In recent developments, the federal government has significantly broadened its surveillance capabilities, particularly concerning the collection and analysis of Americans’ private financial data. This expansion has been facilitated through collaborations with major financial institutions and the utilization of advanced technologies, leading to a substantial increase in the monitoring of individual transactions.
Reports indicate that in 2023 alone, over 3.3 million warrantless searches of private financial data were conducted by federal employees. This extensive data collection targeted individuals based on specific political beliefs, with search terms including “MAGA” and “TRUMP.” Transactions as routine as purchasing religious texts or shopping at outdoor retailers were flagged as potential indicators of extremism. Major banks such as Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Chase have cooperated by providing sensitive customer data to federal agencies without the necessity of legal processes.
The mechanisms employed for this data collection involve the use of Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs). Financial institutions are mandated to file SARs for transactions that deviate from typical patterns, effectively enlisting banks as extensions of law enforcement. This practice has led to the compilation of detailed profiles on individuals without their knowledge or consent.
The implications of these actions are multifaceted. The Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, appears to be circumvented through these warrantless data collection methods. The collaboration between financial institutions and federal agencies has resulted in the sharing of sensitive personal information without the traditional legal safeguards.
The scope of surveillance extends beyond financial data. The federal government has also expanded its monitoring capabilities through the acquisition of cell phone location data. In 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) purchased such data to assess compliance with quarantine measures, including attendance at religious services. Similarly, the Department of Defense obtained consumer data from mobile applications, and the Department of Homeland Security utilized cell phone location data for enforcement decisions along the U.S.-Mexico border.
These practices have raised concerns about the potential for mass surveillance and the erosion of privacy rights. The use of geofencing technology, which identifies and tracks individuals based on their phone’s location data, has been employed to monitor protests, rallies, and other activities, effectively turning innocent citizens into subjects of surveillance based on their geographic presence.
The expansion of surveillance has also been evident in legislative actions. The reauthorization of certain provisions of the Patriot Act has been criticized for granting overbroad powers to the government, allowing for the collection of vast amounts of data with minimal oversight. Additionally, proposed legislation such as the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data (CLOUD) Act seeks to further extend the government’s authority to access data stored globally, raising questions about the balance between national security and individual privacy.
The financial sector has not been immune to these developments. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has implemented rules requiring the collection of detailed information about private trades on U.S. exchanges. This has resulted in thousands of federal employees having access to confidential data of private investors. Furthermore, financial firms have faced substantial fines for failing to monitor and report private communications of their employees, indicating a trend towards increased regulatory scrutiny and data collection.
The cumulative effect of these actions is a significant expansion of federal surveillance capabilities, encompassing financial transactions, location data, and personal communications. This expansion has been facilitated through partnerships with private sector entities and the implementation of advanced technologies, leading to a comprehensive monitoring infrastructure.
In response to these developments, there have been calls for increased oversight and accountability. Proposals for the establishment of oversight bodies and the implementation of stricter regulations aim to address concerns about privacy and civil liberties. However, these measures would likely result in the creation of additional bureaucratic structures and the allocation of resources to ensure compliance and oversight.
As the federal government continues to enhance its surveillance capabilities, the balance between national security interests and individual privacy rights remains a subject of ongoing discussion. The implementation of oversight mechanisms and the establishment of regulatory frameworks are steps towards addressing these concerns, albeit with the recognition that such measures entail the expansion of governmental structures and the associated administrative complexities.
—
Mark Davis writes on constitutional rights, firearms legislation, and state-level legal trends. A graduate of Liberty University with a background in legal research, he has reported on gun rights cases from state courts to the Supreme Court. Before journalism, he worked with a constitutional law nonprofit focused on Second Amendment litigation.