For authoritarian governments, surveillance has always been a powerful tool for stifling dissent and ensuring obedience in a population. Private information gathered on individuals can be used to manipulate, blackmail or threaten them with punishment.
In his article, “Privacy in Authoritarian Times: Surveillance Capitalism and Government Surveillance,” GW Law scholar Daniel J. Solove explains how today’s era of surveillance capitalism–in which corporations relentlessly collect, store and commodify our personal data–can empower authoritarian governments.
According to Solove, a government’s ability to access troves of private information on its citizens is made easier by the fact that corporations have compiled extensive “digital dossiers” on each of us that contain everything from health and financial data to data on our beliefs and interests. Weak privacy laws and outdated legal doctrines have done little to shield consumers or safeguard democracy.
The Fourth Amendment, for example, protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, including the capture of personal data. However, the third-party doctrine, crafted by the Supreme Court in the 1970s, states that individuals who voluntarily give their information to a third party forfeit any reasonable expectation of privacy. Buoyed by this doctrine, an authoritarian government could request–or demand–that a corporation share data it has collected on individuals without the need for a warrant and without violating any legal restrictions.
Solove also highlights how consumer privacy laws enacted at the state level are unlikely to provide meaningful protections for consumers. Too often these laws put the onus on the harried consumer to self-manage an ever-expanding digital footprint.
In addition, consumer surveillance is being supercharged by artificial intelligence.
“Consumer privacy laws fall short of tackling the core challenges of modern data collection and AI-driven inferences, leaving individuals exposed in a system that continues to prioritize the interests of governments and corporations over genuine privacy protections,” says Solove, who co-directs the new Center for Law and Technology and is the Eugene L. and Barbara A. Bernard Professor of Intellectual Property and Technology Law.
According to Solove, better regulatory measures that reign in both corporate and government surveillance can deliver better protections for consumers while helping guard against authoritarianism.
At the federal level, that might mean widening the scope of protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment or updating the third-party doctrine to better reflect what privacy has come to mean in the modern Information Age.
Federal and state governments could enact laws that place more restrictions on the government’s ability to access personal data, for example, by requiring the government to secure a warrant that demonstrates probable cause.
As Solove points out, though, we must look beyond government surveillance. “To adequately regulate government surveillance, it is essential to also regulate surveillance capitalism. Government surveillance and surveillance capitalism are two sides of the same coin.”
Data minimization laws, for example, would require companies to limit the amount of personal data they collect, restrict its use, and ensure data isn’t held for longer than necessary. Other laws may restrict what data companies can sell or provide to the government or regulate the design and use of surveillance technologies.
Ultimately, a range of policymaking bodies will need to be involved to advance the strong privacy protections that U.S. consumers deserve–and that democracies need to safeguard against authoritarianism.
Solove’s article was published by Social Science Research Network and will appear in an upcoming issue of the Boston College Law Review. His recent book, “On Privacy and Technology,” which covers themes relating to privacy, surveillance capitalism, authoritarianism and the rise of AI, was published in 2025 by Oxford University Press.