ICE Is Mounting a Mass Surveillance Campaign on American Citizens
Without strict oversight, the agency’s new technology threatens Americans’ free speech and privacy.
While a federal judge scrutinizes the constitutionality of tactics used by federal immigration authorities during ongoing protests in Chicago, these same agencies are quietly amassing behind-the-scenes surveillance technology. Originally slated to target undocumented immigrants, the technology is now being used to investigate protesters of President Donald Trump's mass deportation campaign.
Backed by funding from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed in July, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has entered into contracts with companies to provide surveillance capabilities like facial recognition algorithms, an iris-scanning identification app, controversial spyware on smartphones, and a real-time smartphone location and social media tracking system. In September alone, ICE racked up $1.4 billion in new surveillance technology contracts, the highest in at least 18 years, according to The Washington Post.
These contracts are in addition to any privately owned surveillance networks to which ICE has access. Flock Safety, for example, has allowed ICE to access over 80,000 of its AI-powered license plate reader cameras installed nationwide, according to 404 Media. The expansive—and growing—mass surveillance camera network captures the license plate number, make, model, and any distinctive features of all passing vehicles, making it possible to track cars and, by extension, drivers, often without a warrant.
Although ICE has sold its surveillance campaign as necessary to locating and deporting undocumented immigrations, the Trump administration has signaled that the technologies will also be used on American citizens. In September, Trump signed an executive order designating antifa a domestic terrorist organization and signaled that federal agencies, including ICE, should devote resources to investigating the network. Todd M. Lyons, acting director of ICE, told Glenn Beck during an interview shortly after the executive order was signed that the agency would "track the money," "ringleaders," and "professional agitators" who are "being brought in" from outside the Chicago area to protest against immigration enforcement. But whether from Chicago or elsewhere, protester or "domestic terrorist," constitutional rights and limitations still apply, although adherence by federal agencies is being questioned.
Critics of mass surveillance have long warned that intrusive technologies could be used to violate Americans' privacy rights. "We don't know if law enforcement or ICE are getting search warrants to deploy this spyware," Maria Villegas Bravo, counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center, told the Post. "It's also a First Amendment issue because your phone contains all your communications, all your expressions…it has your contact lists, it has your social media. Any political organizing people do," she continued, is "typically on social media now, or over the phone."
The expansion of tracking and surveillance technology deployed by ICE coincides with the Trump administration's crackdown on services used by the public to share information about federal immigration enforcement. Since early October, the Justice Department has successfully pressured social media platforms, including Meta, Apple, and Google, to remove online groups and apps that share where ICE and other immigration agents have been sighted. Although private companies are not governed by the First Amendment and are free to set their own rules about acceptable speech, it is extremely concerning that the federal government would use its power and influence to blatantly interfere with Americans' otherwise protected free speech.
The courts and public are right to worry about the constitutional violations taking place in plain view by immigration agents during protests and enforcement operations, and officers must be held accountable. But those same actors must also be held responsible for the privacy violations that are less obvious and happening behind the scenes.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
Oh no! Antifa might get inconvenienced.
Reason: All for the illegals and people violating property rights...because libertarianism or something.
Some libertarians are more libertarian than others?
An estimated 300k people showed up to the no kings protest in Chicago. Are all 300k of them antifa? If we assume a mere 1% of them were; does it justify surveilling the rest?
And the retard pretending to be a lawyer brings in a topic not related to the argument at hand.
Youve shown zero logic or legal reasoning in any post you've made here.
Hey everyone! Who saw Damikesc call the old idiot boomers at the "nO kiNgZ" retard rally, 'Antifa'?
Pay attention Sarcasmic: This is straawmanning.
Damikesc’s comment was a general sarcastic remark about “Antifa” and property rights, not a claim that the 3 trillion (*3,000 if you count them all twice) old retards at the Chicago protest were all Antifa. By reframing the original comment as if Damikesc had accused Chicago protesters of being Antifa, WindycityKirkland attacks a distorted version of the argument rather than what was actually said.
Feel free to explain the relevancy any moment you wish.
Did you not read the article?
The people protesting ICE are the ones who are surveilled. The administration has repeatedly conflated the protestors as ANTIFA [and further declared or proclaimed they are domestic terrorists.]
A massive motivation for the no kings attendees- as evidenced by their signs, the speeches given, are directly about increased ICE enforcement and protesting that.
I am not sure what other connections need be made. The surveillance is systemic; and its legal underpinnings are questionable.
Whats wrong with surveillance? ICE just wants to keep Americans safe.
Are you fkn serious right now? Please tell me this is poe's law or something.
A whole lot of atrocities throughout history and the world have been committed in service of 'just keeping people safe.'
Are you worried? Tough shit. Move to another country that doesn't have a constitution and a bill of rights. Don't break mine in pursuit of some safety blanket bullshit.
Why did you switch from no kings to antifa dumdum?
Did I say every single person there was antifa? No, I did not.
Antifa is, undeniably, domestic terrorists.
He knows, but because his argument is weak he had to strawman you.
Lying Jeffy is particularly good at this. Sarc also does it all the time, but he's nowhere near as good.
"...An estimated 300k people showed up to the no kings protest in Chicago..."
windycityshitbag never heard of decimal points.
Suck it Sevo.
Here, rub your three functioning brain cells together and cut and paste this into your browser.
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=No+Kings+Chicago+Oct+2025+aerial+photos
Most of those are from 2017 and are just being used as an "illustration".
Looking at the actual photos you'd be hard pressed to say there was 15,000, let alone 300,000.
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/large-crowds-expected-at-no-kings-protests-in-chicago-across-us/3840235/
And that's in the middle of Obama country, one of the biggest Dem strongholds in America.
Next time offer free Geritol and handibus rides from the nursing homes and you might do better.
Citizens have nothing to worry about if they aren't doing anything wrong.
If they were going to a protest, then they were doing something wrong.
If they were just passing by, then maybe they should accept responsibility for their actions
Okay. Now let's talk about the warrantless tracking of non violent visitors to the capitol on J6 by Biden's DOJ. I know you weren't around then Autumn but there wasn't a single mention at Reason. This just one of many topics that this rag pissed away any credibility on a long time ago.
If you have nothing to hide - - - - - -
My base position is that no one with a cell phone should whine about privacy.
Your base position is ridiculous.
Do you have a magic phone? Or are you simply denying reality?
We have the option not to have a phone. We don't have an option on whether we're subject to government surveillance (though having a phone makes it a lot easier for them).
OH NO!!
The republicans are doing what the democrats did!
The horror!
It's perhaps to be expected, but that doesn't make it good.
The problem here is the necessity required when the local cops and state dont even attempt to stop the violent protests. Chicago even has judges threatening arrest if they do. So you've put DHS into a situation where they have to live under assault and disruption with no other recourse.
I wonder if the judge realizes that if an arrest attempt is made, civil war begins immediately.
...and said judge would be an easy and very juicy target
^ internet tough guy here.
^ not an actual lawyer here
Just speaking truth.
Chicago cops, notably corrupt shitbags, attempt to arrest ICE, ICE will shoot them. This will lead to civil war.
And the moron who suggested the corrupt shitbags of the Chicago PD (funny that the people known for having black sites to torture suspects are NOT the bad guys here) would be an exceptionally easy and infinitely justifiable target.
I would not celebrate his death. I just would not give a shit.
Looks like those judges are the Kings being referenced in the protests.
I agree that's a big problem. I don't agree that that means that whatever solution is proposed is acceptable.
My unacceptable line is violent protestors being allowed to attack officers doing their job.
We've already seen reason also freak out when they arrested them away from crowds in unmarked vans.
We've seen reason freak out when they arrest them during the violent protests.
Now they are freaking out when the collect evidence for future use.
So what actions are allowed in response? Because based on the past here the answer is none.
Recording and identifying seems the least amount of rights violation with the lowest chance of detaining "the innocent protecting violent actors."
I agree that's a line, but there are others too.
Seems to me the answer to that is to arrest people who attack officers (or anyone). I'm not sure how mass surveillance is the best way to stop that. Targeted surveillance of groups or individuals organizing such attacks is another matter.
It isnt mass surveillance if it is just the site of protests turned violent.
If you want to add delete data without a subpoena to retain due to some incident, sure. But they aren't randomly driving around like a Google maps car.
Remember we're talking about mass surveillance capabilities here, not the feds getting involved at all. They obviously have the constitutional power to enforce immigration law and to apply necessary resources to do so.
I disagree with the inference it is even mass surveillance.
It isn't a cornerstone on every street every minute argument.
That inference is a scare tactic to remove the last remaining recourse the feds have when in time arrests are barred, delayed arrests are barred, etc.
At some point I need to know what is the level of response DHS has in relation to these protests that do include crimes almost daily. So far with most I've heard the max line is no response which isnt practical.
I was against mass surveillance until Trump took office. Now it's warm and fuzzy.
When dems weilded power you were even fine with lawfare and state murder.
I take everything Reason prints at face value as long as it aligns with my narrative/biases.
I take everything
Reason printsat face value as long as it aligns with my narrative/biases.I fixed that so it applies to all of us.
The republicans are doing what the democrats did!
Is this your way of admitting there's really no difference in the 2 major parties?
Why is equality of the law so anathema to some of you.
Equally applied bad law is still bad.
Then change the law.
Because picking and choosing which laws apply day to day is just as bad and ripe for corrupt use.
Sure. But we should still complain about bad law in hopes that people with the power to do so will change it.
Obviously there are differences between the big parties, but there are also areas where they are pretty close. Better to hold both of their feet to the fire than to shrug and say "oh well, the other side did it too".
No one should be shocked when the Republicans use the Democrats' own tactics against them, or use the same questionable government powers. But I can still criticize things that are expected.
Is a bad law more likely to be changed because people complain (with majority only complaining when it effects them but not their enemies) or when the law effects everyone?
"Is this your way of admitting there's really no difference in the 2 major parties?"
Is this your way of saying you'll pick cherries to 'prove' your imbecility?
Yep.
Not so much "admitting" as acknowledging.
these same agencies are quietly amassing behind-the-scenes surveillance technology.
Correction: they've already amassed it and are using it.
You're a few years later to the party, Autumn.
Although ICE has sold its surveillance campaign as necessary to locating and deporting undocumented immigrations, the Trump administration has signaled that the technologies will also be used on American citizens.
And so did the Biden and Obama Administrations.
The question was never "if" - it was always "when." You types keep persisting in this oh-so-righteous luddite "we have to stop this from happening" as you casually ignore the fact that IT ALREADY HAS.
Your credit cards have been tracking and data mining you for decades. Your cell phones have been transmitting your location and movement since they were born. Your smart tech is the Internet of Things measuring so many metrics about you it's mind-boggling. Autonomous vehicles work because they know where they're going and you readily hop into them. Nanotech is coming. Biotech is already here. Robotics is already pushing the envelope of obsolescence. Quantum computing will make your human brain look like that of a Stegosaurus.
If you think the government - or, worse, China, Russian, and Iran's governments - as the deep pockets funding all this development aren't embracing ALL of it as a means to control their, and ultimately others, populations, then your level of naivete is dangerously high.
You already live in a society of mass surveillance. And you don't actually care. You embrace it. Chirping about Flock and Spotshotter (and wait until you get a load of CorSight) is too little too late. Your whining about "Constitutional violations" are hypocritical because you consented to them in return for modern convenience.
The future is now, old man. If you're smart, you'll acknowledge its utility in stopping lawlessness. If you're stupid, you'll bemoan it as you encourage anarchy.
You don't get to say, "I get a smartphone, but the Department of War still has to use rotary landlines." You may wish that, but if wishes were fishes, I'd feed you for life.
So pick one. Curb the tech, or encourage a better (and by definition less criminal) society that's empowered by it. You cannot reasonably expect to get both.
She writes as if Snowden never happened.
If it catches just one illegal...
Unlike the entire DNC/Biden plan.
They caught them and brought them after Soros bought them. Shrike wants to frot them.
..it is worth it.
Why should I care that a violent terrorist organization is being investigated? If they catch some innocent protesters I'll care as much as you all cared about the J6 protesters sent to prison for non-violent protest.
I warned them that the rules they championed would suck to live under.
But the Dems did it first!
- Temu Maddow
Time to ask the antifa terrorist organization to start issuing membership cards.
*Americans* Autumn? Or people who simultaneously hate America but also are desperate to come here?
NSA gonna get jealous
"...In September alone, ICE racked up $1.4 billion in new surveillance technology contracts, the highest in at least 18 years,..."
So it's a continuing effort, lying pile of TDS-addled shit?
It’s like you don’t even orangemanbad, Sevo.
Most people put their entire lives online.
ICe can simply surveill people all over the world just by sitting at a coffeeshop with a smart phone!
I'm extremely black-pilled on the surveillance state.
We will be living in a panopticon and I don't see how we can stop that inevitability
Sadly, this is probably the realistic take. If the capability exists, it will be used.
Speaking as an evil boomer, it's obvious to me that the privacy everybody enjoyed prior to the Internet is irretrievable. And ironically we gave it up voluntarily. It's over. And it's exactly the brave new world we were warned about.
ANOTHER REASON TRIUMPH!
So the headline boldly declares that ICE is running a mass surveillance campaign on American citizens, yet the actual article admits there’s no proof of that whatsoever.
What it really describes is the purchase of surveillance equipment, a few speculative quotes, and a lot of concern about what could happen if those tools were abused.
In other words, Billings took a hypothetical risk and inflated it into a certainty for the sake of orangemanbad. That isn’t journalism; that’s Democratic Party narrative-building dressed up as reporting.
Surprised at how many people in the comments on both sides took the headline and the inferences above as true.
You're right. We should wait until the government really is surveilling everyone before we complain. Oh, by that time, will it be too late? Who knows!
Oh fuck off you piece of shit politruk.
ChatGPT, what is Jeff doing here?
Jeff (chemjeff radical individualist) is using sarcasm to imply that your criticism of the article’s exaggeration is misplaced or naïve.
He’s essentially saying:
“If we wait until surveillance is fully happening to start worrying about it, it’ll already be too late.”
So rather than addressing your point about journalistic dishonesty or exaggeration, he reframes your skepticism as complacency toward government overreach.
In rhetorical terms, he’s committing a straw man (misrepresenting your argument as “don’t complain until it’s too late”) combined with a false dilemma (either panic now or accept tyranny later).
His sarcasm is meant to paint you as indifferent to government abuse, even though your actual point was about media integrity, not defending ICE.
The bigly bigot dembot PWNED.
Pretty sure Snowden showed the feds have been doing this for a decade. In other words it’s already too late.
Some things are as certain as death and taxes, like that surveillance equipment will be used to and beyond the legal limits by governments.
We didn't give the benefit of the doubt to Biden's Ministry of Truth and say, "Well maybe they'll just study misinformation and improve journalism with helpful advice."
Big AP story today about a press conference by the Illinois secretary of state. Apparently there's a video out there wherein some guy is taking videos of ICE vehicles and the cop says something like, go ahead we switch out the plates every night. Our SOS is threatening to arrest ICE agents and quotes chapter and verse of the statute governing Illinois license plates. Because ya know no one is above the law. Which leads to the rather obvious question. Why would federal vehicles have Illinois plates and why would they switch them out. No response from ICE in the story I read or even a disclaimer that they didn't respond prior to publication. But the dark blue Illinois government is threatening to arrest federal agents for an ever growing list of offenses if they enforce immigration laws. Looks pretty insurrectiony to me. But I kinda hope they quit posturing and cross the line. Nothing I'd like better than to see Pritzger and his gang indicted. You could probably find a willing grand jury anywhere outside Chicago or Springfield.