect both commercial and governmental data practices (Solove, 2004; Hartzog & Solove, 2022).

The absence of federal privacy legislation affects digital crime control in multiple ways. Without baseline data protection requirements, organizations collect and retain data in quantities that create attractive targets for cybercriminals and that expand the data available for government surveillance. Without data minimization requirements, organizations maintain records long after their commercial utility has expired, extending the exposure window for data breaches and expanding the historical records available to government investigators. And without meaningful consent requirements, individuals generate data about their movements, communications, and behaviors that they may not understand is being collected and that may subsequently be accessed by law enforcement through legal process or commercial purchase.

The enactment of unified federal privacy legislation would not eliminate the tensions between privacy and crime control, but it would establish a baseline framework within which those tensions could be managed more coherently than the current patchwork permits. Data minimization requirements would reduce the volume of data available for both criminal exploitation and government access. Data security requirements would reduce the data breaches that constitute a significant category of cybercrime. Transparency requirements would enable individuals to understand and contest the use of their data by both commercial and governmental actors. The relationship between privacy legislation and crime control is thus complementary rather than adversarial — stronger privacy protections reduce the crime that data vulnerability enables while imposing constraints on the surveillance that crime control may demand.

Civil Liberties Organizations and Advocacy

The Role of Advocacy in Digital Policy

Civil liberties organizations have played a defining role in shaping digital crime control policy through litigation, legislative advocacy, public education, and technical research. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has brought landmark cases challenging surveillance programs, facial recognition deployment, and government access to digital data — including the case that became Carpenter v. United States. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has combined legal advocacy with technical analysis of surveillance technologies, providing expert assessments that have informed both judicial decisions and legislative debates. The Brennan Center for Justice has produced research on predictive policing, surveillance technology governance, and the civil liberties implications of counterterrorism policy that has shaped the scholarly and policy discourse (Stanley, 2019).

These organizations function as institutional counterweights to the governmental agencies that advocate for expanded surveillance authority and the technology companies whose products enable both criminal activity and surveillance. In the legislative arena, civil liberties organizations have opposed proposals that would mandate encryption backdoors, expand warrantless surveillance authority, or weaken platform immunity in ways that would incentivize content censorship. In the judicial arena, they have brought cases and filed amicus briefs that have shaped the development of Fourth Amendment doctrine for digital data. In the public arena, they have conducted the investigative research — through FOIA requests, technical analysis, and whistleblower support — that has brought surveillance practices to public attention.

The Political Dynamics of Digital Rights Advocacy

The effectiveness of civil liberties advocacy is contingent on the political and cultural environment in which it operates. Public concern about surveillance tends to spike following disclosure events (the Snowden revelations, the Cambridge Analytica scandal) and to recede during periods when security threats dominate public attention (following terrorist attacks, during cybercrime crises). The episodic character of public engagement creates a challenging environment for sustained policy reform, as the political window for privacy-protective legislation may be narrow and the institutional momentum of surveillance agencies is continuous. The most durable achievements of civil liberties advocacy — the Fourth Amendment jurisprudence that Riley and Carpenter represent — have been judicial rather than legislative, reflecting the courts’ insulation from the political dynamics that shape legislative outcomes.

The bipartisan character of digital rights advocacy — which draws support from both progressive civil libertarians and conservative opponents of government overreach — provides a political foundation that single-party issues lack, though the specific policy priorities of left-leaning and right-leaning digital rights advocates do not always align. Progressive advocates emphasize the discriminatory deployment of surveillance technologies and the need for equity-oriented governance, while conservative advocates emphasize government overreach and the protection of individual liberty from state intrusion. The convergence of these perspectives on core issues — opposition to warrantless surveillance, support for encryption, skepticism of facial recognition deployment — has produced legislative coalitions that are unusual in an era of partisan polarization, though these coalitions are fragile and may fracture when the specific terms of reform proposals force choices between competing priorities.

Emerging Technologies and Future Challenges

AI, Biometrics, and the Expanding Surveillance Frontier

The development of artificial intelligence, biometric identification, and pervasive sensing technologies is expanding the surveillance capabilities available to government agencies in ways that existing legal and institutional frameworks were not designed to address. AI-enhanced video analytics can identify individuals, detect behaviors, and flag anomalies across vast networks of surveillance cameras. Biometric databases that combine facial images, fingerprints, iris scans, voiceprints, and gait patterns create identification capabilities that function in public spaces without the subject’s knowledge or consent. IoT sensors — embedded in vehicles, buildings, public infrastructure, and consumer devices — generate continuous streams of data about individuals’ movements, activities, and environments.

The convergence of these capabilities creates the potential for what scholars have termed “total surveillance” — a condition in which the aggregate of available data sources provides a substantially complete record of an individual’s daily life, movements, communications, and associations (Haggerty & Ericson, 2000; Lyon, 2007). Whether this potential is realized depends on the governance frameworks that constrain or permit the integration of data across sources, the legal standards that regulate government access to commercially collected data, and the technical architecture of the systems that collect, store, and process surveillance data.

The governance challenge is that each individual surveillance technology may be defensible on its own terms — CCTV cameras in public spaces, license plate readers on highways, facial recognition at airports — while the aggregate surveillance environment they collectively create may be incompatible with the conditions of freedom that democratic societies require. The Fourth Amendment’s framework, which evaluates the reasonableness of individual searches rather than the cumulative burden of surveillance, may not adequately address this aggregation problem. Scholars including Citron and Gray (2013) have proposed a “quantitative privacy” doctrine that would evaluate the constitutionality of surveillance not on a technology-by-technology basis but in terms of the total surveillance burden that the aggregate of available technologies imposes on individuals — an approach that would capture the systemic privacy implications that individual-technology analysis misses.

Balancing Frameworks and Democratic Governance

The development of governance frameworks adequate to the digital age requires moving beyond the binary of “security versus liberty” toward more nuanced balancing approaches that recognize the mutual dependence of security and liberty in democratic societies. A society without effective crime control is not free — it is subject to the arbitrary violence and exploitation of criminal actors. A society without effective privacy and civil liberties protections is not secure — it is vulnerable to the arbitrary exercise of government power that unconstrained surveillance enables. The task is to identify the governance structures, legal standards, and institutional practices that optimize both values simultaneously rather than treating them as a zero-sum trade-off (Waldron, 2003; Solove, 2011).

Proportionality analysis — which evaluates whether the intrusiveness of a surveillance measure is proportionate to the seriousness of the threat it addresses — provides one framework for structured balancing. The European Court of Human Rights has developed a proportionality doctrine for surveillance that requires government to demonstrate that surveillance measures serve a legitimate aim, are necessary in a democratic society, and are proportionate to the threat addressed. American constitutional law has not formally adopted proportionality analysis for surveillance, though the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Riley and Carpenter — which weighed the privacy interests at stake against the government’s law enforcement interests — reflects a functionally similar balancing approach (Ohm, 2010).

The institutional architecture of governance — who makes decisions about surveillance deployment, subject to what oversight, with what transparency — is as important as the legal standards that constrain surveillance authority. Governance frameworks that concentrate surveillance authority in executive agencies without effective legislative or judicial oversight create risks of abuse that legal standards alone cannot prevent. The most effective governance models combine clear legal standards (warrant requirements, proportionality tests), institutional oversight (judicial review, legislative monitoring, independent oversight bodies), transparency mechanisms (public reporting, algorithmic impact assessments), and democratic participation (community input into surveillance deployment decisions) into a multi-layered system that addresses the limitations of any single accountability mechanism.

Conclusion

Privacy, civil liberties, and digital crime control exist in a relationship of tension and mutual dependence that the digital age has intensified without fundamentally altering. The constitutional framework has evolved through landmark Supreme Court decisions that recognize the distinctive privacy implications of digital data, but significant doctrinal gaps remain — particularly regarding aggregated surveillance, commercial data, and emerging technologies. The legislative framework is fragmented and incomplete, with the absence of unified federal privacy legislation creating conditions that serve neither privacy nor security well. The encryption debate remains unresolved, reflecting a genuine technical and policy impasse between the competing imperatives of investigative access and communications security.

The most productive path forward lies not in choosing between security and liberty but in developing governance frameworks that serve both — frameworks that enable effective investigation of serious crime while imposing meaningful constraints on surveillance power, that promote transparency and accountability in the use of digital surveillance technologies, and that maintain the conditions of privacy, expression, and association that democratic citizenship requires. The development of these frameworks is not a technical problem to be solved but a democratic challenge to be continuously negotiated, as the technological capabilities that drive both crime and crime control continue to evolve faster than the institutions designed to govern them.

References

Abelson, H., Anderson, R., Bellovin, S. M., Benaloh, J., Blaze, M., Diffie, W., Gilmore, J., Green, M., Landau, S., Neumann, P. G., Rivest, R. L., Schiller, J. I., Schneier, B., Specter, M. A., & Weiser, D. J. (2015). Keys under doormats: Mandating insecurity by requiring government access to all data and communications. Journal of Cybersecurity, 1(1), 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyv009
Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018).
Citron, D. K. (2014). Hate crimes in cyberspace. Harvard University Press.
Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013).
Comey, J. B. (2014, October 16). Going dark: Are technology, privacy, and public safety on a collision course? Speech at Brookings Institution.
Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023).
Cox, J. (2021, February 5). How the U.S. military buys location data from ordinary apps. Vice Motherboard.
Donohue, L. K. (2016). The future of foreign intelligence: Privacy and surveillance in a digital age. Oxford University Press.
Granick, J. S. (2017). American spies: Modern surveillance, why you should care, and what to do about it. Cambridge University Press.
Gray, D., & Citron, D. K. (2013). The right to quantitative privacy. Minnesota Law Review, 98(1), 62–144.
Greenwald, G. (2014). No place to hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. surveillance state. Metropolitan Books.
Haggerty, K. D., & Ericson, R. V. (2000). The surveillant assemblage. British Journal of Sociology, 51(4), 605–622. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071310020015280
Hartzog, W., & Solove, D. J. (2022). The FTC and the new common law of data security. Columbia Law Review, 122(7), 1765–1834.
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
Kerr, O. S. (2005). Searches and seizures in a digital world. Harvard Law Review, 119(2), 531–585.
Kerr, O. S., & Schneier, B. (2018). Encryption workarounds. Georgetown Law Journal, 106(4), 989–1019.
Lakier, G. (2021). The non-First Amendment law of freedom of speech. Harvard Law Review, 134(7), 2299–2370.
Lyon, D. (2007). Surveillance studies: An overview. Polity Press.
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995).
NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958).
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). Decrypting the encryption debate: A framework for decision makers. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25010
Ohm, P. (2010). Broken promises of privacy. UCLA Law Review, 57(6), 1701–1777.
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014).
Schneier, B. (2015). Data and Goliath: The hidden battles to collect your data and control your world. W. W. Norton.
Solove, D. J. (2004). The digital person: Technology and privacy in the information age. NYU Press.
Solove, D. J. (2011). Nothing to hide: The false tradeoff between privacy and security. Yale University Press.
Stanley, J. (2019). The dawn of robot surveillance. American Civil Liberties Union.
USA FREEDOM Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-23.
Volokh, E. (2023). The First Amendment and Counterman v. Colorado. UCLA Law Review Discourse, 71, 1–28.
Waldron, J. (2003). Security and liberty: The image of balance. Journal of Political Philosophy, 11(2), 191–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9760.00174
Wray, C. A. (2017, March 7). The threat posed by the Islamic State and other terrorist groups. Testimony before Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism. PublicAffairs.

Related Articles