| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
|
|
<
< | |
| | It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. |
| | It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. |
|
<
< | Paper Title |
>
> | Stop the Steal: Digital Surveillance at the Border and The Broader Implications Under the Trump Administration |
| | -- By DianaSlobodian - 15 Mar 2025 |
|
<
< | Section I
Subsection A
Subsub 1
Subsection B
Subsub 1 |
>
> | Introduction
Concerning news stories over visa holders being denied entry to the United States over social media posts criticizing Donald Trump have raised alarm bells over privacy protections, social media surveillance, and free speech. On March 20th, 2025, a French scientist who expressed personal opinions on the President’s research policy was denied entry into the United States. This comes at a time when Donald Trump, who campaigned strongly on the issue of immigration, has begun escalating his deportation and border security efforts. The escalation in immigration-related orders raises questions over the lengths the president is willing to go to secure the border, and how those lengths will impact the digital privacy within the United States. In response to increased reports of individuals attempting to enter the US being turned away or detained at the border, other countries have begun issuing travel advisories for their citizens. Domestically, concerns over the expression of free speech on social media and increased surveillance efforts of Trump’s political dissidents are growing. |
| | |
|
<
< | Subsub 2 |
>
> | Digital Privacy Protections at the Border
In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in Riley v. California that the warrantless search of cell phones is a violation of the fourth amendment. However, borders are an exception to this rule. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) are able to conduct warrantless searches of individuals entering the Untied Stated under the “boarder search exception” of the fourth amendment, citing national security as a defense of power to seize and search electronic devices. Individuals entering the United States are subject to inspection on a case-by-case basis, and boarder agents can exercise “broad discretion” over who to search. This raises issue over how those determinations are made, which electronic media is subject to search, and what constitutes grounds for denial of entry. When the US border and airports are treated as a loophole in the protections under the fourth amendment, no one is immune from having their devices seized and searched. |
| | |
|
>
> | At the border, American citizens can refuse to give up their passwords for social media accounts, but they still risk being detained and having their devices seized. Despite court orders restricting and limiting the actions which can be taken by border patrol agents, there are questions over whether CBP officials will abide by these orders. Visa holders have the right to refuse a search, but this could lead them to be denied entry into the country as we have seen in recent weeks. |
| | |
|
>
> | Beyond the Border
Denial of entry and potential detainment at the border for holders of valid visas over social media posts has implications beyond the border. In line with previous actions taken by Trump in his last term, the administration has released plans for a travel ban that would subject individuals from over 40 countries to increased scrutiny at the border when attempting to enter the US, and completely barring entry from 10 countries. These efforts will inevitably make the border more hostile to American citizens, and would be accompanied by threats to digital privacy and free expression as electronic devices are aggressively surveilled. |
| | |
|
<
< | Section II |
| | |
|
<
< | Subsection A |
>
> | Social Media Surveillance
Advancement in the capabilities of artificial intelligence are increasingly simplifying the monitoring of social media accounts. In an effort to revoke student visas, the State Department will begin using artificial intelligence to identify social media posts of foreign nationals who express support for Hamas. Under the Immigration Nationality Act of 1952, the Secretary of State has the authority to revoke visas of foreign nationals who are deemed to be a threat. This raises two critical concerns. First, the determination over who is deemed to be a threat is unclear but appears to hold a clear political stance. Second, visa holders are entitled to protections under the Constitution. Despite being subject to additional immigration laws, constitutional protections are called into question when those visa holders are being targeted through an invasion of their privacy on social media and subjecting them to searches based on their political beliefs.
The monitoring of social media posts that do not align with the political agenda of the Trump administration pose significant privacy risks to U.S. citizens. Social media is a place for people to exercise their freedom of speech, but a lack of end-to-end encryption capability leaves user’s data vulnerable to being handed over at the request of a government agency. |
| | |
|
<
< | Subsection B |
>
> | Even the threat of political retaliation is sufficient enough to impact the online behavior of individuals who could be targeted by the administration. As it stands today, the Trump Administration is likely to expand the American government’s surveillance efforts to lengths that have not been seen before in our country’s history, and tech giants who own the largest social media platforms with access to the data of millions of users will not stand in their way. A lack digital privacy on the internet positions millions of people vulnerable to the intentional targeting of Trump's political dissidents. |
| | |
|
>
> | Conclusion
In the first few weeks of the Trump Administration, crackdowns on immigration have had spillover effects that put constitutional liberties at risk. Escalation in deportation tactics and advancements in surveillance technology have allowed for an encroachment on individual freedoms and threaten individual expression that does not align with the President’s political agenda. These threats incite fear that limit the ability of American citizens to exercise their freedoms. The potential for politically motivated retaliatory action sets a dangerous precedent – one that can compromise the online trust and safety of all individuals regardless of citizenship status. What is unclear is how heavily the Trump administration is willing to exploit digital surveillance to deliver on his agenda. |
| |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. |